Sonex aircraft makes progress on Personal Jet

[Thirsty]

Or if you really want a jet how about mount 4 of these - http://www.sitewavesstores5.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=JetCat&Product_Code=P200-SX&Category_Code=TURB

 

About 200 ftlbs and $25k plus some redundancy.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

A lot less money would be a Onex with a jab 6 or maybe a 914 (not sure if it'll fit). There would be heaps of performance, single seat still and just as aerobatic. Not a jet, true but lots of performance.

You just don't get it, do you? IT"S A JET!!

Pull up at a fly-in in one of these and you'll barely have time for your bacon and egg roll!

 

Kyle (Mark) gets it, more fun than a Jetski!

 

 

[flyvulcan]

I shall be using two of the H160s that are shown on this page http://jetbeetleusa.com/?page_id=121 to power my Komet. USD30k for the pair which will give me 320lbf thrust versus only 240lbf for the SubSonexes engine and I should still be able to have climb performance if one of mine fails. SFC is about the same (really bad!) so endurance is measured in minutes, not hours.

 

Why spend this money on such an impractical aircraft? As Bex and Howie said, it's a jet! Since I had my first flight in a Macchi while on pilots course, I vowed to own my own jet. The most fun flying I've had so far is my Macchi time. 20 minutes of aeros, followed by 20 minutes of low flying then 20 minutes of circuits was a fun way to spend an hour. Throw in some formation... The aim of my Komet is to do just that sort of flying again. It ain't practical, but it's fun. The silky smooth ride of a jet on a cold, crisp morning is something that has to be experienced.

 

I also get the attraction of open air flying, flying behind big radials etc., but my favourite is the silky smooth ride in a jet...

 

While the SubSonex doesn't have scintillating performance, it will still give that smooth ride and probably comfortable aeros. I get the attraction of it.

 

One of the beauties of my Komet is that I will get what I want for less than the cost of most new LSAs and around $50k less than the cost of the SubSonex. Indeed, it will probably end up being Jabiru type cost. The fuel costs on the other hand.... Gulp!

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

The only thing that's missing from the Subsonex is a second seat, I see your Komet has that!

 

 

[rgmwa]

I've always liked the look of this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viper_Aircraft_ViperJet

 

rgmwa

 

 

[facthunter]

That's nice. it gets into the envelope. You can't get the benefit of a jet engine unless you can get height which means pressurisation and some good aerodynamics. Even the best jet engines just chew fuel at low level, and often lack thrust for the takeoff which means long runways and more possibility of tyre failures, and a fairly gentle climb gradient. Pure jets (non bypass) are very much a thing of the past. Their only virtue is they are small cross section but their high velocity efflux makes them very noisy as its well supersonic. It affects the neighbours more than the occupant(s). The higher ratio bypass engines in the later aircraft are magnificent powerplants with fuel economy never dreamed of in the early days of the more primitive jets. It's obtained by running VERY high turbine temps with great metallurgy and design and COST. Miniaturising? them loses some of the fuel efficiency but you still have the cost and the RPMs are very high in small engines. They are VERY easy to manage compared with large piston engines, and the reliability??? Probably hundreds of times better. Nev