I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opinions
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 1:38 pm
by EchoFoxtrot
Hello all! I’m a low time PPL about ready to get in the market for my first aircraft, and I’ve reached the point where I thought I should stop lurking and ask specific questions. From my research, a Sonex (or Waiex) seems like the right airplane for my budget and mission, and I was hoping the collective wisdom (or collective peanut gallery) would want to weigh in.
I live in Charlotte, NC and am looking for a something to do fun local and moderate cross-country flights. I have about 60 hours and currently rent a C-150. I learned in a Grumman Tiger and was thinking of tailwheel endorsement training. The passenger and I are both 5’6" and we weigh a combined 300lbs soaking wet. My budget is tight by airplane standards but seems like it should handle a Sonex. (~$20-35 purchase, ~$6k/year operations, maintenance, insurance).
I have a friend-of-a-friend who has agreed to take me up in his 3300-powered Sonex to see if I like the way they fly, but the weather has been poor lately so I haven’t gone yet.
Question one: The airfield, the engine, the tires.
No concrete runway within 100 miles has hangars. On the other hand, there is a private grass field (Bradford Field) with available open front sheds at a reasonable price close to the house. It has a 3200ft grass runway facing the prevailing wings in moderately good condition, trees on one end. I would expect to fly out at or near gross weight frequently. Can I do this with the 80HP Aerovee, or do I have to spring for the turbo or the Jabiru 3300? Can the standard tires handle grass every flight? (I assume I would find a tailwheel for sale first)
Question two: The cross-countrys. I have family in Atlanta, Destin FL, and Lafayette LA. The four cities make a chain with straight-line distances of 200, 237, and 287 nautical miles, and they could be broken up overnight. How good are the various varieties of Sonex at handling these legs? If the answer was “Honestly, not good” I might need to keep saving money for the next airplane. Can I get some honest cross country planning figures? We’re youngish, so our spines could probably take it.
Those are the dealbreakers.
The maintenance: I’m handy and good at maintaining other things, but I’m not Tony Stark with a wrench. I can, however, follow a procedure exactly (I’m an engineer in nuclear, I love written instructions). Which engine has the best maintenance/operations/support?
I’ve read some of the other excellent chains written for first time buyers, but in light of this ^ information, does anything else occur to y’all?
Thanks!
Emile F.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 2:05 pm
by WaiexB22
Welcome to the forum!
I am located in your area (Denver, NC) and I am working on a b-model. You are welcome to check it out sometime. I looked at Bradford, but the deal breaker was the runway condition after rains. I lucked into a spot in a shared hangar at 14A. When it is dry the sonex shouldn’t have any trouble with grass including at Bradford.
I cannot comment on the aerovee performance or range.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 2:23 pm
by Bryan Cotton
At your combined pilot/pax weight of 300 lbs, you are in the perfect Sonex range. We are more typically at 400lbs of people two up. Grass strips are fine. I always argue against bigger main & tailwheel tires because of weight, but then again at 300 lbs you can afford 5 lbs for bigger tires if you feel you need them. Our longest XC to date is 430nm, broken up into two legs. That was C77->KBGM->KRKW. At 400 lbs of people we could not take all 16 gallons though.
The main downside of the AeroVee is it requires more maintenance. This is both planned and unplanned maintenance from my experience and other’s posts in this forum. It is an easy engine to work on.
We have flown solo out of grass strips less than 2000’. On the right day with the right wind it is actually not bad at all. Two up we have departed 2500’ of grass before, at a couple of different airports. Not really enough margin for us. If we were 100 lbs lighter it might be a better story. And the little tires really impede the acceleration to flying speed if it is rough.
For XC planning we use 100kts and 4GPH. Depending upon weight and density altitude we take between 12-14 gallons two up. At your weight you could easily take the full 16 gallons in an A model, or 20 in a B model.
There are other engine options out there. I think there are a couple of Sonexes with Jabiru 2200s out there now. They are lighter, so more of an aft CG, but your 300 lb figure makes that not a problem at all.
$6K a year is generous based on what we spend. But if you hire a pro to do everything that cost will go up. You will need to find an A&P or better to sign off your annual.
As a low time pilot you will need some training - it’s not a C150. But it is not hard to fly. As far as tailwheel goes, it’s probably the most forgiving tailwheel airplane I’ve flown.
I’ll see if I can find those two Jab 2200 Sonexes and post them in the classifieds.
Good luck!
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 2:45 pm
by Bryan Cotton
I’ll also mention that after 2+ hours in the airplane I’m ready to get out for a while. It’s actually very comfortable but 2 hours in a tin can grinding along is enough for me, then I want to get out and stretch. My son and I are both broad across the shoulders so it is tight in the cockpit.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 4:06 pm
by daleandee
Great comments thus far.
