Sonex Closing Down

[lr172]

engine prices may not have killed sonex but they sure as heck are a contributing factor to slow sales. When a high performance 450hp corvette engine cost half of what a 180hp air cooled aircraft engine designed in ww2 era cost... something is seriously wrong with aviation engine pricing.

While painful for buyers, there is nothing really wrong here. Just simple supply and demand. Lycoming almost doubled prices and still have a 2 year wait. Can you really blame them? The problem is simply too much demand. Sure, lyc could ramp up capacity, but why do that with a captive market with little competition and knowing the bubble will burst some day with no way to recoup the capital for capacity expansion. Vans is a great example of what can happen when chasing accelerating demand and that didn't even involve a slow down. It costs a lot of $ to ramp up capacity and in todays market, you need models that show ROI on that expansion and you need some revenue continuity to get there. Many are very unsure if the recent run up in engine sales is a bubble or trend change. Lyc has been around long enough to know better.

Necessity is the mother of invention and at some point the eab community will need to invest in alternative engine work.

 

[RVbySDI]

While painful for buyers, there is nothing really wrong here. Just simple supply and demand. Lycoming almost doubled prices and still have a 2 year wait. Can you really blame them? The problem is simply too much demand. Sure, lyc could ramp up capacity, but why do that with a captive market with little competition and knowing the bubble will burst some day with no way to recoup the capital for capacity expansion. Vans is a great example of what can happen when chasing accelerating demand. Lyc has been around long enough to know better.

Necessity is the mother of invention and at some point the eab community will need to invest in alternative engine work.

Lycoming is in high demand because the alternatives that once were have one by one been eliminated. Lycoming’s fortune is due to the consolidation of manufacturers. Whether they created the monopoly or not is irrelevant. The fact is they are now reaping rewards from the buyouts and closers that have occurred in the past decade.

 

[justa6ereh]

I wander how many people are holding back on placing an order because of fear of bad timing and not wanting to take the chance on loosing it?
When I purchased my first kits, I had full confidence I would receive them. When you got a call from Barb saying they were ready to crate, once payment was sent you would get notified that your shipment was sent within a week. The next build shipment followed by payments by perhaps three weeks. The third build this jumped up to over a month.
Now I hear it’s much more. Something doesn’t feel right within me with this. I’m on the fence about a 15, this is weighing heavy on me. Also I see deposit have gone from 25% to 35%. If the deposits are not being used for working capital, why the increase? ( I could be wrong on this one)
I owned a manufacturing company for 33 years and deposits were never used for working capital . I also would return deposit if the order was cancelled before the production slot, if requested.( never had many and someone wanting out and not let out, will not have good words for your business.
My rant for the day. Thank

IF…I were a company with a lengthy history on producing air cooled engines…AND had a faltering product line and no obvious solution…AND had the available technology, talent and motivation to focus on rather narrow focused business models…I would have to seriously sit down with my leadership structure and analyze
The possibility of basically copying what already works…

Which is to say: If I were the president of Harley Davidson Motorcycles…looking at my product line shrinking and seeking a high alpha opportunity…I’d sit down with a few folks and an O-360 perhaps…and say “okay guys…60 days we will tear down and digest this engine completely” the intent is to closely copy this engine…improve on a few nagging odds and ends by listening to some of the serious types with solid input….and in 18 months I want to be at Oshkosh with an engine for half the current list price of Lycoming…

after Lycoming got done wetting down their leg, as they watch their monopoly shrink….we would be back to a competitive engine opportunity…and at that point, we should never turn our back on that second source.

But that’s me. Of Course Porsche…could do it….Rotax could do it…a whole bunch could…

 

[RossK]

But that’s me. Of Course Porsche…could do it….Rotax could do it…a whole bunch could…

Porsche have tried, 1981 - 1991. Spent somewhere between $8m - $20M and sold 80 units.

It's obviously not as easy as we think.....

 

[justa6ereh]

Porsche have tried, 1981 - 1991. Spent somewhere between $8m - $20M and sold 80 units.

In all fairness…Porsche chose a silly model to pursue…ie…FAA certification and on a single aircraft model. As opposed to say, a 360 cubic inch, non-certified ONLY for experimental….

Had they done that….they would be the world leader in aircraft engines today, most likely.

 

[skylor]

In all fairness…Porsche chose a silly model to pursue…ie…FAA certification and on a single aircraft model. As opposed to say, a 360 cubic inch, non-certified ONLY for experimental….

Had they done that….they would be the world leader in aircraft engines today, most likely.

