Spirit Engineering SE-1 Whose getting one?

texasclouds said:
I think they are super cool. Does the price include a polishing course for the wife? Seems like a good job for her!
Click to expand...
They addressed that at Oshkosh. I think two of the planes there *were not polished* at all, and a good-looking plane without paint (weight) and excessive maintenance is part of their whole goal.
 
The other possible niche market - someone with a terrible commute but accessible airports. If I had one, it would be cheaper, more fun, and less hassle to fly on from Redbird over to Rockwall to teach tailwheel. The gas would be cheaper than my Prius, and it would take half the time or less if that terrible bridge has a jam.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The other possible niche market - someone with a terrible commute but accessible airports. If I had one, it would be cheaper, more fun, and less hassle to fly on from Redbird over to Rockwall to teach tailwheel. The gas would be cheaper than my Prius, and it would take half the time or less if that terrible bridge has a jam.
Click to expand...
You'd also get fewer weird looks than you would getting out of your Prius wearing a leather helmet and flying goggles!
 
I can see some guy in the burbs polishing this bad boy in his driveway on a Saturday evening then tucking it into his garage for the night.
 
Been a few years since I’ve seen a garageable airplane marketed…seemed fairly common in the EAB world into the 1970s, but maybe worthwhile again given what seems to be widespread lack of hangar availability in large portions of the country.
 
Last edited:
The truly amazing thing is that unlike most new designs where they tease you for years with computer renderings and slick websites (and then never deliver), these guys kept it completely secret until showing up at Oshkosh with a bunch of flying airplanes.

It's a very cool airplane. Only, I find the fuselage to be a bit plump to my eyes. Though it'd look great with a small radial...
 
I was talking about this with Kent - this thing is small enough with the wings folded, I wonder if you can't find situations where you sublet the corner of some dude's hangar for a couple hundred bucks.
 
Dana said:
The truly amazing thing is that unlike most new designs where they tease you for years with computer renderings and slick websites (and then never deliver), these guys kept it completely secret until showing up at Oshkosh with a bunch of flying airplanes.

It's a very cool airplane. Only, I find the fuselage to be a bit plump to my eyes. Though it'd look great with a small radial...
Click to expand...
It wasn't completely secret, but they were very, very careful who they shared it with, and apparently those that knew respected them enough not to blab. Well done to their team! Gives me some hope for the community.
kayoh190 said:
I was talking about this with Kent - this thing is small enough with the wings folded, I wonder if you can't find situations where you sublet the corner of some dude's hangar for a couple hundred bucks.
Click to expand...
It definitely is. You could probably squeeze two of these, or even three in the same standard hangar with my work Cardinal in Dallas.
 
Talking to a guy today who’s an engineer for Textron. Says he’s seen enough failed cylinders (stuck valves, lead fouling, etc.) that a two-cylinder engine makes him nervous.

Interesting how perspectives differ.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Talking to a guy today who’s an engineer for Textron. Says he’s seen enough failed cylinders (stuck valves, lead fouling, etc.) that a two-cylinder engine makes him nervous.

Interesting how perspectives differ.
Click to expand...
Not sure that stuck valves and lead fouling would be a serious issue on an engine running mogas.
 
kayoh190 said:
I was talking about this with Kent - this thing is small enough with the wings folded, I wonder if you can't find situations where you sublet the corner of some dude's hangar for a couple hundred bucks.
Click to expand...
Folding wings are often touted as allowing the owner to keep the plane at home rather than renting a hangar. In reality, few folks do that. There's the hassle of rolling the plane onto and off the trailer, the potential for damage/vandalism when on the road, and there's the fact that many airports are enclosed and only people who rent hangars or tiedown spaces get access.

However, they *are* very convenient if you want to share a hangar. With a small homebuilt like the SE-1, you might not even have to fold the wings.
1757172835430.png
Or, might just have to fold one wing.

The other possibility is the use of a shipping container as a low-cost hangar. I knew a guy who rented a tiedown spot and put his (folding-wing) Avid Flyer inside of it. Biggest drawback there was the difficulty of working on the airplane in bad weather.

One of the key aspects of the design contest won by the Fly Baby was to have folding wings to allow keeping the plane in one's garage. However, I don't know of anyone who actually did that. They'd use the feature to bring the plane home if major work was required, otherwise, most end up in hangars.

Ron Wanttaja
 
pfarber said:
I did, was quickly unimpressed. The cockpit is 25 inches wide. lol no

Its a useless airplane (to me). Other than being shiny it solves no known problem other than 'how can I spend $70k on a toy I will fly 5 hours a year'.

Does anyone really think people are gonna spend HOURS polishing that al?
Click to expand...
I love when falsifying a premise makes no difference in an argument.

"I'd never spend $X on something like that!"
"Good news, is only 1/6th X."
"I wouldn't take it if you gave it to me!"

If the price was irrelevant to you, why make one up and claim it was too expensive? You could just say it doesn't appeal to you.
 
