Sub-Sonex Jet

[fallalloveryou]

I'm think of starting a Sub-Sonex Jet homebuilt.
Its like a BD-5 but better. Its has a small jet turbine with retractable wheels and flaps.
Under TC rules its not considered a high performance or complex because its below the speed and wing loading limits, and no constant speed prop.

As far as I can tell, I'm good with my PPL to fly it.

Because the FAA does consider is high performance under their definition, the 3 owners down there went go thru a 3 day training session and got a "Letter of Authority" to fly it. (The FAA don't do type ratings for amateur built airplanes). For insurance and safety reasons it only makes sense to go thru the training since I have no "Turbine" experience.

Most of the Canadian underwriters don't know what to make of it because they don't yet have a category for "Micro Jet" and are declining coverage but I found a US based underwriter that will cover it.

Unless TC quickly changes their rules, I think I'm good to go. Does anyone know TC take on this? I wish I could call someone but its hard to get thru on the phone.

Fallalloveryou

[goingnowherefast]

Contact the MD-RA, they are the Canadian legal authority on building and licensing amateur built aircraft

http://www.md-ra.com/en/

[photofly]

Per 549.9, jet engines are explicitly permitted on amateur built aircraft/


549.9 Powerplant

(a) The Powerplant may utilise propeller or reaction jet propulsion, but not solid and liquid fuel rockets. Installations are not restricted to approved aircraft engines. Type-approved engines shall be operated within all established certification limits. For non-type-approved engines, limits must be established by the applicant.

(b) For propeller driven propulsion systems:

(1) Acceptable engines include, but are not limited to, conventional 2 or 4 cycle piston engines, Wankel engines, gas turbines and other unconventional internal combustion engines.

(2) For the purpose of this Chapter, Wankel engines are treated as reciprocating engines.

(c) For reaction jet propulsion systems: Engines commonly referred to as turbojets and turbofans are acceptable.

(d) For engines incorporating turbomachinery (e.g. turbocharger), rotating shaft speed limits shall be established by the applicant and:

(1) There shall be means to prevent such limits being exceeded; or

(2) It must be shown that in the event of a failure, no hazardous debris will be released following a mechanical failure at the highest shaft speed possible.

[spafloats]

Is the U.S. underwriter represented by a Canadian broker? Is the underwriter licenced to write business in Canada?

If the answer to either of these questions is "No" I would be very concerned about the validity of coverage on a "C" registered aircraft.

Spafloats

[fallalloveryou]

There is no problem or issue with the build or licensing of the aircraft. And, yes, the US underwriter is working thru a Canadian broker to insure the Canadian registered aircraft.
However, the licencing of the pilot to fly it is a completely different matter. Under FAA its considered a High performance aircraft and the pilot needs a "Type" or "Letter of Authority" to fly it which needs to be updated with a check flight every year.

Under Transport Canada rules the Vne its too slow i.e. 289 mph to be a High Performance aircraft so no such endorsement legaly needed. In fact, under Transport Canada rules its not even a "Complex Aircraft" because the it doesn't have a constant speed prop, only flaps and retractical gear. I concede that it probably should be considered a "Complex Aircraft" and perhaps Transport Canada" will eventually amend the rules to say Constant Speed Prop orTurbine Engine. But that category only requires a one time check flight from an instructor anyways.

It turns out the pilot qualifications are more driven by what the insurance underwriters insist on which so far is a min. 250 hrs PIC and a min of about 6-8 hours flight time in said aircraft within every 12 months of flying.

That's the way I read it.

[AirFrame]

Don't you need some kind of "jet" rating on your PPL to fly it? I admit i'm completely ignorant about this. I have followed the SubSonex development for years, but I didn't know we were allowed to use jet engines on amateur-built aircraft... I thought there was a prohibition on that in Canada. Good to see the regs allow it (maybe that's changed recently?), that would be a fun little plane.

I think in the US it's called a LODA, or "Letter Of Demonstrated Ability", unless i'm confusing this with something else...

[ahramin]

All single engine non high performance land aircraft. That's typically the first blanket type rating a private pilot sees on their licence. No such thing as a turbine or jet rating, it's covered by "engine".

As you have already discovered any private pilot already has the licence to fly the aircraft, and the insurance requirements will point you in the right direction for training and currency. There's nothing complex about a SubSonex. A jet engine is much simpler to operate than a piston engine, and much much simpler than a constant speed prop. Forward goes faster, backwards goes slower. I don't know what the spool up time from idle to 80% is on one of those but I'd find out before flying just in case it's surprising. The only thing you're likely to have trouble with is the speed. Try not to let the plane take you somewhere your brain wasn't already a minute ago. Go arounds are your friend.

[photofly]

We need to agitate for liquid and solid rocket propulsion for homebuilts.

[7ECA]

We need to agitate for liquid and solid rocket propulsion for homebuilts.

Thinking of building a ME-163 are you?

[Saxub]

Under Transport Canada rules the Vne its too slow i.e. 289 mph to be a High Performance aircraft so no such endorsement legaly needed. In fact, under Transport Canada rules its not even a "Complex Aircraft" because the it doesn't have a constant speed prop, only flaps and retractical gear.

Canada doesn't even have "complex" ratings. That's only the USA. You can fly a retractable gear'd, constant speed prop'd aircraft with just a regular license and like you said a check out. I'm even a bit wary if that's even required. From an insurance perspective that might be different as they may want you to complete say 5 hours of CS time and "checked out" by someone qualified before they insure you.