Well, Superior sold clone engines and seems to have failed. Same with ECI. If it were easy, it would have successfully been done by now. And I don’t think Porsche would be the company to produce “affordable”aviation engines. Have you priced their cars lately, particularly the somewhat lower volume models like the 911?

One problem that folks seem to be ignoring in this discussion is that manufacturing is insanely expensive rignt now. The cost of labor is expensive and not all that produvtive these days. Raw materials are expensive. Liability insursnce is expensive. Energy is expensive. Shipping is expensive. Machinery is expensive. It’s easy to point our finger at companies like Lycoming for the high cost of aviation, but the reality is that it costs a fortune to produce a complex product these days especially relatively low volume ones.

Skylor

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Wow.

I have to disagree with most all of that post.

Though I don’t quite have 50 years in yet, I chose to build because it was challenging, not simple. Solving problems IS fun.

Affordable means something different to each and every person; there is no “standard” of affordability…and whining about others writing bigger checks than you are comfortable with, is childish.

I chose a -10. I’d say that project qualifies as “rolling up my sleeves”…for well over 3000 hours.

Yes, I have nice avionics but I would not call the G3X a video game…and yes, I prefer a nice leather interior to a couple of boat cushions.

As far as the “awful swoopy paint job”, I have a couple of scallops as a nod to the ‘30s paint schemes. I have NEVER had someone call it “awful”. I certainly did not want my -10 to look be a plain vanilla white with a stripe. As always, beauty is in the eye…

Yes, the world of aviation continues to change as it always will…well except for those ancient, stupid expensive engines that you need to wait years for but overall, it is MY opinion that there are FAR more opportunities available to builders now than there used to be.

Thats a good thing.

Good news is that you can do you and never build another; I, otoh, am starting another. I will enjoy every minute of it…

The biggest difference between the past and the present is now people think there's only one way people should live and enjoy their life and any straying signals a character defect

 

[MacCool]

The biggest difference between the past and the present is now people think there's only one way people should live and enjoy their life and any straying signals a character defect

...and warrants death threats on Instagram/Facebook.

 

[lr172]

IF…I were a company with a lengthy history on producing air cooled engines…AND had a faltering product line and no obvious solution…AND had the available technology, talent and motivation to focus on rather narrow focused business models…I would have to seriously sit down with my leadership structure and analyze
The possibility of basically copying what already works…

Which is to say: If I were the president of Harley Davidson Motorcycles…looking at my product line shrinking and seeking a high alpha opportunity…I’d sit down with a few folks and an O-360 perhaps…and say “okay guys…60 days we will tear down and digest this engine completely” the intent is to closely copy this engine…improve on a few nagging odds and ends by listening to some of the serious types with solid input….and in 18 months I want to be at Oshkosh with an engine for half the current list price of Lycoming…

after Lycoming got done wetting down their leg, as they watch their monopoly shrink….we would be back to a competitive engine opportunity…and at that point, we should never turn our back on that second source.

But that’s me. Of Course Porsche…could do it….Rotax could do it…a whole bunch could…

I agree whole heartedly! I still struggle to see why no company does this. The only things that come to mind are the historic ups and downs of the aviation market relative to others (hard to stomach for under capatilized start ups) and the perceived liability associated with this industry. Real or perceived it is there. Go to most any shop and ask them to do work on your part that came from an airplane. That fear is deeply ingrained. Heck, the only tort reform Congress has issued, to my knowledge, is GARA and it has little teeth.

 

[Steve]

Well, Superior sold clone engines and seems to have failed. Same with ECI.

I don't view ECI as a failed company nor does Continental or their parent company, AVIC, Aviation Industry Corporation of China. While they no longer sell kit engines, their Titan engines are viable alternatives to Lycomings at about 75% of the cost of a Lyc and a delivery time about half that of Lyc.
ECI also has FAA PMA so Cessnas, Pipers, etc, may have ECI parts inside their engines.

 

[DanH]

If it were easy, it would have successfully been done by now.

Consider we just saw the introduction of the Spirit SE-1...a ready to fly developed from scratch, including a proprietary engine. Read Steve Wood's account of how they developed the engine in the March issue of Sport Aviation. The consultants were indeed a Harley guy, and an engineer from Southwest Research, the nice folks who did our recent filter tests.

An opinion, but the most difficult puzzle piece in developing a Lycoming competitor is probably finding vendors for some components. It's been a constant headache for Superior.

Continental was on a track to vertical integration with European facilities and the new plant in Mobile, but I've lost track. I saw a few pieces of world class equipment doing trial runs six years ago at Mobile's grand opening, but further plant updates have been scarce.