Anyone that knows me will attest that I prefer and recommend a properly built Corvair conversion for these airframes. Good performance, great reliability, low maintenance, & smoooth! Taildraggers are also preferred as you get to have a bit of swagger when you walk (although the Sonex taildragger has to be the easiest tailwheel plane to land that is currently on the planet). I fly a fair amount from grass fields and Bryan’s comments are spot on. The small wheels do work (I have a 5" tailwheel and the standard 11X4-5 mains) but if the field is soft or wet the tail wheel can dig in. Been flying my current Corvair/tailwheel for 12 years.
I owned a nose roller Aerovee powered Sonex for five years. It was a fun airplane and I fell in love with the airplane handling but found the Aerovee a bit much for maintenance and a bit lacking for performance in demanding situations (hot temps, high density altitude, heavy loads i.e. near gross weight). I’m not a fan of a turbo on a VW engine and as much as I love the Jabiru engines they have had some nagging issues and service & parts have been tough to get for some folks. But I admit that when I flew my friends 3300 powered taildragger I knew that I needed more power than the Aerovee was giving me. Power made it come alive!
That being said, the factory does not and never will endorse a Corvair conversion for any of their airframes. Rotax has a good option and there are others but money and installation becomes a factor. The final word I would say is to get as much reliable power on the nose of the airplane as you can afford, learn all you can about the maintenance & care of the airframe, and enjoy the ride. They are a blast to fly but they are not a C-150 so you will need some trsansition training.
Some videos for your consideration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0afcagd70UE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg0fgs4cFuE
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:56 pm
by pappas
Having 2 150-Lb people is awesome for the Sonex. I built 2 Waiex’s. One Legacy model with the Jab 3300 and a B model with the Aerovee turbo. The airframe is strong and capable, easy to fly and land and you will like it. I have flown quite a few hours with the normally aspirated Aerovee as well.
If I were to build a 3rd Sonex, (could happen), after having flown 80, 100, and 120 hp up front, I would choose a minimum of 120 hp, no less no way! With the current choices of engines it would be a Jab, a UL, or a Rotax. The Aerovee required more tinkering than I wanted to do and was just too hard for me to keep from leaking although I know others have done it. The Jab 3300 gave me no trouble and required only oil changes after the cht’s settled in at break-in. The Rotax is the most prolific engine in light sport for a reason but really pricey. I have not flown an aircraft with a Corvair. But, I did own a Corvair, for less than a week. I hated it and sold it on.
If you worry about fuel burn, nothing says you have to have the throttle WFO all the time. The Sonex will fly just as well at 100mph as 150 mph. But if… if, you find yourself in need of more climb with a full load or in high-density altitude conditions, you can not get more out of 80-100 hp than 80-100 hp.
As a pilot with more than 30 years of building and flying ultralights and experimentals and a few more than one “off-field landings” due to non-dedicated aviation engine stuff…I would recommend an engine that was designed for airplanes from the first second that the designer’s pencil touched the paper.
Get the most HP you can afford in a reliable aircraft engine. You will not be sorry. Remember the pilot’ mantra…"If only my airplane could climb a tiny bit better, cruise a tiny bit faster, and go a tiny bit farther… I would be happy with it!
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:37 pm
by Skippydiesel
I have a Sonex Legacy/Rotax 912ULS, with Airmaster Constant Speed Prop.
This is my first tailwheel aircraft and I agree with all those who said it is possibly the easiest taildragger to fly.
The down side of a small tailwheel is the tendency of the 4" to dig in to soft ground. My local grass field is dominated by nose wheel aircraft - after heavy rains, they are always flying days before I can even taxi. This is likly a combination of soil type, poor drainage and our local weather ,which is inclined to heavy cloud bursts, flooding the strip.
Most aircraft in this class, handle very diffrent to the GA’s you have flown. Low inertia and less stability takes time to get used to. Get some transition training.
Cant speak for other Sonex, however the undercarriage is super springy, making anything other than a perfect landing, likly to deliver a bounce. Grass strips with uneven surface, increase the challenge considerably.
My Legacy;
Will not legally lift two adults with any more than 30L of fuel on board (no luggage). When you are looking at aircraft, be sure to get the correct (not aspirational) empty weight - this will determine how much you can carry, including fuel.
Space -
This is one squeezy aircraft. Pilot & passenger need to be on very very good terms. I consider my aircraft to be a 1+1, meaning it’s really a single seater that can on occasion carry a second adult (weight & space).
