What's up with Synergy

[spungey]

Eric sayeth:

I think if they could size it for 2-seat (looks like tandem would fit best), about 600 lbs empty weight, 1100 gross, and an ~80hp VW-derived engine (or maybe Jabiru 2200 or the 80hp Rotax), this could be a winner that would sell on the order of 100 units per year.

Not sure I agree with tandem. One of the nice things about the Synergy design is that a fatter fuselage is actually slipperier. I personally like a wider dashboard and having my aviatrix at my elbow, but that might just be me. :-) Also, two seats is not my primary flight mission, but I certainly would bend that far if that's what it took to finance, build, finish, and fly.

IF (and here's the huge if), they could get the "complete airframe kit" in the $15-16k range including all structure and hardware, allowing the builder to add engine, prop, instruments, upholstery, and paint for maybe another $10-15k,

Wow! At that price you're only slightly more expensive than many of the single and two-seaters that could qualify under part 103. I suppose if we (you and I? ... the readers here who care?) sat down and thought about it, and worked on it, we could come up a reasonable design to throw at John in a year or so.

OTOH, a lot of the costs of an airplane don't really scale. All the avionics for instance. Yes, it's a la carte, but the price is the same per item.

Two big reasons I think this combination could be preferred to some of the 1320-lb LSA's out there are:
1. They would offer similar payload, range, and speeds with the "next size down" of engine - so lower buy-in costs.
2. The smaller engine as well as the airframe efficiency would allow for lower operating costs.

Let's speculate for a minute. Suppose we have a scaled-down version of a Synergy Mark 1 (what I'm calling the design we've seen for the GFC.) This hypothetical mini-syni has two seats and a 100 HP engine. (Rotax 912?) Let's compare with a plane using a 20th century design that carries 24 gal of gas, 400 lb useful load, and cruises at 120 mph on 5 gph. IF (and we don't really have a clue that this is true) the Synergy design efficiencies scale down linearly, then by back-of-the-envelope numbers say we could choose one (or maybe two) of:

1. reduce fuel burn to 3gph
2. increase cruise to 160 mph at 5 gph
3. increase load to 600 lb (but suffer some climb penalties)
4. increase range (with climb penalties)

You have an interesting idea. :-)

But my experience walking around Oshkosh and some of the other regional fly-ins gives me the impression that >2 seats are a VERY hard sell. Not that there aren't any out there, but the customer base with the inclination, talent, and perseverance to build an airplane, as well as the money to build a more than two seater is just an extremely rare combination.

Do you think it's the additional burden of building, or is it the money? Right now, a 4-seat airplane is basically unobtanium for many of us. 12 mpg, noisy, no real luggage room ... it's better just to have a small plane and fly around locally. But a plane like Synergy Mark 1 (or the 4-seat equivalent) makes it cheaper for me to fly the family to visit my sister-in-law in Buffalo than to drive. (We're in Portland.) I suspect a number of people would try to move mountains to have the extra versatility of the larger airframe.

One thing I would need to see in-person, though, is how does it fit in a hangar, particularly a T-hangar, with another airplane?

Trouble maker. :-) Maybe you've uncovered a business opportunity for new-style hangars.

[spungey]

Keeping the conversation alive while we all wait impatiently for press releases from Santa Rosa ...

Anyone have any thoughts about any of the following?

1. Maintenance issues associated with a natural laminar airflow fuselage. It seems that scratches, scrapes, or even bird strikes could rather dramatically increase risk by creating an on-the-fly turbulator.

2. Landing an aircraft with only two flight control surfaces (and proverse yaw.) I've never flown and Ercoupe but it's been done before ... sort of.

3. Similarity of drag reduction by ground effect and drag reduction by box-wing/box-tail design.

[Eric Witherspoon]

The view overlaid on the C-172 just confirms my earlier observation - it's not going to fit in a T-hangar. Not that big of a deal unless that's all there is at your favorite airport. Otherwise just have to find a 50x60 or something to share with a couple other planes.

Reason it's a concern is storage is THE biggest ongoing cost I have for my airplane hobby right now, and I've gotten along almost the entire time I've had the plane out at the airport by sharing a 40-foot T hangar. Shared with an RV-3, and RV-4, and now a C-140. So the little low-wing I'm operating now is small enough to share with a low OR high wing.

But the boxed wing configuration would seem to rule out all of that. Maybe a 2-seater would be overall smaller enough to both fit in AND share the T-hangar.

My earlier post about sizing it for 2-seats / an LSA version was just based on my perception of where more units could be sold, perhaps building the capital and company infrastructure (supply base, manufacturing capabilities, etc.) to support a smaller run of 3, 4, 5, or whatever higher number of seats anyone might want to pursue. Just look at the large-volume sellers out there now. What comes to my mind are RV's, Zeniths, and Sonex. ALL based / started with 2-seaters. Sonex, being a different sort of company is branching back "down" to a single seater, where both Van's and Zenith grew into supporting 4-seaters.

I still think if you want to start building a customer base, making some money, and building a company - that a 2-seater is the place to start.

Yes, I wasn't worried that the efficiency of this configuration might easily make it "too fast" for LSA. As others pointed out, trade that for a smaller (cheaper) engine, add a little drag in the form of fixed gear, and get better rate of climb and/or payload than the competitors. Don't utilize the drag advantage for SPEED, but for all the other things an efficient airframe can buy you.

The wider cockpit is a VERY interesting possibility. Especially around the numbers I quoted - 600 lbs empty, 1100 lbs gross - since you're not having to lug the additional 220 lbs of "the other guys" to get the 500 lbs of payload off the ground, that's a HUGE efficiency advantage right there. Throw in everything else that comes from the configuration, and it's going to be a MUCH smaller overall airframe (cheaper to build, to some extent) and get equal or greater rate of climb from the smaller (and again cheaper) engine choice. I think of the other airplanes in the 600/1100 lbs range -Quickie, KR-2, Sonex - the accomodations, though workable, are TIGHT.

The way I see it, get 2000 fpm climb (at sea level) without having to incur the cost of a Jabiru 3300. Since I've been operating an LSA for a while now, I think 500 lbs of payload (fuel + people) is just great. Solo, that's me + all the stuff I'd want to carry + full fuel. 2-up, to let someone else experience the airplane, it's 1/2 tank and they get to play around in the local area for an hour or less.

There's a huge market for just these sorts of machines. Size that one, and re-use certain parts of it when building one that has longer range, can take a bigger engine, has a higher gross weight, an even smaller wing (less drag, more speed, cheaper to build, easier to store...).

This discussion just reminded me of yet another engine option - the 65hp 2-cylinder 2-stroke. Sized for this engine, the main competitors would be the Jabiru 2200 and 80 hp Rotax-powered machines. Except this one would start with a $6k+ cost advantage...

Think small, build a customer base, then build the big, fast one for those with the money.

[spungey]

From a quick look at the news, it appears Synergy failed to make Green Flight this year. If true, my condolences but I'm glad they chose safety (if they were even close and had to make that call.) Anyone know any details yet?