 

[Jonnyb]

Engine prices are crazy, and show no signs of abating.

 

[justa6ereh]

Consider we just saw the introduction of the Spirit SE-1...a ready to fly developed from scratch, including a proprietary engine. Read Steve Wood's account of how they developed the engine in the March issue of Sport Aviation. The consultants were indeed a Harley guy, and an engineer from Southwest Research, the nice folks who did our recent filter tests.

An opinion, but the most difficult puzzle piece in developing a Lycoming competitor is probably finding vendors for some components. It's been a constant headache for Superior.

Continental was on a track to vertical integration with European facilities and the new plant in Mobile, but I've lost track. I saw a few pieces of world class equipment doing trial runs six years ago at Mobile's grand opening, but further plant updates have been scarce.

I think one of the problems, is that Superior lacks an actual focus, solely on Experimental engines…their product line came about as a result of PMA business. So the accountants are always going to govern towards…more of this….less of that…when profit is being analyzed. As Lycoming and Continental spare parts has seen price increases, spares have become quite lucrative…more so than entire engines.

I have a Superior engine and it has proven to be at least as good as any Lycoming I’ve ever owned. In todays world of manufacturing we still seem to focus on the “that’s just how ya do it” philosophy, which causes a lot of the hassle…crankshafts, camshafts as examples…those could and should just be designed as billet hogouts…with no need of forging at all…same with rods. The investment in a couple pieces of specific equipment BY SUPERIOR…and the outsourcing issue is resolved forever. the machines are happy running lights out and cost is relatively more easily controlled.

Tort…Lawsuits are what has and continues to be the ruination of this industry. if we fixed that…the rest would be easy. Just in my humble opinion mind you.

 

[RVbySDI]

Well, Superior sold clone engines and seems to have failed. Same with ECI. If it were easy, it would have successfully been done by now. And I don’t think Porsche would be the company to produce “affordable”aviation engines. Have you priced their cars lately, particularly the somewhat lower volume models like the 911?

One problem that folks seem to be ignoring in this discussion is that manufacturing is insanely expensive rignt now. The cost of labor is expensive and not all that produvtive these days. Raw materials are expensive. Liability insursnce is expensive. Energy is expensive. Shipping is expensive. Machinery is expensive. It’s easy to point our finger at companies like Lycoming for the high cost of aviation, but the reality is that it costs a fortune to produce a complex product these days especially relatively low volume ones.

Skylor

All competitors sold “clone engines”! Superior, Mattituck, ECi, all of them sold “Lyclones”! That WAS the competition that Lycoming faced. As for ECi, they did not fail. Their founder decided to retire and sold to the highest bidder. The employees wanted to keep the business running but had no say. Some employees went to work for Continental when they bought it. However, the problem with ECi and Continental was the fact that Continental did not want to continue selling the engines as they were designed by ECi. They just wanted their market. They destroyed all existing inventory at purchase. Changed any ECi designs to their current existing designs (i.e. got rid of the ECi designed fuel pump, etc.). They bought a brand (TITAN) but not the product.

I really think these big companies do not completely think through these kinds of decisions. The suits look at short term values without exploring some of the important long term value they can achieve if they just step back and address a handful of other options at their disposal. These decisions have fed directly into the hands of Lycoming. Instead of Lycoming having to do something about their competition, they could just sit back, bide their time, keep production making a profit until the competitors, one by one, fight amongst each other until they all are gone. Then “low and behold” - there was one! YIPPEE!! We have our monopoly and we didn’t even have to be the bad guy to get it!

 

[71459]

What was Van's original intent behind his designs? Does anyone remember? I think it spoke to how a flying enthusiast of average means could obtain a high performance personal "sport plane" that they otherwise could never afford. It's that simple. Is the spirit behind that concept alive and well these days?

 

[MacCool]

What was Van's original intent behind his designs? Does anyone remember? I think it spoke to how a flying enthusiast of average means could obtain a high performance personal "sport plane" that they otherwise could never afford. It's that simple. Is the spirit behind that concept alive and well these days?

That was 50 years ago. Things have changed. This thread appears to illustrate how much.

 

[Dugaru]

Necessity is the mother of invention and at some point the eab community will need to invest in alternative engine work.

I'm wondering if we'll see more market entrants like Spirit with the SE1. They designed and built their own engine!! Admittedly it would be a little harder to do an IO-540 clone, but it's not like the underlying technology is particularly advanced.

 

[N8DAV8R]

What was Van's original intent behind his designs? Does anyone remember? I think it spoke to how a flying enthusiast of average means could obtain a high performance personal "sport plane" that they otherwise could never afford. It's that simple. Is the spirit behind that concept alive and well these days?