Luggage capacity is extraordinarily bad.There is a, 18kg luggage space, volume about .25 cubic m, behind the seat. In my Sonex this is a roughly cubic shape carrier, with a zip lid (prevent escapes in turbulence) . The lid acts a a tray for maps etc. In addition, I have made a modification to allow stowage behind the back seat pan. It’s not much, but it allows me to stash all those items that you might need, hope never/rarely to use (jack/tyre repair/tie downs/first aid/emergency rations/tools/etc). There is the option to do the same thing below the seat pan - may do one day…
FYI- I am about 60kg. when young, maxed out at 5ft 8"
Fuel
I don’t have a front of canopy fueling point.
I have wing tanks (30L) & a fuselage header tank (40L) = 100L capacity. Being a tailwheel I can only fill the header tank to 35L, so 95L usable (fix this in the future). This gives a duration of 6.5 hrs (to empty) at 75% cruise power 5000-5200 rpm using around 14L/hr ULP
Without autopilot, she requires developing intuitive handling, to keep anywhere near straight & level - Sonex are designed to airobat so are not as stable as your GA training aircraft. Turbulence will see very quick & significant departures from your preferred altitude. These departures will not self return to original setting, like a GA aircraft, but require pilot input.
Economical & great fun to fly - planning on a trans Australia trip this coming spring.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:58 pm
by Bryan Cotton
All good discussion. I don’t disagree that more power is better, but I’m also happy with my AeroVee. Especially solo, performance is good. Two up it is ok, but better in cruise than climb.
Regarding the landing gear, it’s no worse than a C140. It’s not hard to do good landings but of course they are not all good, and so far my gear has been up to the task.
Avoid heavy aircraft. The 620 lb empty weight is a fantasy. Our Waiex is 673. There are a bunch of ~650 lb aircraft out there and that is awesome. There are some way over 700 lbs and be aware of what that does to climb performance, payload, stall speed, and landing gear loads.
I’ve never had issues with baggage volume. Weight becomes a problem first.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2024 1:26 am
by Kai
I got my polished DS SG Legacy airborne in 2005 with a 85 HP Jab 22A and 5 in wheels. Flying from a 1800 ft grass field, the power up front was just not sufficient- especially with two up. So in 2011 a 120 HP Jab was shoed in, which really did the trick performance wise- save for the fact that the thing was a can of worms both cooling- and maintenance wise, with all sorts of hefty SB´s popping up from the engine manufacturer at depressingly regular intervals. When finally parts sourcing (pistons and cylinders) became an issue in 2018, I picked up a time expired 2014 year R912ULS that I then had Edge zero time, with piston cooling (the fuel we get these days!), BB (1484 ccm) and EFI (no turbo- I´m a low down pilot). The thing now puts out 123 HP at 5800 rpm/29.92 in on the dyno. The airframe has a little over 700 hrs by now, with this EP915ECI closing in on 110 hrs. Save for scheduled maintenance and frequent visual checks, I have not touched it since installation. Empty weight with this engine is 680 lbs which includes a 10 gal alu seat back fuel tank, and I cruise it at around 125 kts at 4800 rpm/23 in. Fuel consumption is then around 4.5 gal/hr. Best climb with one up is 1500 ft/min. Flat out at 3000 ft it does 156 kts/5800 rpm with a fp 2b Sensenich paddleblade up front. It could probably do better with a cs prop, but those things are so heavy. As of now, I am very pleased with it, and have no intentions of selling. Compared to a Cub, it handles like a sweet old lady on the ground, but there is a hefty pull to the left at t/o: right rudder! My landings are at best average, but so far the gear is holding up-I make sure to check the angles every now and then. Someone tufted the Wings for stall characteristics a while back with no nasty surprises, and the main drawback of the viceless airframe is size- it could be another 4 in across the shoulders.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2024 9:27 am
by EchoFoxtrot
Thanks guys! Great insights so far. I will mention that though I rent a -150, I did my first 45 hours in an AA-5 which requires you to actually fly it. Baggage weight and space are virtually not a concern because all the XC would be to places where we could permanently stash a suitcase and a toothbrush. I think I’m hearing that I should wait and save for a 120hp and not expect to fly off of wet grass. WaiexB22, I’d love to take a look, I’ll send you a PM in a bit here.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2024 5:48 pm
by T41pilot
EchoFoxtrot wrote:Thanks guys! Great insights so far. I will mention that though I rent a -150, I did my first 45 hours in an AA-5 which requires you to actually fly it. Baggage weight and space are virtually not a concern because all the XC would be to places where we could permanently stash a suitcase and a toothbrush. I think I’m hearing that I should wait and save for a 120hp and not expect to fly off of wet grass. WaiexB22, I’d love to take a look, I’ll send you a PM in a bit here.
