Would You Fly It?

Does this instrumentation panel scare anyone besides me? Some of these LCD panels closely resemble ones I use in some of my (quite rudimentary) projects.

Does the kit have the buyer do the wiring? If the manufacturer does the wiring and you crash and die, what are your chances of winning a lawsuit?

Homebuilt aircraft by the thousands are built and wired by their amateur builders, inspected (by others), and flown every day. More homebuilt ["Experimental"] aircraft are registered every year than those commercially built by all aircraft companies combined. They've got a good safety record; the total time and recent flight time of the pilot will have more correlation with accident data than whether the airplane was commercially or amateur-built. Instrument panels range from simple to the point of containing a compass, airspeed indicator, turn-&-bank, and altimeter, to sophisticated dual-screen "glass cockpits" with radio stacks that can be preset to all of the frequencies in use at airports along an intended flight path, redundant GPS, "highway-in-the-sky", autopilot, HUD (Heads-Up Display) and full IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) capability for "blind" flying. Airplanes with turboprops and constant-speed propellers are considerably MORE complicated than this. So are helicopters. Both can be - and are being - built at home.

Why on earth would I worry about this?

Hi Ron,

I would like nothing more than to be able to fly solo. If I were to undertake something like this, I don't believe I could test the craft nearly enough. Thanks for the information in your post; it's starting to make me feel less skeptical about DIY aircraft. Do you have data on flightworthiness of examples of the aircraft you mentioned?

Thanks for your reply.

Mike

There are several kit jets available on the market; see www.kitplanes.com . They publish a list every year of kits available, plans available, for both fixed wing and rotor craft. Engines and PSRUs are also listed.

Turbines are tributes to simplicity and reliability. They also require less maintenence. However, that power comes at the expense of fuel consumption, especially when operated outside its ideal envelope. (I read of one that was using 400 gal/hr while waiting in line to take off)

Since it provides motive force by direct thrust, cruising and stall speeds are generally much higher than most propeller driven aircraft, which means you need longer runways and better approach planning.

Yip. Sonex have been building safe planes for decades. Their kits are legendary in the Kit Plane Industry. The only thing that beats flying....is flying something you built yourself. Now it's just to find the $60k for the kit.......Hey I'm in Africa....doners? doners? all contributions welcom

I'd be a little leery about the use of the V-tail configuration and the placement of that engine on the fuselage spline having exhaust vortices effect on the tail control surfaces..... kinda flies contrary to the last 100 years of aviation advancement and sound aeronautical engineering. And the placement of the engine re the approximate CG??? Doesn't seem correct to me.

I'll wait until the test flights are completed to make a final judgement. I'm not a pilot, but I know quite a bit about aeronautical engineering and airplanes in general.

Can my brain be off that much to make me worry about it's stability?????

Google images of "Cirrus jet" (including quotation marks) for a similar layout. Cirrus is currently the largest manufacturer in the business, in number of airplanes sold. One of their absolute hallmarks is safety - I believe that they've checked out the consequences of engine placement and tail type rather thoroughly. And Sonex is one of the biggest companies in homebuilding (we have several underway in my small EAA chapter alone, plus several completed). They're known for a very good product. I've personally met Jeremy Monnett (when he spoke at our chapter's meeting), and I am very favorably impressed with him, and with their entire operation. No, I have no connection with Sonex, and am not building ANY airplane at present, though I do hope to do so. See http://builder.sonexaircraft.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?action=completions for a rundown on completed and flying Sonexes and Waiexes (the Y-tailed version).

Why would you build this aircraft when you could have a BD5J? This is an iconic homebuilt aircraft (from the 60's!!!!) and it still looks great (like the Porsche 911).

Forgot to add, the BD5 started with a V tail and that was soon dropped. Why repeat these mistakes?

Quite a few of them crashed, even with professional airshow pilots at the controls, for a variety of reasons. The Sonex has more benign flight characteristics than the BD-5; I expect to see relatively similar comparisons between the Sub-Sonex and the BD-5J. Also, the current cost of a BD-5J is double that of the Sub-Sonex (see http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/23/321587/venerable-bd-5j-immune-to-microturbo-exit.html, last paragraph) - far too rich for my blood!

By most reports, the BD5 is a great little plane to fly. Fully aerobatic and vevy nice to look at. The Sonex is not that easy on the eye and the undercarriage..???

If the BD5 was a two-seater (tandem) I'd have built one.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't have flown a BD-5 if offered the chance, but I'd have needed at least one intermediate airplane to step-up my skills to something a lot faster and quicker-reacting than anything I've been in. Further, the offset thrust line was apparently the killer if the plane lost power on takeoff, because it would suddenly nose-up into a stall if the pilot didn't take action instantly. The J likely had less chance of that happening, both due to relative reliability and less ofset - but it also had the intermediate-length wings, giving less airspeed margin than with long ones. Not sure how it compared to short-winged prop version in that regard.

Had a friend who had started a BD-5. He finally scrapped it (or wrote it off as a contribution somewhere? was trying to find a "home" for it), when the Hirth engine option was suddenly snatched away. I suspect that the variety of engines chosen as substitutes, each requiring re-engineering and compromises to fit in, didn't help the average quality of the planes that got completed. Rather sad.

In my EAA chapter, we've had a taildragger Sonex, polished aluminum with painted cowl, wing-, prop-, and tailfeather-tips, that looked very nice, IMO. Builder added several very small fairings, and I think that they made a surprising difference in appearance. It was a standing joke that he'd flown it once WITHOUT looping it. The Jabiru helped. But it is a far more conventional design than the BD-5, and looks aren't the first reason to build it [again, in my opinion].

Not sure why you've got a question mark regarding undercarriage. I can confirm that it is very tough - know one which lost the prop in flight, and caught a ditch during emergency landing. Went over on its top, had to have the vertical stabilizer tip replaced, and the main gear support repaired (gear itself: legs, axles, wheels all OK). Amazingly little damage for situation.

I'd fly it, I mean why not? I know of turbo props that go faster.

It is very cute, it would be fun just to low fly it around just to upset the neighbours with the noise.

Reflecting previous comments, while you CAN build your first aircraft at home and fly it; I too would start smaller than a jet.

The "conventional" path isn't a bad model, start with a high wing piston prop as the most stable trainer.

Move to low wing and then multi-engine, then off to jets.

But you don't have to build each of these.

As for do-it-yourself; it is an amazingly robust corner of the industry with a great safety record and amazing innovation going on.

As for the initial comment about the gauges in the cockpit, several of those are actually FAA certified products, and if the builder cannot wire a gauge correctly I don't think you need be concerned about flight. He won't get that far.

Dear Edignan, Good to see a comment from you. I've known you know for three years at least. I know you know what you are talking about

Still I did not like high wing airplanes of any sort. (I'm lying. I liked flying the 182 RG.)

Very kind of you, sir.

And they are not to my taste (high wings) but very stable when learning with good visibility (I am told).

But I truthfully spend almost all my time in cockpits firmly grounded chasing software bugs, so am hardly an expert compared to someone with an actual ticket to fly.