Sub-Sonex micro jet homebuilt released

It's a novel micro-jet.

Maybe if they could design it for more payload and fuel, it would make some sense, but I doubt it.

It sure looks like a blast to fly for a half hour though ... :yesnod:
 
txflyer said:
It's a novel micro-jet.

Maybe if they could design it for more payload and fuel, it would make some sense, but I doubt it.

It sure looks like a blast to fly for a half hour though ... :yesnod:
Click to expand...

The problem is if you scale it up, then you need something like one of the small Williams turbofans to power it, and the price goes out of sight. As it is, the announced price would buy you a half share of an L-39.

Operating costs on the L-39 are vastly greater, though.
 
Sorry but I'll take an RV. This is less vapor ware then some other personal jets but it show why these small jets arn't practical. I wonder if range and speed would be comparable to a midget mustang in the flight levels since we learned elsewhere on this forum they could do 400kts ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dell30rb said:
I'm with you there... I wonder what kind of fuel burn, speed and range it would get at 25,000 feet? Probably good enough to make it practical. Would love to stuff the panel with some inexpensive experimental avionics and an autopilot.

One problem with the design and altitudes above 18,000. Once you get into the mid twenties in an unpressurized airplane, you need a good sealing face mask. You also need extra training and caution - you can get the bends (among other aeromedical concerns) if you don't do everything right.

Perhaps Sonex thought that with the small and light design of the airplane (proper O2 system) and the track record of E-AB accidents that they would just rather not mess with it.

Keeping it at or below 18,000 allows pilots to use a simple cannula system and reduces their liability.

Flutter could also be a concern.
Click to expand...

Just some extra info on high altitude flying. I got my high altitude training in the USAF. USAF regs limit an unpressurized aircraft to FL250 (25,000) and I have spent a fair bit of time in t-37s at altitudes that high. Though it is possible to get the bends at 25,000 feet, it is generally not an issue unless you have been scuba diving shortly before flying. It is important to have a good mask seal and demand type regulator (USAF uses diluter demand regulators). We rested our mask under positive pressure before every flight, and checked the regulator before flight and during flight (checked the blinker to be sure oxygen was flowing).

If you are contemplating high altitude flying I would highly recommend taking an altitude training in an altitude chamber. I don't know if they still offer this anymore but the USAF used to allow training in their altitude chambers. It is a great way to learn the hypoxia symptoms and reduce the stress of not really knowing what to expect.
 
A Glasair III cruises faster than this thing on way less fuel burn.
 
docmirror said:
It may seem subtle, but asking permission every time you want to fly somewhere would get old about the 2nd time I had to do it. One day, one guy at one FSDO could just reply "negative authorized flight" and that would be the end of that. Might seem like a small leap to you, but to me it's a complete unbridgable gulf.
Click to expand...

You don't ask permission, you tell them where you are going. No one has ever been turned down, because you are not asking permission, you are giving notification beyond a 300 mile radius around your home airport. ;)
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Jet or recip? The rules are different for the two. The issue is not where you can go, but WHY you are going there.
Click to expand...

Negative.

You are not asking permission and no reason for going is required. You are suppose to notify the local FSDO where you are going outside of your 300 mile zone. At the beginning of each year you can send them a list of all of the events you think you will be attending for that calendar year. Just send them an email or fax. You can do that from inside the plane going to your destination if a quick trip comes up. No response from them is required.

Seriously, experimental exhibition is really a non event. I owned one for 3 years, and went all over the countr. Sometimes I would forget to let them know where I was headed. :redface: It really is no big deal. In the 3 years I owned an experimental exhibition I never heard from the FSDO, not once.
 
Last edited:
That tiny jet engine inspires the following mental excursions....

How plausible is evolution into a high bypass turbo fan or turbo prop?

If you had a diesel of if it ran on avgas (since it is so small and light), would there be any benefit to building a plane with this jet as a high altitude only engine? Recip to TO, Climb, and, Land...Turbine at altitude/cruise...Full feather prop on the recip at altitude, maybe...
 
I needs more fuel capacity, but if I had that kind of money to blow on a toy this would be high on the list
 
dell30rb said:
So what you are saying is that when the turboprop version of the jet comes out, someone should hang it on the nose of a Glasair III
Click to expand...

Why wait? The Walter is available now. Personally I wouldn't due to the efficiency problems with small turbines, I'd be looking at a recip Diesel.
 
dell30rb said:
So what you are saying is that when the turboprop version of the jet comes out, someone should hang it on the nose of a Glasair III




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxxE4LkpWIA

Already been done with Walters and Allisons (RR).

I'm saying why would I buy a subsonex that does a max 400 mile range in 3 hours that I could do in a piston powered Glasair III in under 2 hrs? Of course you could double it's range as well while carrying a passenger with bags.

This is a novelty aircraft like the BD-5. Nothing more.
 
Velocity173 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxxE4LkpWIA

Already been done with Walters and Allisons (RR).

I'm saying why would I buy a subsonex that does a max 400 mile range in 3 hours that I could do in a piston powered Glasair III in under 2 hrs? Of course you could double it's range as well while carrying a passenger with bags.

This is a novelty aircraft like the BD-5. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

The BD-5 was hotter.
 
Henning said:
The BD-5 was hotter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and there have been a couple jet powered ones to boot. Of course, if you want one you'll probably have to build it from the ground up according to plans which you'll need to modify to put in the turbine.

And the BD5 had one hell of a coffin corner. Monett designs aren't really known for that.
 
steingar said:
Yeah, and there have been a couple jet powered ones to boot. Of course, if you want one you'll probably have to build it from the ground up according to plans which you'll need to modify to put in the turbine.

And the BD5 had one hell of a coffin corner. Monett designs aren't really known for that.
Click to expand...

Could you explain what coffin corner you are referring to? Classic coffin corner behavior usually refers to either a stall/mach tuck high speed corner of the flight envelope, or a low speed/ insufficient power to recover corner of the envelope. Obviously the BD-5 had no stall/ mach issues (the structural limiting airspeed is way below any mach limit at any realistic altitude that one would ever see) so was there a high AOA condition that couldn't be recovered from with power? I had heard the stall characteristics were fairly conventional (no ability to fligh high AOA without stalling as is the case with many jet fighters), so where is the coffin corner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top