All of the references I'm familiar with as to the original intent behind the design seem to focus on the concept of 'Total Performance'. Van describes the goal as being an aircraft that had sporty control appropriate for aerobatics, fast speeds, and the ability to operate from short fields. That's what the articles and quotations all point towards.

I think people have inserted the "otherwise could never afford" part on their own. The fact that these airplanes could be built cheaper than the cost of a buying a new and equivalent certified aircraft is an obvious logical consequence and benefit. That being a benefit is different than saying it was the intent behind the design.

We still see this intent across the Van's lineup today. The design intent is performance based. This is fairly obvious when taking an objective look at the product line. it's also evident from comments that Van has made more recently about how anything less than 200+ HP 6 cylinder is inappropriate for a 4 place airplane. The focus is on building high performance aircraft and it always has been.

 

[rocketman1988]

The biggest difference between the past and the present is now people think there's only one way people should live and enjoy their life and any straying signals a character defect

Yep. Feel bad for the people who have given up and are hustling existing rather than living.

I often hear, “Have a great day”; I find that it makes more sense to “Make it a great day”.

It is within your control to make it a great day…

 

[JoopSJ]

Paul Bertorelli does a perfect job explaining why we don't have an alternatieve for lycoming.

 

[Snowflake]

What was Van's original intent behind his designs? Does anyone remember? I think it spoke to how a flying enthusiast of average means could obtain a high performance personal "sport plane" that they otherwise could never afford. It's that simple. Is the spirit behind that concept alive and well these days?

That's still strictly true... You can't buy a certified sport plane with similar performance for the cost to build a Van's.

 

[N8DAV8R]

That's still strictly true... You can't buy a certified sport plane with similar performance for the cost to build a Van's.

The Aura Integral R is a good illustration of this, being just similar enough to an RV-14 at roughly 2X the cost...give or take.

 

[jrs14855]

I agree with Kyle…somewhere along the way this whole vibe changed. It stopped being about having a ball…and more about one upsmanship…the planes got heavier and bigger engines…and more one upsmanship…I recall the first time I saw an rv-4 tip the scales over 1100lbs…loaded to the gills with radios, leather everything (Corinthian no less).

And then the nose wheels started showing up…and while I’m not intentionally knocking that move…it changed again…the vibe. The feel and texture of the RV and the crowd.

What we are seeing is the death of general aviation, as we know it…no young people influxing into our ranks. No late nights of building and building and building and figuring out all the myriad of things not spoon fed with 51% kits. Bloody fingers, scratched heads…but back then…even if your plane was kinda crappy…you could say…” well…..I made those mistakes myself”…


(I happen to be a truly CRAP painter…and have made several less than stellar messes on that front)


Now don’t take me wrong…..I like everyone. I like anything that flies…and anyone that flies…but without young people, this dies.

Without cheap entry points, this dies. Without the crotchety old instructor and a Champ or Cub, supplementing his retirement….this dies. No ripped tee shirts on a crusty wall somewhere…GA is being left behind for gadgets and bells and whistle to “go places”



I’ve made up my mind on a few things….i’m reaching to kids and making them go for a rides. And it ain’t about radios or Garmins or autopilots or anything….it’s about look at the mountain….this is a roll….that’s a stall…..GET YOUR HAND ON THE STICK:!!! Feel it in your back-side…YOU CAN DO THIS!!!


So….who can we blame?? Blame ourselves.

We need to stop aggrandizing what we do. It’s not that important and too many times when I visit a place…I suffer through listening to pilots tell people how hard it all is….and generally convincing new guys that it’s gonna take forever and cost an arm and a leg….and the only way to do it, is to get to the airlines….


I learned from a mean old cuss….but he was cheap. I didn’t and still don’t want to be an airline pilot. But I want to have people feel what I feel in my heart when I fly…the Joy…the sense of accomplishment….the pride and the desire to share it. I tell kids…ANYONE can learn to fly these things. Anyone can find a way to learn.

So here’s my two cents worth…plans are plentiful and if Van’s went under tomorrow…you can still build an RV-4 or 6 from plans. In some ways…I wish the kit business never happened…because all you are doing, is paying someone to do something you could have done yourself….and I have. And in fact I am now…building from scratch again. No kit required. What is required is patience and diligence and tenacity….and those are traits I’ve earned from home building.

Tom Poberezny Sr. Would be proud of what he started…and I will be just a little bit critical now…Forums such as this, exist to share knowledge. And I see a lot of stupid questions….and I’ll define stupid as those questions that have already been answered repeatedly, but a person is too lazy to do their own research to answer themselves. Too much of that here.