I’ve been flying my Turbo Aerovee off a 2600 ft grass strip for the last couple of years. I’ll mention that I installed 500x5 tires so that it would taxi better in grass. The bulk of my TO/Landings have been on grass also. Might be an issue with 80 Horse but the Turbo does fine even at gross simulated with bags of rocks instead of a person. I’ve recently completed the phase one testing and my plane will be going up for sale in a week or two. I’m already looking forward to the next build. My B model has lots of extras including a finished baggage area. Once I get an Ad put together, I’ll post on Facebook and here. I have yet to get pictures of all the goodness before I post.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:56 am
by karmarepair
Insurance.
Get in touch with Jeff Schultz (see his web site to find his email) and budget for a full weekend, maybe two with him to get Time In Type/Transition Training. He is in Central Missouri.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:19 am
by Bryan Cotton
karmarepair wrote:Insurance.
Get in touch with Jeff Schultz (see his web site to find his email) and budget for a full weekend, maybe two with him to get Time In Type/Transition Training. He is in Central Missouri.
Good point. My insurance company required my son to get to 100 hours total/50 hours tailwheel before I could put him on the policy. If you are serious about tailwheel get the endorsement soon and build some hours.
If you don’t have a tailwheel endorsement I don’t think Jeff can instruct you in his Sonex. One of the limitations of experimental instruction.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:53 am
by karmarepair
Bryan Cotton wrote:
If you don’t have a tailwheel endorsement I don’t think Jeff can instruct you in his Sonex. One of the limitations of experimental instruction.
Not true. The OP will need the endorsement to get insurance for flying solo in his own plane, but he can log hours of instruction with Jeff regardless. Jeff’s Jabiru 3300 powered airplane is tail wheel as it happens And he’s one of the best instructors I have ever flown with.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 11:31 am
by Bryan Cotton
karmarepair wrote:Not true. The OP will need the endorsement to get insurance for flying solo in his own plane, but he can log hours of instruction with Jeff regardless. Jeff’s Jabiru 3300 powered airplane is tail wheel as it happens And he’s one of the best instructors I have ever flown with.
I can’t quote the regs so happy to be corrected. When Sonex was offering transition training, they said you couldn’t fly the tailwheel trainer unless you had the endorsement. So I had the impression that the LODAs only allowed transition training, i.e. Jeff could not train a student pilot for hire in his Sonex, or do a tailwheel endorsement in his Sonex.
So if you don’t have an endorsement and you fly with Jeff, can you log PIC time or just dual?
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:16 pm
by MichaelFarley56
Years ago when I went through the process of obtaining a LODA in my Waiex, the rules stated that I was only allowed to offer “transition training” in the Waiex. I was not able to provide training for a license or any endorsement. The thought process via the FAA was that all of those training events could be done in a certified airplane first, and then the same make & model training could happen in the homebuilt.
They did allow the CFI to sign off a flight review as part of the training, however.
You guys raise a good question on the tailwheel endorsement and when it’s required. I don’t remember with 100% certainty that it was written down that a student needed to have the endorsement prior to transition training but I believe that is the intent. Take that for what it’s worth…
I’m not sure if the rules have changed since then as this was in 2015 or so.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 3:30 pm
by Bryan Cotton
And back to insurance - good to start building tailwheel time (and experience) now, locally, so you are insurable. Adam did his first 30 hours in the J3. Finished with about 70, after switching to the 152. When they said he needed 100 total, 50 tailwheel he only needed 20 more tailwheel which he did in the Waiex.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 4:10 pm
by WaiexB22
I am time building in a citabria right now for insurance purposes. Flying without at least liability insurance is not something I am willing to do at this point in my life. I had plenty of total time, but not enough tailwheel.
Since you are local - there is a citabria for rent through aerowood in Monroe KEQY. There are a few instructors there that can get you your tailwheel and you can start to build tailwheel time. IMO all the fun planes have the little wheel on the back…so if you’re going to buy a fun plane whether be a sonex or not, I would suggest building tailwheel time rather than C150 time while you’re renting. I would love to trade some of my 172 nose dragger time in right now.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 6:52 pm
by Skippydiesel
EchoFoxtrot wrote:I think I’m hearing that I should wait and save for a 120hp and not expect to fly off of wet grass. WaiexB22, I’d love to take a look, I’ll send you a PM in a bit here.
A plug for Rotax ;
A Rotax 912ULS(100hp) will cost you more to purchase new (preloved always a good cheaper option).
Will give you cheaper running costs, so saving, (balancing out the initial cost) over time.
