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