Grass Roots Jet?

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/diy-jet-almost-ready-to-fly/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Very cool, Ian!

It's an alternative to the Bede BD5J:

http://www.bd5.com/

Not to poo poo grass roots ideas in any form, but you got to have a lot of faith in your building skills to trust your own creation at 2000 ft. I don't think i would have that kinda faith.

In reply to JohnGalt:

Homebuilts have to FAA inspected and certified before they can get off the ground. If the build-quality is lacking, you end up with a big garage display.

The people who build from a kit know the process and are pretty darn sure of their craftsmanship. Those that shouldn't have ever started a build usually weed themselves "out" quickly - or enlist/pay someone qualified to do the work.

Instead of a DIY it is more like a sumassemblyrequired.

Am I the only guy thinking "small jet engine" and "Bonneville" in the same sentence?

I think it looks like fun... but I would rather see a pusher prop

That's a kit plane. You don't design it, you just assemble it. Its as safe as you make it. I'd trust John Monnett's designs more that I'd trust a Jim Bede one.

JohnGalt wrote: Not to poo poo grass roots ideas in any form, but you got to have a lot of faith in your building skills to trust your own creation at 2000 ft. I don't think i would have that kinda faith.

Meh, most home builts fly high enough to reach terminal velocity if you went into a free fall don't they? Seems like 2000 feet or not, if your home built plane decides it wants to fall instead, the only real difference with altitude would be how long you have to think over your mistakes.

That being said, a home built kit car will kill you pretty easy too... But its easy enough to do right when you are just building off of someone elses design.

Anyone spot an artificial horizon on that instrument panel?

Looks like fun, been contemplating something similar for a LONG time now.

If I were kit-minded, one of these would be a serious contender:

In reply to oldsaw:

I still recall picking up a copy of "Homebuilt Aircraft" magazine on a newsstand in the mid-70s. Those 1/2 scale warbird kits seemed to be seriously popular then.

Awesome. The yellow one looks a bit like one of those stubby little Messerchmitt jets the German's were experimenting with towards the end of the war.

1/2 scale warbird is pretty cool, too.

RedS13Coupe wrote:

JohnGalt wrote: Not to poo poo grass roots ideas in any form, but you got to have a lot of faith in your building skills to trust your own creation at 2000 ft. I don't think i would have that kinda faith.

Meh, most home builts fly high enough to reach terminal velocity if you went into a free fall don't they? Seems like 2000 feet or not, if your home built plane decides it wants to fall instead, the only real difference with altitude would be how long you have to think over your mistakes.

It doesn't climb to 2,000ft. It will climb at a rate of 2,000ft./minute. That's pretty quick.

Actually, the higher you fly, the safer. An airplane that has the engine cut becomes a glider, not a rock. Altitude gives you more time and options on where to land your airplane.

And I've helped finish the build on a kit plane (a Van's RV4) many years ago. Although I haven't built a kit car, from my experience working on both, an airplane is actually a much simpler contraption to construct and work on. (Controls are simple. No transmission. No cooling system. Minimal accessories. Very accessible engine.)

Will wrote: Anyone spot an artificial horizon on that instrument panel?

Come to think of it, I don't see any of the traditional backup steam gauges.

Bitchin, though.

Looks like an He 162 with a V tail and a tiny engine.

Here one of the piston powered ships. Cool. (And hot linked)

Appleseed wrote: I'd trust John Monnett's designs more that I'd trust a Jim Bede one.

Amen!

all this makes me want to learn to fly

Meh...seats are for sissies

This is real

Osterkraut wrote:

Will wrote: Anyone spot an artificial horizon on that instrument panel?

Come to think of it, I don't see any of the traditional backup steam gauges.

It doesn't have any IFR gauges. Just too small to fit a full IFR cluster in that panel. Nice layout though. Digital altimeter, a single display for all the engine functions, and a second one for radio.

4cylndrfury wrote: Meh...seats are for sissies This is real

I'd do that in a heartbeat! That just looks like it rocks! Needs the rocketeer head rudder though!

holy cow, just did some research on the Bede BD5J, wow, modern day G-Bee. nuts.

That being said, I'd still hop in a G-B given half a chance to take one for a ride.

Stealthtercel wrote: Am I the only guy thinking "small jet engine" and "Bonneville" in the same sentence?