Likely deliver greater range/litre burnt.
Will be quieter & smoother in operation and have great resale value.
As a partially liquid cooled engine, is more challenging to get the cooling just right.
Rightly or wrongly the Rotax has the best reputation for reliability, the majority easily exceeding TBO, without costly intervention maintenance.
I would speculate that the Rotax 100 hp, through a reduction gearbox, will easily equal/possibly exceed, the performance of a 120 hp engine.
The downside is; Sonex have only recently “recognised” Rotax as an engine option.
This means that earlier builders have had to come up with their own engine mounting system and cooling strategie (many of which are truly exceptional)
When Sonex decided to change its policy on Rotax, they came up with an engine bed adapter - It does work but is not great, in that it does not control engine movement well.
I understand that recent Sonex plans will include a purpose built Rotax engine bed/frame.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:56 pm
by Bryan Cotton
Skippydiesel wrote:Will give you cheaper running costs, so saving, (balancing out the initial cost) over time.
The Rotax is awesome. But cheaper running costs than what? And does that include reserve for overhaul? The AeroVee burns 4GPH and for $2500 worth of parts you can do a major overhaul.
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 12:19 am
by daleandee
Bryan Cotton wrote:
Skippydiesel wrote:Will give you cheaper running costs, so saving, (balancing out the initial cost) over time.
The AeroVee burns 4GPH and for $2500 worth of parts you can do a major overhaul.
If you like tinkering & maintenance the Aerovee is cheap to fix in most cases as they are simple engines. I’ll make the same claim for the Corvair also. Rebuilds of Corvair flight engines are said to be quite economical and parts are abundant (GM built nearly two million Corvairs). The flight version of these engines are very different from their humble auto beginnings and with viton seals they do not leak oil and they run very cool in these airframes.
My condition inspection is due and usually for the engine that entails changing oil & filter, cleaning the K&N airfilter, compression test, cleaning or replacing plugs and an overall inspection. I get a sample for oil analysis and thus far they have all come back excellent. I did replace the alternator belt last year.
I can’t claim the great fuel burn that Bryan gets with the Aerovee because I burn ~5.6 GPH unless I want to pull it back and cruise slow. I’m not against Rotax but I flew 2 strokes (Rotax) and to me the high RPM of the two strokes & even the 912s don’t sound airplaney to me. Personal choice but a slower four stroke is what my ears like to hear when a plane comes over … unless it’s a radial!
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:10 am
by Kai
[/quote]
The Rotax is awesome. But cheaper running costs than what? And does that include reserve for overhaul? The AeroVee burns 4GPH and for $2500 worth of parts you can do a major overhaul.[/quote]
Bryan,
I might be totally off the mark, but I believe the point Skippy was trying to make is that with the Rotax chances are you don´t have to spend $2500 for an overhaul (every 500 hrs?). The present R912 tbo is 2000 hrs, and more often than not they keep on running happily on condition for years after that. Still, for many leisure fliers neither the fuel burn nor the overhaul costs are the the real show stopper: but we take exception to spending half a (flying) lifetime repairing and replacing parts on more or less bona fide aircraft engines- would´nt it be a nice alternative to spend that time in the air? So in comes the R900-series (truly, they have had their issues in the past as well). I understand that a properly built Corvair is now also on its way to reach the same status. Then you have (the still unproven?) Jab gen4 series. I´m sure there may be more. So in the end it might come down to making up ones mind: do you like working on the engine, or do you like flying?
Re: I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opin
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 4:00 am
by Skippydiesel
Bryan Cotton wrote:
Skippydiesel wrote:Will give you cheaper running costs, so saving, (balancing out the initial cost) over time.
The Rotax is awesome. But cheaper running costs than what? And does that include reserve for overhaul? The AeroVee burns 4GPH and for $2500 worth of parts you can do a major overhaul.
Lets see -
Rotax 912ULS (100 hp) will burn 14L/hr ULP (95 RON $1.90 /L, 98 RON 2.04/L) at 5000 rpm, for an easy 130 knots indicated (137 knots true) at 3000ft.
Rotax require an oil change, 3L/ $19 AU/L, every 100 hrs.
There is a complete rubber change at 5 years (for me thats about $600- $700AU).
Spark plugs are good for 200 hrs - around $85 AU /set.
Nearly forgot - there is a 1200hr gearbox/clutch inspection, which will likly require some new parts - don’t have an AU price, sorry!
Most Rotax will make 2000 hrs and some get well over 3000 hrs, without any major surgery (ie replacing costly parts, extended down time and if you can’t fix yourself, expensive labour).
You do the maths