The ULTIMATE time-building-specific twin jet! Multi-engine turbine time for as little as $30/hr!

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

qchen98

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Messages
60
1634177967003.png
Update 10.15:
Added professional 3d rendering.(Background image are from wikicommon)

1634260217517.png
1634260512962.png

Mission Profile:
  • Causing a massive headache to the FAA!
  • Creat a world-record for annual insurance premium in its class
  • A certified twin-jet aircraft with absolutely the lowest hourly operation cost.
General Design:
  • Twin-boom aircraft with a propeller pusher prop.
  • Very high aspect ratio wing, amazing L/D
  • Top speed is not a concern, the goal is to stay in the air with only 65hp (very easily goal).

Powerplants:
  • Two jet engines (whatever they used in BD-5 would probably make the aircraft overpowered, so maybe a smaller one). (You can claim MEL and turbine aircraft hours!)
  • A Rotax 582 with a constant two-blade pusher prop (You can claim complex aircraft hours!)
  • The pilot is supposed to use jet power at all times! It is a certified twin jet and the Rotax is only used as a backup!
Fuel Capacity:
  • 1 Gallon of JET-A
  • 24 Gallon of Mogas
Undercarriage:
  • Optional tow hook for winch tow, which reduces wear and tears on the jet engine.
  • Retractable landing gear in tailwheel configuration (You can log complex & tailwheel hours!)
  • I already said that it uses a two-blade prop, so ground clearance is not an issue.
  • Main landing gear are close together, making the transition to ME-109 easier
  • Optional STC: A pair of float! (Seaplane pilots? You can log MES & turbine hours!)

Cockpit and avionics:
  • Two crews in tandem
  • The backseat pilot has zero forward visibility and side visibility, he only has access to a small porthole (the back canopy is CF to reduce weight) He is supplied with a full suite of certified IFR equipment.
  • The guy at the front has very good visibility, he is supplied with a single iPad with Foreflight for playing angry birds
  • Due to the visibility issue at the back, it is assumed that the pilot in the back is undergoing simulated IFR flight training at all times (he does that in good comfort, without a funny hat!), while the guy at the front is acting as a safety pilot with an iPad.
  • Therefore, both pilot is eligible for PIC time, which cuts the hourly operating cost in half!
 

Attachments

Last edited:

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,148
Location
KBJC
Is the Pinocchio nose a subtle cue to the projected performance, or is there an operational reason for it?
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,828
Location
Upper midwest in a house
A certified twin-jet aircraft with absolutely the lowest hourly operation cost.
A "certified" twin-jet means a type rating will be required.

Optional STC: A pair of float! (Seaplane pilots? You can log MES & turbine hours!)
Okay, so why would the manufacturer of a "certified"[sic] airplane add pair of float [sic] via STC? Could that not just be a configuration option on the TCDS?

Due to the visibility issue at the back, it is assumed that the pilot in the back is undergoing simulated IFR flight training at all times (he does that in good comfort, without a funny hat!), while the guy at the front is acting as a safety pilot with an iPad.
[*]Therefore, both pilot is eligible for PIC time, which cuts the hourly operating cost in half!
That's quite an assumption. Acting as a safety pilot means one is eligible to log SIC because they are a required crewmember under the regulations for which the flight is conducted.

Otherwise, I think it's awesome ! !
 

qchen98

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Messages
60
A "certified" twin-jet means a type rating will be required.


Okay, so why would the manufacturer of a "certified"[sic] airplane add pair of float [sic] via STC? Could that not just be a configuration option on the TCDS?


That's quite an assumption. Acting as a safety pilot means one is eligible to log SIC because they are a required crewmember under the regulations for which the flight is conducted.

Otherwise, I think it's awesome ! !
It would be the cheapest jet type rating to obtain - in a real aircraft and not a simulator!

Quote from AOPA:
  • Pilot-in-command time may be logged if acting as PIC.
    • The two pilots must agree that the safety pilot is the acting PIC.
    • PIC time may be logged only while the other pilot is "under-the-hood."
    • PIC time may be logged because FAR 61.51(e)(1)(iii) allows certificated pilots to log PIC when acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required by the regulations (91.109) under which the flight is conducted. A safety pilot is required for "hood work."
 

AeroER

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
52
I have a suggestion.

Make a drawing with all of the engine controls, wiring, and fuel lines routed. Include the tanks and fuel pumps.

After that, add the controls (cables, push rods, wires and actuators, whatever) for the rudders and elevators. Include bellcrank and idler linkage.

Sorting that out will keep you busy for a while.

You should probably learn how to draw with splines to help define fair shapes, too.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,839
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
This type of aircraft would justifiably make the FAA very upset, as you have noted. But their being upset would be for a very good reason. Would YOU want to fly on an airliner when the person flying it logged their multi-turbine time in the airplane you are proposing?

