Sonex two seat jet in development

I've been pretty intrigued by this little thing. I'd want another engine or a parachute I think.

174kt on 20gph jet-a is a bit rough for the payload. I'm also keen to see what else kit designers find for that TJ100 to get into.
 
$155K isn’t all that bad for that type of performance. You could do worse with some of these new 2 seat prop EABs. Comparing it to an SF50 though? Yeah that’s laughable.
 
The price seems to be in the right price range ,if they can deliver at that price . I would want a little more range. Cheaper than a lot of the new LSA aircraft.
 
The two seater uses the same engine as the single but has more wing area. Seems they would want more power for the larger heavier plane but I didn't stay at the Holiday Inn Express. Needs more fuel too. Might be neat to make it a twin engine jet ... :D
 
baby-bird-1.jpg
 
Daleandee said:
The two seater uses the same engine as the single but has more wing area. Seems they would want more power for the larger heavier plane but I didn't stay at the Holiday Inn Express. Needs more fuel too. Might be neat to make it a twin engine jet ... :D
Click to expand...

yeah I know, slippery slope... "gimme moar!!1 HEY why is a sonex 1.2 million bucks now!? rabble rabble" :D
 
schmookeeg said:
yeah I know, slippery slope... "gimme moar!!1 HEY why is a sonex 1.2 million bucks now!? rabble rabble" :D
Click to expand...

We all have a wish list. When someone shares them winning lottery numbers with me that 1.2 will be small taters ... ;)
 
So I spent some more time reading up on this thing when I should not have.

There is a BRS kit available. This alleviates a lot of my safety concerns.

Here's a thing I can't get my head around:

The subsonex quotes an Acrobatic category gross weight, along with a Utility category gross weight. Is there some reason that one couldn't use standard category? I'm thinking any extra lbs could be used for added fuel.

I see they've already addressed use of the TJ150 in lieu of the TJ100 which was an early thought.

Seems like a very amusing way to adios 150 grand one might be tired of looking at.
 
schmookeeg said:
The subsonex quotes an Acrobatic category gross weight, along with a Utility category gross weight. Is there some reason that one couldn't use standard category? I'm thinking any extra lbs could be used for added fuel.
Click to expand...
At a higher weight, stall speed will increase and takeoff and climb will suffer, perhaps to an unacceptable point, even if the airframe itself is strong enough for the higher weight at any particular g-limits.

Of course, it's experimental, so the builder may specify any weight he wants... but a wise builder follows the designer's recommendations.
 
There are several airplanes on the market that are faster and over all better performers than the subsonex and burn less fuel to boot! Buuuutttt, this was always pitched as a rich mans jet jockey toy so the point is mute. If they came out with a pressurized or swept wing model then you would have my attention.
 
I like it...but no way I will ever fly one or purchase one. I remember the BD5 Jet.
 
So it is being marketed as a "trainer" but it is not certified so can't be used by a flight school.
The number of subsonex jets out there would not justify it's use in transition training.

The business model seems incorrect to me.

This will never be a cross country machine (<400 miles)
it is really not that fast.

So the only thing left going for it is cool factor...

I do like sonex, and I really like the sonex xenos power glider, but this machine does not fit a mission I can understand (other fun)
 
Chicago Bearhawk said:
So it is being marketed as a "trainer" but it is not certified so can't be used by a flight school.
The number of subsonex jets out there would not justify it's use in transition training.

The business model seems incorrect to me.

This will never be a cross country machine (<400 miles)
it is really not that fast.

So the only thing left going for it is cool factor...

I do like sonex, and I really like the sonex xenos power glider, but this machine does not fit a mission I can understand (other fun)
Click to expand...

The subsonex wasn't designed as a money maker. It was a side project that John Monett was working on just because he wanted to design and build a small personal jet for his own use. Because it drew so much attention when it debuted at oshkosh a number of years ago they decided that maybe there was enough interest in it to make it a kit. Since then I think they have succesfully marketed it as a UAV. Fuel capacity doesn't become an issue when you use a that free cockpit space for fuel storage. I don't think their business case is necessarially based on selling it to the individual homebuilder. The money is likely better in selling it as a completed and flying UAV for various purposes and not necessarily to companies in the US.
 
TomF said:
Looks like sonex is expanding their jet offerings.
https://www.flyingmag.com/sonex-takes-orders-for-the-lowest-cost-jet-trainer-ever/
The comparison to the cirrus is a bit laughable but I wonder if we will start seeing more use of small jet engines from other kit manufacturers. also does this count as jet time for people looking to get to airlines?
Click to expand...

If I had the money not to work and build, this is one of the things I would work on. I think a multi-seat 2 engine jet kit would be rarely built, but it's such a cool idea that I'm surprise it hasn't be done before. Other than the engines, I wouldn't expect the build cost to be much higher, but the operating cost would be a lot higher.
 
I wonder if it had two engines, it would have lower fuel consumption?

That way there would be good static thrust for takeoff and go around, but they would be loafing at cruise...
 
bflynn said:
If I had the money not to work and build, this is one of the things I would work on. I think a multi-seat 2 engine jet kit would be rarely built, but it's such a cool idea that I'm surprise it hasn't be done before. Other than the engines, I wouldn't expect the build cost to be much higher, but the operating cost would be a lot higher.
Click to expand...

Same, but then you end up wanting pressurization so you can take those motors up high, and now you're building some 1.5MM monster like the Lancair Evo.

I wonder where the "happy place" is, altitude-wise, for a pair of those TJ100s on something like a Sonex or RV-sized airframe. I am unqualified to do that math, and I'm not sure the necessary info is online anyway, but it does sound tantalizing. One of my milk runs is a 600nm cruise, and it'd be neat to do it in 2 hours instead of 3, while burning JetA and not worrying about whose STC I need to slap on my airframe to fuel it. :D
 
Will it require a type rating?
 
Wonder if I can get me a couple of them PBS TJ100 turbojet engines and put them in the wings of my Sonex ... get that Cessna T-37B Tweet thingy going on! :D
 
Dana said:
No, because it's experimental, but it does require a Letter of Authorization, which serves the same purpose.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I’m certain you know more about it than I do, and I certainly take your word for it, but…
You still need a category and class rating correct?
Seems like you would need a type as well.

That said, there are million rules of this nature that I have not kept up on over the years.
 
There is no type rating for an experimental because it's not a certificated "type", i.e. no type certificate. Actually the regulations don't even require a class rating isn't required for solo flight, but the aircraft's operating limitations nowadays usually have a line requiring it. Older op lims didn't have that restriction, meaning that, for example, a PP-ASEL could legally fly an experimental seaplane solo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top