• Please read this important announcement HERE

Subsonex

SDQDI

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
2,178
Ratings
3,240 59
Location
Quirindi
Country
Country
#2
Hey All,

Anyone know of the subsonex is legal in Australia? Would it be RA-Aus or CASA registered?
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/subsonex/index.html

Would be interested to know if anyone has purchased one to build here. A great concept but out of my price range.

Thanks
I don't think RAA allows turbines except "maybe" (don't rely on my law knowledge) in the 95:10 300kg MTOW section.

I think VH exp would be fine for it.

I think a turbine STOL machine that could run on farm diesel would be awesome:thumb up:
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#3
Only RAA categoty with turbines is 95.10 and with 60ft^2 of wing yout MTOW under 95.10 is about 60kg LESS than the empty weight so its a non-starter as RAA ... experimental GA is the only way it would work.
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#4
Only RAA categoty with turbines is 95.10 and with 60ft^2 of wing yout MTOW under 95.10 is about 60kg LESS than the empty weight so its a non-starter as RAA ... experimental GA is the only way it would work.
 

Head in the clouds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
1,670
Ratings
2,610 35
Location
Gold Coast, Qld
Country
Country
#7
I don't think RAA allows turbines except "maybe" (don't rely on my law knowledge) in the 95:10 300kg MTOW section.

I think VH exp would be fine for it.

I think a turbine STOL machine that could run on farm diesel would be awesome:thumb up:
Only RAA categoty with turbines is 95.10 and with 60ft^2 of wing yout MTOW under 95.10 is about 60kg LESS than the empty weight so its a non-starter as RAA ... experimental GA is the only way it would work.
Just to clarify for some folk - there's no restriction in RAA about running a turbine engine. 95.55 specifies that qualifying aircraft must have a single engine and a single propellor, so a turbine turboprop would be fine, but a turbine jet (like the Subsonex) wouldn't qualify due to the lack of an airscrew.

I agree with SDQDI, there'll be a big place for a STOL turboprop when a small powerplant becomes available ...
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#9
Just to clarify for some folk - there's no restriction in RAA about running a turbine engine. 95.55 specifies that qualifying aircraft must have a single engine and a single propellor, so a turbine turboprop would be fine, but a turbine jet (like the Subsonex) wouldn't qualify due to the lack of an airscrew.

I agree with SDQDI, there'll be a big place for a STOL turboprop when a small powerplant becomes available ...
Well the guys building the turbojet used in the subsonex DO have a turbo prop using the core from the jet engine on the subsonex ... the jet is US$40k + controllers + filters and pump + delivery and OZ GST ... so no real change out of AU$80k before you get a propellor or an airframe ... and fuel burn is in excess of 25l/hour at 60% ... got to be keen for braging rights ahead of sanity for that to look good ;-)
 

scre80

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
320
Ratings
267 1
Location
Gawler
Country
Country
#10
I think if you have the $$ to but this, you will not be concerned about fuel cost. Braging rights, maybe but it would be fun to fly!! That would have to be the key. Who would not want to live their boy dream and fly a single seat jet!!!
 

recflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
284
Ratings
162 3
Location
Canberra
Country
Country
#11
I think if you have the $$ to but this, you will not be concerned about fuel cost. Braging rights, maybe but it would be fun to fly!! That would have to be the key. Who would not want to live their boy dream and fly a single seat jet!!!
I agree. What a cool aircraft to own! I am sure if you were committed enough a person could make it work. No aircraft is cheap to run and the purchase price is not too bad if you consider the cost of new ga aircraft these days..

Dream big!
 

facthunter

First Class Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
18,056
Ratings
12,778 233
Location
New Gisborne
Country
Country
#12
The characteristics of a geared turbine would make a CS prop almost mandatory except in the most basic of designs. While it may have been done with FP, starting and management generally would be much simpler. A supercharged rotory engine would achieve good figures for power too. Nev
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#13
Oh and the turbine from the sonex jet guys is not a toy - its 62kg of 240shp engine ... Id still go for the pure jet version in a 95.10 - the engine is only 20kg ... come to think of it thats the same weight as the 28hp engine in the sapphire sitting in the shed ... ;-)
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#15
They are very light for the power they make and usually much more reliable. Pure jets have very little thrust. Nev
Ah but a 95.10 sapphire flies my fat old butt on 28hp so doesn't need heaps of thrust ... and who needs long legs if its cache youre after - it'd hold 1.5hrs of fuel within the 95.10 limits ;-)

But the heat blast on the composite tail might mean there are more mods required ... but the fun of it ... now where is my lotto ticket ?
 
Last edited: