SubSonex Test Flight

Just buy a Subsonex kit and a Waiex kit and bash them together. :goofy:
 
That's one nice and reasonable priced toy. Not very practical for cross countries,but great for breakfast runs.
 
I have to admit that the entire Sonex line is growing on me. Our hangar neighbor has one - not a beauty in the classic sense, but not ugly either and I hear only good things about them. Apparently one of the best and fastest to build kits with great support from the factory.

And the jet is certainly really cool. A jet powered Waiex would be be even nicer...
 
I agree. I've never liked the looks of the Sonex line, but the whole jet idea (smooth, reliable, fast) is very appealing.

I wonder if it can run on any fuel other than Jet-A? It's based on a Russian APU, so it can probably run on anything that burns. lol
 
My next door neighbor on the airpark is flying off his 40 hours on his Sonex. It seems to be a fast efficient aircraft. He does have some cooling issues with the Jabiru 3300 engine he's using.
 
I agree. I've never liked the looks of the Sonex line, but the whole jet idea (smooth, reliable, fast) is very appealing.

I wonder if it can run on any fuel other than Jet-A? It's based on a Russian APU, so it can probably run on anything that burns. lol

Vodka costs more by the gallon than avgas . . . :D
 
It looks like it gains all its speed up top in thinner air at cruise. The climb rate is a respectable 1600f.p.m., but not the white knuckle three, four, and five thousand feet per minute you'd expect from a 200knot jet.

This is a hard one to justify to buy for the single seat toy bin. The sub-sonex to me is like a borderline schizophrenic plane right now caught between a low-level aerobatic local fun toy or a serious X-country machine. You can't pull serious G's with it like a Giles or a Christen for less money, but you can go farther faster. The range is pretty decent at 480mi. with 30 minute reserve. Fuel burn is gonna hurt your wallet everywhere you go .. see, I'm getting schizo over it.. :lol:

It's a niche aircraft at the moment. If it only had a touch more range with payload, and that second seat Jay mentioned, I think we'd all be all over it.
 
I'd love to have a 2-4 seat Sonex jet for less than 200k that would be great way to build turbine time and travel fast.
 
Can't imagine this as anything but a toy. Now way can you fly an unpressurized aircraft to the altitudes where jets make sense. So you're stuck flying it at low altitude where the jet engine drinks gas. And how much gas can you actually schlep in that little thing?

Airshow toy, something in which to show off.
 
Talked to a KITPLANES editor once about how they picked the image to go on the magazine's cover. He said they went for the "nut factor," some unusual image that would draw the reader to look at the article inside. So you're not as likely to see an RV, for instance, unless there's something unusual about it, like it being a brand-new model or having floats or something.

As you might expect, being on the cover is much sought-after by the kit companies. Not only does it kick-start the sale of the new model, just getting the company name on the front page helps the whole line.

And...of course, the SubSonex has "nut factor" in spades.

So it doesn't matter than it's single seat, it doesn't matter if the fuel consumption is lousy, and it doesn't matter if the engine cost is five times what the airframe sells for. Every aviation magazine editor will be featuring it, and it's going to attract potential customers' eyes to Sonex.

Most of them will think, "Damn, that's too rich for my blood," but every article will probably feature the SubSonex sitting next to a standard Sonex. Readers will think, "You know, that prop-powered version looks just like it, and it's actually a lot more affordable...."

If nothing else, the SubSonex is great marketing. And when they come up with a two-seat version....it all repeats.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I still think the BD-5 is much better looking. The Subsonex looks like something the Russians would awkwardly design in an attempt to keep up.
 
I still think the BD-5 is much better looking. The Subsonex looks like something the Russians would awkwardly design in an attempt to keep up.

I think it looks a little like a mini F/A-18.

It's not efficient or practical, but it sure would be fun. They said it has a built-in O2 system, cabin and seat heaters. Probably not terrible for high altitude cruise. The factory claims 20,000ft as ceiling, and that it cruises pretty efficiently at 13,000-14,000.
 
I have to admit that the entire Sonex line is growing on me. .

I've had two of them ... one I bought and one I built. They're fun flying airplanes. I've got about 125 hrs on my current one that I built.
I've found them to be pretty much a one person plane though ..
with two full sized people .. they're a pooch with the 80hp Aerovee loaded
to full gross .. on mine two 170 lb'ers and full gas. Plus I've found the Aerovee to be finicky.

Ask Jack about putting he and I in my first one on a warm day ... not sure
we even saw 150 fpm.

RT
 
I've had two of them ... one I bought and one I built. They're fun flying airplanes. I've got about 125 hrs on my current one that I built.
I've found them to be pretty much a one person plane though ..
with two full sized people .. they're a pooch with the 80hp Aerovee loaded
to full gross .. on mine two 170 lb'ers and full gas. Plus I've found the Aerovee to be finicky.

Ask Jack about putting he and I in my first one on a warm day ... not sure
we even saw 150 fpm.

RT

Short wings, a little engine, and a small diameter prop do not translate well to acceleration and climb performance.
 
Isn't it "experimental exhibition" class?
 
Can't imagine this as anything but a toy. Now way can you fly an unpressurized aircraft to the altitudes where jets make sense. So you're stuck flying it at low altitude where the jet engine drinks gas. And how much gas can you actually schlep in that little thing?

Airshow toy, something in which to show off.

Depends on the bypass ratio, the turbine C/R, and a host of other engine parameters. If it were to be carefully tuned for the target altitudes, turbine fuel burn can be manageable. It'll never be as good as a recip engine mainly because it idles at ~35-40% full rated power, but some careful tweaking of the engine dynamics can make serious improvements.
 
Plus I've found the Aerovee to be finicky.
What do you think about their new turbo kit? The hoursepower bump is very small, something like 12% up to 90 hp, but it's huge for me at the altitude because it normalizes. At 10k that I must fly to clear ridges around here I'm making 35 hp at best right now on the "56 hp" engine.
 
Back
Top