Also, have you looked into the regs and contacted someone at TC to ensure it is not listed as HP? 287MPH is 249.3 ish KTS. Awfully close to the 250KT limiting requirement.

[Howitzer]

If it's not listed as High Performance as per the MD-RA calculations with wing loading you're good on that front.

If it has a a Vne of less than 250 KTS and a Vso of less than 80 KTS (I think) you're good to go.

Here's the great part, you built the plane, if you want to placard it for flight less than 250 KTS then go ahead and do that. As for the post above, 249.3 is close to 250, but it's not 250. Its the law, i would argue to the end of the earth over 0.7 KTS and cite regs and throw it back in TCs face if they ever give you guff about it.

Also mentioned earlier is insurance. This will most likely be the biggest hurdle. Before you put any money down or write a cheque i would call your proposed insurance company and ask if they will insure you and under what conditions and qualifications.

If you're wondering "can i fly this aircraft in the US without an LOA for a jet aircraft?" the answer is, yes. You will be flying with a Canadian License on a Canadian Registration where you've legally obtained the qualifications to operate it. You will go to the FAA website and print off a generic letter stating the aircraft is Amateur Built and has the FAA's permission to operate in US airspace.

[fallalloveryou]

Yes, the underwriter will insure it under the condition that every pilot that flys it has min. 250 hrs Pic and 6-8 hours of flying it in the last 12 months.

Now I guess your wondering how does one legally get 6-8 hours in a single seat airplane before getting insurance. Well, first you get a glider pilot licence, (not compulsory but highly recommended) then you sign-up for the 5 day training course in the US. Take 6 hours of dual instruction in a jet powered two seat sailplane that happens to have the exact same engine, then get a Temporary letter from the FAA to fly solo in the Subsonex they have there that's already insured as a trainer based on your time and instruction in the jet sailplane then walk away with of Letter of authority from the FAA which you don't need anyways cause your coming back to Canada to fly a Canadian "non-high performance" aircraft. Sounds complicated but really it's not since the the whole program is set-up and arranged for you for the sole purpose to fly the Subsonex. The point is that now you got 6 hours of solo time under your belt to meet the condition of insurance. Cool eh?

[photofly]

Is there anyone else who thinks the idea of a jet-powered glider needs some thought to get your head around?

[fallalloveryou]

Oh boy,don't get me started.....O.K. too late.
Jet powered sailplanes/gliders have been around for a while now. If you have ever been to a devoted "gliderport" i.e. airport devoted to gliders you will see that there is always the issue of how do you launch the planes. The sport of soaring in a sailplane I believe is the purest form of flying. I'm not talking about a tube and fabric 2-22 that the air cadets train on but a sleek 50 foot wing span fibreglass streamline beauty that glides at a 40:1 glide ratio. Yes image being 5000 feet in the air with no engine and having more than 45 minutes and 40 miles radius to decide if you want to land or take in a thermal and gain another 4000 feet of altitude just for the fun of it. People think that flying one of these ships is like the analogy between a sailboat and a motorboat. WRONG. Its much more an analogy between a powerboat and a surfer, riding and working a high powerful wave to every last drop and then peeling away and waiting for the next one to come your way. 4 - 5 hours of flying on a single launch is not unheard of. Also, I believe learning to fly gliders is the best way to really get a feel for airmanship and energy management in case of an emergency engine out scenario. i.e. Micracle in the Hudson,the Gimili glider, Air Transat over the Atlantic. All these airline pilots were proficient glider pilots at one time that surely helped in having a safe engine out landing and saving hundreds of lives.

Oh yes, about the launch, That's the only hiccup. Most clubs can only afford to fly on weekends. Self-launch sailplanes have been the advantage of launching during the week using a retracting 2 stroke engine on their back. But the issue was unreliability, mixing gas & oil, aligning the prop for retracting, etc. etc. Enter a small 45 lbs turbine jet. Very reliable, very sleek and simple to install and retrack away. Being a glider, easy to license legally since the engine is not compulsery in the flying of the plane. At first they tried upscale model jet engines. Some people strap these things onto there arms and fly around like jet powered kites. i.e. Jet Man. But now with the large market for drones the big APU manufactures are downsizing and producing very reliable 250 lbs thrust/ 45 lb jets suitable for small personal airplanes. Yes, the small personal microJet age is coming. Now if they could only get the price of the engine down.

[AirFrame]

Is there anyone else who thinks the idea of a jet-powered glider needs some thought to get your head around?

Isn't every 747 a jet-powered glider?

[fallalloveryou]

Just found out that in the US the Subsonex is not considered "High Performance" either. You need an endorsement or "Letter of Authority" to fly it because it is Turbine powered. Period.

Ykes, now I'm worried. Does anyone know what Transport Canada's take will be or who to call?

[photofly]

We are not in the US, so what the FAA rules or requires is irrelevant to you. If you want to speak to TC or email them all the regional office address are on the contact page on the TC website.

[lownslow]

We need to agitate for liquid and solid rocket propulsion for homebuilts.

Thinking of building a ME-163 are you?

You look me in the eye and tell me that isn't the most awesome idea proposed on here in a long time.

[7ECA]

You look me in the eye and tell me that isn't the most awesome idea proposed on here in a long time.

Why not right?

But first, I want to see Niss get his Cherokee chisel charter up and running.

[swervin]

Apparently a kit was delivered to Canada last year. No idea where it went. I found it in General Aviation news.