Sonex announces 2-place SubSonix personal jet

LoLPilot said:
Because JET. And I don’t say that mockingly. Want.
Click to expand...

Haha, this! Sign me up!

From what I’ve read and seen the TJ100 has proven extremely reliable and has operated just about flawlessly for a good eleven years now. I’m a big fan of the engine and newly announced airframe combination.

By the way, what does IP stand for in regards to starting with one when you train in the two-place version?
 
This could be a very fun toy to have in your hanger...
 
I like the sound of a jet also, I just don’t really care for the looks of Subsonex. If we’re gonna make a non pressurized kit, then do a composite. I think a well designed 2 seat carbon kit with a TJ-150 could hit 250 KTAS. Add a little more gas and baggage and you’d actually have some utility out of it.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Even if it doesn't provide any performance or efficiency benefits? Just because it's a jet?
Click to expand...

Yes. Just because it's a jet. And you could say "my jet." And it makes jet sounds and sucks down kerosene like it's going out of style.
 
Is the fuel burn on this jet measured at the flight levels or at the typical low altitudes we usually fly at? Jets have a very high fuel burn rate at the lower altitudes so this would be good to know when interpreting the factory claimed range with reserves.
 
Brad Smith said:
Is the fuel burn on this jet measured at the flight levels or at the typical low altitudes we usually fly at? Jets have a very high fuel burn rate at the lower altitudes so this would be good to know when interpreting the factory claimed range with reserves.
Click to expand...

I can’t answer that directly, but Paul Dye, who has one of the single seaters indicates that airplane’s practical range is 200-250 nautical miles. The 2 seater carries 10 gallons more fuel, but the single seater is probably more efficient because it is smaller and should have a higher climb rate allowing it to get to more efficient altitudes sooner. All of which tells me the 2 seater will have about the same range as the single seater.
 
I think it’s safe to say that with the general market of the Sonex style kits that the idea is that the airplanes will be operating at lower than the flight levels.
 
Brad Smith said:
Is the fuel burn on this jet measured at the flight levels or at the typical low altitudes we usually fly at? Jets have a very high fuel burn rate at the lower altitudes so this would be good to know when interpreting the factory claimed range with reserves.
Click to expand...
Paul Dye says he flies his single place SubSonex at 17,500 eastbound and 16,500 westbound, and says after about two hours it turns into a glider. :)
 
Velocity173 said:
looks of Subsonex
Click to expand...
Yeah... there is something odd about them.. on the one hand they're sort of steampunk (which is cool) but on the other they look super homebuilt.. which, duh, but as you mentioned there are more attractive designs out there

If I had the time, resources, and was just a little crazier, I'd love to take a Velocity Twin but ditch the two engines and instead toss 4 of those little turbines in there... a la YB-49

With 4 of those little jets I'd get 1,000 lbs of thrust.. that's pretty bad ass.. and if Martin Hollman and Mark Bettosini's book is at all accurate that should be about 50 percent more static thrust than what the twin IO360 (180 hp) would get me

Fuel burn would be absolutely in the garbage around 70 gallons an hour.. but a plane like that would be a novelty more than anything else

upload_2019-7-25_13-36-50.png
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah... there is something odd about them.. on the one hand they're sort of steampunk (which is cool) but on the other they look super homebuilt.. which, duh, but as you mentioned there are more attractive designs out there

If I had the time, resources, and was just a little crazier, I'd love to take a Velocity Twin but ditch the two engines and instead toss 4 of those little turbines in there... a la YB-49

With 4 of those little jets I'd get 1,000 lbs of thrust.. that's pretty bad ass.. and if Martin Hollman and Mark Bettosini's book is at all accurate that should be about 50 percent more static thrust than what the twin IO360 (180 hp) would get me

Fuel burn would be absolutely in the garbage around 70 gallons an hour.. but a plane like that would be a novelty more than anything else

View attachment 76302
Click to expand...

Well it’s not an ugly aircraft by any means, it just looks like what it is, essentially a Waiex with a turbine mounted to the top. Just looks ad hoc to me. I’d rather see something like a 2 seat mini Cirrus Jet that could have some more speed and utility.
 
Speed trials from Paul in his initial testing were 200 knots true at 12,500ft burning 23 GPH.
 
With some of the cheap turbo prop powerplants like the solar on the market, I’m surprised we don’t have more Jet-A burners. If anything just for the reliability and smoothness.
 
https://www.sonexaircraft.com/jsx-2t-update-012020/

The fuel burn, range and price of acquisition makes this a rather expensive toy with limited capabilities. I don't think they can honestly market this jet any other way. You'd better have adequate reserves on board with a well chosen alternate in case your destination is closed. Maneuvering at low altitude at high burn rates to search for another airport would not be a fun experience. I think a better offering would be to keep it single place but use the additional useful load of a two-place to carry more fuel for better range. But that's just my opinion.
 
Brad Smith said:
https://www.sonexaircraft.com/jsx-2t-update-012020/

The fuel burn, range and price of acquisition makes this a rather expensive toy with limited capabilities. I don't think they can honestly market this jet any other way. You'd better have adequate reserves on board with a well chosen alternate in case your destination is closed. Maneuvering at low altitude at high burn rates to search for another airport would not be a fun experience. I think a better offering would be to keep it single place but use the additional useful load of a two-place to carry more fuel for better range. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 300NM range isn’t much. I’m worried after hearing the TJ150 isn’t a viable option at this point that’ll be pretty underpowered with 258 pounds of thrust and a gross of 1500 pounds. The single seat could already use more thrust at a gross of 1000 pounds.
 
Combine this jet engine with one of those self-powered gliders that hide the prop once shut down. Get it up to altitude and fire up the jet. Shut the jet down when ready to descent and glide on down. Fire up the prop for go-around. Best of 3 worlds. Experimental as experimental gets.
 
Are the Sonex jets still considered experimental amateur built, or do they fall under experimental exhibition?
 
They're E-AB.

All this talk of range... the mission of the SubSonex isn't to go places, its mission is for you to be able to say, "I've got a JET!"
 
Given that it’s experimental, could additional fuel capacity be added for use when you’re flying solo?
 
Could be a very cheap way of logging “turbine time”.... what’s with the 300 hour inspection intervals? How much will those cost?
 
dans2992 said:
Given that it’s experimental, could additional fuel capacity be added for use when you’re flying solo?
Click to expand...
Yes. You can also set your own gross weight so if you feel confident in your engineering you can set the gross at what ever you want and add fuel anywhere you desire.
 
IK04 said:
Gotta figure out how to mount a jet on a C-150...

I'm sure that wouldn't cause controversy.
Click to expand...
As long as it is strapped on like a GoPro, you should be fine, no modification. Ask Ram to make a mount for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top