Dana said:
The truly amazing thing is that unlike most new designs where they tease you for years with computer renderings and slick websites (and then never deliver), these guys kept it completely secret until showing up at Oshkosh with a bunch of flying airplanes.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
I think we're accustomed to every company hammering their marketing long before they have a tangible product, only to find out as time goes by that they're not serious about commercial success.
DarkAero comes to mind. Cool intentions and neat aircraft, but I'll probably be long dead before they come close to finishing building, testing, and figuring out the commercialization of it.

It's exciting to see a company doing something new, with a published price, and a product that's available to ship now. Not the whole "drop us a line and register your interest, we plan to start shipping in 2028... 2029... 2030...".

It's also super exciting to see them do it for a price that I think most people would have said was unfathomably low. I don't think anyone expected someone to come along and do the R&D for both an airplane and their own custom designed engine and then actually sell it for that all-in price: fully assembled. Especially when the composite Euro LSAs were selling for 4x+ that price (albeit with an extra seat and more fancy toys onboard).
 
The worst thing is that recent inflation for things like metals has effectively more than doubled the costs.

When I was talking to one of their employees about two years ago they were hoping it would be closer to $30K and that should tell you a bit about what an incredible effort they’ve made.
 
That engine put in a smaller profile enclosed cockpit two seater would attract me.
 
Salty said:
Maybe I’ll get one so I have a good excuse not to fly with @pfarber
Click to expand...
I bet the first step in the preflight is 'man bun: check' :p

Lets check back in a year and see if these things are still selling.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
It's exciting to see a company doing something new, with a published price, and a product that's available to ship now. Not the whole "drop us a line and register your interest, we plan to start shipping in 2028... 2029... 2030...".
Click to expand...
Assuming it's not AI, this is the picture that impressed me the most:
1757196370713.png
That's not a one-of; that's a production line.

Ron Wanttaja
 
It's a great toy and if I was only flying me I'd really consider one. Still, I would hang on a bit to see how the airframe and engine holds out. Hopefully they have done enough testing that any early concerns have been found and addressed but I'm just a wait and see kinda guy ...
 
I kinda love it. I do love that they designed their own engine, and that it's just over 40 HP and simple. If I'm reading it right, it weighs less than the Wright Flyer, and is just a little bit faster than a cub.

I hope they do well, and I hope they expand the fleet to add a tandem version. Not to change the purpose, but to be able to take along another person to either share the fun or use for training.
 
The website says it's designed to fit in a shipping container. That'd make a pretty cheap hangar. I'd be interested if it was a little faster. The rv-14  kits cost as much as this thing.

MauleSkinner said:
Talking to a guy today who’s an engineer for Textron. Says he’s seen enough failed cylinders (stuck valves, lead fouling, etc.) that a two-cylinder engine makes him nervous.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure a 4 cylinder is any better in that regard. Generally 3 out of 4 doesn't keep you in the air either. And a 2 cylinder has half the chances of a cylinder failing :biggrin:
 
As long as it is 4 stroke, 2 cylinders are fine. Loved my brother's BMW motorcycle.
 
Lowflynjack said:
The cockpit is snug, but I'm 5'11" and 205 lbs and I fit well. It would fit a bigger pilot than me.

I'm sure you've seen the photos, but the top opens for you to climb in, then when you close it, you have a nice small opening to keep most of the wind out.
gnd_lt_pilot-1-scaled.jpg
Click to expand...
Actually, I hadn't seen a photo like this, but saw the airplanes on the production line with the big opening, and assumed it had something like this. This'll *really* keep the cockpit free of random drafts. With the wider fuselage and decent legroom, it should be a very comfortable ride in just about any weather.

If I were ten years younger, I would be seriously considering this.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
texasclouds said:
Hopefully they make a high wing, those puppies would sell faaaaaaaaassssssttttt!!!!!,!,!,!,!,!,!
Click to expand...
High wings are awkward in small single-seat homebuilts. The center section wants to go on top of the cockpit, and that makes ingress and egress a lot more awkward. Look at planes like the Baby Ace, or folks trying to get into the front pit of a Pietenpol. IIRC, the Baby Ace has a door cut through the fuselage truss to make it easier to get in and out. Not really an option for a monocoque design like the SE-1.

Pete Bowers originally intended the Fly Baby to be built as a monoplane low-wing, a biplane, or a parasol-wing. On the biplane, he installed the upper wing center section further forward to help access, but ended up having to sweep the wings. Didn't matter that much, since the biplane used four new wings (all four panels were about 75% of the size of the monoplane wings).
1757386614407.png
He never went anywhere on the parasol configuration. Probably would have tried it if he could have just used the stock monoplane wings, but to get access to the cockpit the wings would have to be swept. Could have built the sweep into the center section, but there were other problems associated with that.

Here's a sketch of how it might have looked like...
1757386795633.png
The problem with the Parasol is the same one as the biplane; there were already some very good parasol-winged designs on the homebuilt market.

So I don't forsee significant changes in the SE-1 wing position.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top