I would expect (and support) an immediate emergency NPRM to come out making hours logged in this aircraft not usable towards transport category aircraft.

We have real genuine airline and transport pilots on this forum. I will bet you that every last one of them would agree that hours logged in this kind of contraption should not and should not be of any relevance toward an ATP or transport category aircraft.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,828
Location
Upper midwest in a house
It would be the cheapest jet type rating to obtain - in a real aircraft and not a simulator!
not sure that's a checkmark in the "plus" box.

Quote from AOPA:
  • Pilot-in-command time may be logged if acting as PIC.
    • The two pilots must agree that the safety pilot is the acting PIC.
    • PIC time may be logged only while the other pilot is "under-the-hood."
    • PIC time may be logged because FAR 61.51(e)(1)(iii) allows certificated pilots to log PIC when acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required by the regulations (91.109) under which the flight is conducted. A safety pilot is required for "hood work."
So you agree there are conditions attached and both pilots are NOT always eligible to log pilot-in-command time, starting with the fact that simply performing the duties of safety pilot does not automatically make one the acting PIC. (see first two bullet points).

Anyway, should be interesting getting through certification process and demonstrating required performance like engine fail at V1, OEI go-arounds and such. I don't the FAA will be the one with massive headaches.
 

qchen98

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Messages
60
not sure that's a checkmark in the "plus" box.

So you agree there are conditions attached and both pilots are NOT always eligible to log pilot-in-command time, starting with the fact that simply performing the duties of safety pilot does not automatically make one the acting PIC. (see first two bullet points).

Anyway, should be interesting getting through certification process and demonstrating required performance like engine fail at V1, OEI go-arounds and such. I don't the FAA will be the one with massive headaches.
It's an overpowered motor glider, and it should outclimb a Bonanza on a single operational engine.

A pilot cannot operate the plane from the back seat, because the canopy is not transparent by design, and you would be expected to do some simulated instrument work at all times.

This automatically put you in a position of needing a safety pilot in the front seat. Because you would be doing the hood work, the safety pilot is eligible for logging PIC time.

What if the front pilot is incapacitated? Well, there is a handle to reject the non-transparent canopy - now it will be a VFR flight.
 

qchen98

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Messages
60
If the floats have rudders at the back can I log tail dragger Time while logging float time?
Here is a quote from FAQ Section from Seaplane Pilot Association:
7. How should I log amphibious flight time?
In a nutshell, any way you want. Strategies vary from person to person, and there is no known guidance from the FAA on this subject. Insurance companies are often interested in logged amphibious time as a distinct subcategory of logged seaplane time. Many seaplane pilots who fly amphibs primarily from land-based airports consider their amphibious flight time as land plane time. Others consider it seaplane time. A third group breaks it down according to the number land and/or operations.
You can have yourself a amphibious seaplane. I will now attach the floats to the top of the fuselage and keep the tailwheel undercarriage intact and functional.

If you wish to land on water, just fly the thing inverted.

When looking down through the canopy, you will have an unobscured view. The ability to judge the distance from the float to the water easily is also conducive to a good water landing.

The only design challenging is to find a suitable airfoil for inverted flight, other than that, there is none.

1634264229291.png
If you want to log tailwheel time, just flip the thing over.
 
Last edited:

AeroER

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
52
I'm sure that some variable incidence mechanism will be Incorporated into this high performance machine.

All that is missing is solar power and four wheel drive. Lift engines for STOL work would be sweet.

I'm partial to the Grumman G698 -
65824-2c387448de27c46f39001c0d003febdb.jpg
 
Last edited:

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,455
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
This type of aircraft would justifiably make the FAA very upset, as you have noted. But their being upset would be for a very good reason. Would YOU want to fly on an airliner when the person flying it logged their multi-turbine time in the airplane you are proposing?

I would expect (and support) an immediate emergency NPRM to come out making hours logged in this aircraft not usable towards transport category aircraft.

We have real genuine airline and transport pilots on this forum. I will bet you that every last one of them would agree that hours logged in this kind of contraption should not and should not be of any relevance toward an ATP or transport category aircraft.
Why such a party pooper ? There’s nothing about the configuration that’s that peculiar in respect to the turbines.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,455
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Here is a quote from FAQ Section from Seaplane Pilot Association:


You can have yourself a amphibious seaplane. I will now attach the floats to the top of the fuselage and keep the tailwheel undercarriage intact and functional.

If you wish to land on water, just fly the thing inverted.

When looking down through the canopy, you will have an unobscured view. The ability to judge the distance from the float to the water easily is also conducive to a good water landing.

The only design challenging is to find a suitable airfoil for inverted flight, other than that, there is none.

View attachment 116978
If you want to log tailwheel time, just flip the thing over.
Doesn’t seem like a practical configuration Rudders on the back of floats are not uncommon so they steer from the tail just as any other Taildragger does while on the surface.
 
Top