Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jartz

Member
I?m going to a Sonex Fly-In at Crossville, Tennessee, this weekend. I?d be interested in hearing thoughts any of you have regarding the Sonex.

My interest in the Sonex is because it is light sport, aerobatic, and can be built in a tailwheel version. The light sport aspect is required for me; the others merely interest me.

Please keep your comments factual, and constructive. I?m not asking you to compare it directly to an RV-12 because they?re so different (e.g., aerobatic, tailwheel).

I?m just wondering if there are things, good or bad, that you?ve noted that I could or should look for or ask about.

As I?ve said elsewhere, I don?t know whether I will eventually build, restore or buy an LSA, or none of the above. Just seeking information here.

Thanks in advance,
John

P.S. No flames please; I don?t fit my USAF-issued Nomex suit, early ?70s model, anymore, so I?d really be defenseless. :)

P.P.S. to Doug or other moderator: If this is too far off-topic, I apologize. It's just that I trust this community to be knowledgable, candid and fair.
 
smurf planes

Every time i see a sonex I cant help but smile. They are cute little planes, but..just my non technical review...they just dont have the cool factor that I would want in a plane your going to spend a long time building. The Zodiac 601 qb is supposedly one of the fastest qb to build and will meet the lsa. If you look at some of the 601's professionally built with glass they can look pretty good. Just seems with so many lsa out there that sonex would dress it up a little more. Ever seen the fold a boat ads. Good little boat, just looks kind of goofy.
 
I've built a Monnett design (Moni Motorglider) and have inspected quite a few Sonex and one Xenos that just recently made it's first flight in Sulphur Springs, TX. Monnett's designs are very good as are his kits. The only negatives I can think of is that the cockpit is pretty tight for 2 people and luggage space is small.
 
I can't speak to the Sonex, but I am currently conducting the test flights on the Xenos that Mel inspected for us. The kit quality is pretty good but it is not as complete as a Van's kit. The Xenos is a motor glider and flies a little differently, but handles nicely. With the Jabiru 3300 it will make 138 mph IAS at WOT, cruises at 119 mph IAS at 2750 rpm. The stall is 43 mph IAS and it lands as easily as my RV4. Best glide is 52 mph IAS with a 250 fpm sink rate and a 24:1 glide ratio. The downsides are limited interior space and almost no panel room. If I was looking for the least expensive LSA qualifying kit that is a simple build and inexpensive to operate, the Sonex with the 80 hp AeroVee or Jabiru would be at the top of my list.

Jim Lewman
RV4 N934RV
 
Last edited:
We have two chapter members who have just completed theirs. (That would be two Sonex's, one each.)

Both have the AeroVee engine up front. Both are tail dragger standard tail aircraft built for the same reasons you are looking at them.

Both pilots report better handling than what was reported in Kit Planes or what ever magazine panned them.

One guy built his from scratch, only purchasing the weldments. The other built his from the kit. Interestingly enough, the scratch built one only took 1 1/2 years to complete and looks great!

The instrument panels are a challenge and the trick setup seems to be the Dynon D180 w/ a GPS and those small European radio and transponders. Costly but they fit in the panel.

Attention to detail and lightness is critical on this airplane, much more so than on the RV's.

I can't wait until they get their time flown off so I can to for a ride.

BTW, both builders are small guys. My 5' 11", 215 lbs butt wouldn't fit in there very well with another guy my size. Cabin space reminded me of my old T-craft. i.e., overlapping shoulders.

PS. The scratch builder said his total cost, including engine & instruments was around $25K.
 
Last edited:
Jartz said:
I?m going to a Sonex Fly-In at Crossville, Tennessee, this weekend. I?d be interested in hearing thoughts any of you have regarding the Sonex.
Click to expand...

You might talk to Bill von Dane, who sometimes lurks on this site (assuming he's recovered from his motorcycle accident enough to email:[).

Although I have no personal experience with the Sonex, I recall Bill being fairly heavily involved at one point.
 
Sonex Impressions

Rode in and flew a Sonex (Jabiru 3300) last month here in Lees Summit, MO. It was the builder's second Sonex and construction was excellent.

Impressions:
Cockpit is roomy for one, very tight for two six footers...I rode with my left arm in the baggage area...OK for 30 minutes, but I don't like riding sidesaddle!

Jabiru 3300 ran smooth and has plenty of power for this plane.

Ailerons felt great-very close to RV in feel. However, elevator felt sensitive in pitch-not bad, but took a few minutes to get comfortable and not 'porpoise'.

Rode in an RV8 an hour later. Both the Sonex and the RV8 have light stick forces. However, all controls in the RV8 had that great RV balanced feel vs the sensitive elevator feel of the Sonex.

Summary-good plane for the money, but I'd rather have an RV.
Mike
 
To me it breaks down like this:

Pros:

Very Inexpensive
Light sport
Aerobatic

Cons:
Ugly
Small
Not as proven design as the RV's. (I could be wrong on this one...)

I've considered the Sonex as a first kit plane. At the end of the day the RV is just more airplane for your money.
 
teookie said:
I've considered the Sonex as a first kit plane. At the end of the day the RV is just more airplane for your money.
Click to expand...

Same here. I was really looking at the Sonex, but decided to go with an RV because it is more airplane and looks way better (my opinion). The downside is that it's going to cost a lot more.
 
Sonex

I'm just starting year four on my Sonex Project. Based on my time availability, I think I should get it done sometime this winter or spring. I'm building from the kit and have been extremely happy with all parts included. The kits being sold today are even more complete then when I bought mine.

