Sonex UAVs

[Bryan Cotton]

Glenn,
I doubt there is enough business volume and stability to make it worthwhile for Sonex to abandon us. It sounds cool that they are diversifying a little bit, because I think that company health and sales volume will benefit us all. They are probably offering a very cost effective package, a UAV reality check if you will. The DoD generally prefers the expensive programs from my observations. So they may have some success like Schweizer and the firescout, but I will bet we are not abandoned.

[vwglenn]

Agreed Bryan. Just the way my brain works.

[ihab]

It sounds cool that they are diversifying a little bit, because I think that company health and sales volume will benefit us all.

I agree too. For what it's worth, I think that, with the inevitable expansion of commercial UAVs, it is also inevitable that radio control hobbyists and recreational light aircraft pilots will become a secondary market. That's fine by me -- the stuff we use will get cheaper and of better quality.

Ihab

[kevinh]

> My issue with drones is they can be hacked. Spend all that $$$ on something to watch a Chinese kid with a laptop turn it against you.

Trust me. If they have decent software engineers these drones can not be hacked. (For my day job I write software for drones ;-))

[Bryan Cotton]

So we can conclude, anyway, that two out of two drone software writers on the Sonexbuilders forums (current or former) prefer the Waiex over the straight tail Sonex.

[vigilant104]

Though diesel is cool, you have to spend a lot of money to earn the gas savings.

Justification for diesel is much greater outside of the US where av-gas can be even pricier,and hard to find, and local mo-gas questionable quality.

David A.

I think DoD's main reason for preference of heavy fuels (diesel and JP-5, esp) is safety. It's just much less hazardous to handle than MOGAS or AVGAS. FWIW, this is especially true of the Navy, where it virtually takes a direct order from the President to get a skipper to allow gasoline aboard his boat. For some very good reasons behind the USN sensitivity regarding liquid fuel safety, see the history of the catastrophic fire aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967.

I wonder if gasoline would even be allowed as a civilian motor fuel today if it were being proposed for the first time. My guess is: probably not.

[kevinh]

I think DoD's main reason for preference of heavy fuels (diesel and JP-5, esp) is safety. It's just much less hazardous to handle than MOGAS or AVGAS. FWIW, this is especially true of the Navy, where it virtually takes a direct order from the President to get a skipper to allow gasoline aboard his boat. For some very good reasons behind the USN sensitivity regarding liquid fuel safety, see the history of the catastrophic fire aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967.

Very interesting and a super good point. Thanks!