I've flown quite a few times in other builder's completed Sonex's...both TriGear and Taildraggers. My only comparison is with a Cessna 152 and the cockpit room is very similar. shoulder room is very comparable. Getting into each is equally easy, but the Cessna is much easier to get out off, but now that I've gotten into and out of mine a few time, it is much easier. The controls in the Sonex are much lighter then the Cessna, but after 5-10 minutes and a very light touch on the controls, it settles right down. My first stall in a Sonex was quite dramatic as I wanted to over-control.

The Sonex factory support has been excellent. My only recommendations is that you keep any "custom" modifications to yourself or other builders. You'll learn very quickly that John Monnett is very opinionated. Not a bad thing and he committed to his designs. Don't expect to get a Demo ride on a factory airplane, but not that there are quite a few completed (186 last time I checked) you should be able to find one nearby.

The plans are some of the best in the industry. There is a builder's manual, but I call it more of a builder's checkoff manual. All details are in the plans.

There are vary active Yahoo! Groups for the Sonex. SONEXTALK, SONEXPLANS, and SONEXBUILDERS. The first two being monitored by the factory.

Hope to see you at the Crossville gathering. I've been driving over from NC for the past 4 years and this promises to be the biggest one yet! :D

--
Michael Crowder
Sonex #293
Cary, NC
http://www.mykitlog.com/mcrowder
 
Sonex...

Very nice gentleman (neighbour)took me for a ride in his plans built Sonex several weeks ago... I was very impressed. He was about 6' and I am about 5'11" and while it was snug, it was not uncomfortable. Jabiru 2200 was a smooth running little engine that provided adequate power at close to all up weight. Climb was about 6-700 fpm under fairly warm conditions here in Toronto. He did not seem to be unhappy with his engine choice.
I flew it for several minutes and found it responsive but reasonably stable...no trouble staying on altitude. Landing did not seem to be difficult or demanding in the light wind conditions we experienced. It has limited deflection on the tailwheel so the owner mentioned that you had to be wary of situations requiring tight turns.
Also the wings can be detached quite easily if one wished to work on it at home... nice feature I think.
Price looks to come in under $30,000 unless you go with the bigger Jabiru 3300 engine.
All and all, unless you are doing long cross-countries, its worth a look. :)
 
I almost purchased a sonex kit, but went for the RV-4 (based more on gut feeling than anything else I must admit :) ). As been said earlier in the thread, the RV-4 is more airplane for the money even though it cost more initially. Well, that is not entirely correct, the prices for the kit is more or less the same, but the RV requires more tools and a much more expensive engine when comparing to the Aerovee, not very much different when comparing with the Jabiru 3300 or even the Jabiru 2200.

So, my impression is that with the Aerovee, the Sonex is great value because it is so cheap. With the Jabiru 3300, which is a must if you are to get even close to the RV in performance, the cost of that engine is 16,000 US$ minimum and the second hand value is very questionable compared with a Lycoming or clone.

Another thing is that the Sonex kit is entirely different from the RV-4. The RV is more like a conventional aeroplane, while the Sonex is designed from the ground up to be as quick and easy to build as possible. Einstein once said ".. make it as simple as possible, but not simpler". IMO (i must emphasize that it is my personal opinion only), is that the Sonex ended up being too simple with no finesse whatsoever in any detail. For instance, the rudder is hinged with piano wire on one of the skin surfaces only, which is OK structurally and works OK in practice, but it makes me think "why did you have to do that ?"

One more thing to keep in mind is that the Sonex uses stainless steel pop rivets. Stainless steel + aluminum combined with salty atmosphere is bound to corrode the aluminum. This is a fact, and SS + Alu is a textbook example of a metal combination you do not want in marine and coastal environment. Inland and even in fresh water in boats, this is no problem whatsoever, and will last forever. However, the Sonex can also be made with bucked rivets which is what it initially was designed with as I understood. The problem one will face with that solution is that it is a deviation from the "Monett philosophy", and you are completely on your own.

Reading what I have wrote, it sounds like I am trashing the Sonex. This is not my intention. I am just pointing out some factors that was important to me, but could be irrelevant for most others.
 
AeroVee? More OT.

mrreddick said:
I'm sure there are forums out there for your interests but please, try to keep thisw site for RV flying, building, questions, etc.
Click to expand...

Allow me to respectfully disagree. I enjoy reading the insights of RV builders who have considered other designs and decided on an RV. Additionally, some of us are thinking about our next project and we might consider straying from the RV fold, especially as we enter retirement and keeping costs down becomes important.

Which brings me to the AeroVee engine. Its great virtue is price. Can anyone verify that it indeed puts out 80 hp? That seems fantastic inasmuch as it really is a VW engine at heart. How do he do it? Robert Hoover has stated that he can't get much more than 50 hp out of a VW. What keeps the aluminum heads from turning to slag at 80 hp? I can't imagine two guys flying around behind a VW engine on an airplane with such small wings. I saw a Sonex once. I nearly tripped over it. :D (Just kidding!)

Another airplane that has caught my fancy is the Thatcher CX-4. http://www.thatchercx4.com/ Pros: it is good looking and looks like a good flyer. VW powered single-seater. Nice looking wing. Meets light sport criteria. Con: only one example has flown. The wing spar has undergone a major strengthening upgrade. Flight testing is informal and not well documented. It is built from plans, but some parts are available. Might be one to consider after a dozen or so have flown. Now back to the RV.
 
I didn't read all of the posts so if this is a repeat, my bad.

All of the negatives mentioned I agree with. One that was not mentioned was the VERY poor forward visability. If they spent just a few bucks more and built a nice, clear canopy they would improve it alot. JMHO. It is something you can get used to I suppose, but it was bad in the one I flew in.


Happy flying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.