Sorry to vent….I feel bad for the Sonex guy…but not really….he took orders for things he didn’t have and he was under-capitalized and shouldn’t have done that. He screwed over some folks along the way…and they should be mad and mad at him. And he should have learned the golden rule of business…_ NEVER ever…trust a bank.

As for Vans…he was a man with a dream…and he left his company in the hands of some bad business guys. If it weren’t for his personal ethics and money…he could have let it die. I’d suppose it will die in the future because no one else is like him.

Driven. That’s the man.


Risk…? Terms not even in his Language. Same as John Monnett…made a living for himself, till an inferior guy took it over…what John and Van and every successful business owner understands…cannot be understood by a normally employed person….You bleed for your business…it takes from you as human being. It’s not fun…it costs you a part of your life, to make others happy, giving up some of your own happiness.


We…all of us….choose to let General Aviation die….or we choose to pick up broken pieces and build, which is to say…you and I all….best get busy grabbing a neighbor for a ride, or introducing a young person as to just how amazing this all is….If you watch and nod your head but the word “liability” is the first thing popping into your mind….you and I are not cut from the same cloth.

It’s time we change. And we better do it now. Next year is too late.

Finally someone who truly understands. Thank You. The current cost situation on all levels is not sustainable. My first EAB was built from scratch and cost $2200 in mid 60's. I flew it for years before I had a comm radio, No transponder. Last July I paid $2000 for a rebuilt magneto.

 

[wirejock]

I read on AvBrief there were potential investors. Maybe someone will keep Sonex alive.

 

[SonexGuy]

I scratch built my Sonex over 5 years 3 months. I put in an AeroVee engine and have been flying it for 12 years. It's been from Boston to Oshkosh and back three times, and I do aerobatics nearly every time I fly. It cruises at 4.5 gph at 100 kts. It cost me a grand total of $28,000 for airframe engine avionics, absolutely everything! It was the only way I could afford to keep flying. Renting was too expensive and too difficult to get an aircraft when you wanted it.

It was inexpensive, easy to build, and easy to fly. It's absolutely necessary to have an airplane like that in the market. Vans learned they can have a profitable business if they went back and completely changed their business approach. I hope Sonex may be able to do the same, somehow.

Like most everyone, I'm rooting for them!

 

[Dugaru]

Finally someone who truly understands. Thank You. The current cost situation on all levels is not sustainable. My first EAB was built from scratch and cost $2200 in mid 60's. I flew it for years before I had a comm radio, No transponder. Last July I paid $2000 for a rebuilt magneto.

That cost level does still exist, though - in fact, you can get flying much cheaper than that $2200 when you factor in inflation, and the sweat equity that went into yours.

$2200 in 1965 is about $22,000 today. A used Sonex or Zenith 601 could definitely be in that neighborhood, especially with no comm radio or transponder (and thus comparable to yours). And no sweat equity required. If potential sweat equity is among your assets, you can also find projects for much less than that of course.

>>MODERATOR EDIT: Removed point-out to 3rd party aircraft sales website pointing out a non-RV aircraft for sale.<<

 

[gasman]

Take in a one ton Ram Diesel (a friend) for it's 100K service..... $2,500.00

 

[jrs14855]

That cost level does still exist, though - in fact, you can get flying much cheaper than that $2200 when you factor in inflation, and the sweat equity that went into yours.

$2200 in 1965 is about $22,000 today. A used Sonex or Zenith 601 could definitely be in that neighborhood, especially with no comm radio or transponder (and thus comparable to yours). And no sweat equity required. If potential sweat equity is among your assets, you can also find projects for much less than that of course.

>>MODERATOR EDIT: Removed point-out to 3rd party aircraft sales website pointing out a non-RV aircraft for sale.<<

That cost level does still exist, though - in fact, you can get flying much cheaper than that $2200 when you factor in inflation, and the sweat equity that went into yours.

$2200 in 1965 is about $22,000 today. A used Sonex or Zenith 601 could definitely be in that neighborhood, especially with no comm radio or transponder (and thus comparable to yours). And no sweat equity required. If potential sweat equity is among your assets, you can also find projects for much less than that of course.

>>MODERATOR EDIT: Removed point-out to 3rd party aircraft sales website pointing out a non-RV aircraft for sale.<<

I don't want a used Sonex or Zenith. The Pitts engine that was available new outright for $4000 in 1977 is now $112,700. Your numbers are way off. 4K in 77 corrected for inflation should be $21,569 today NOT $112,700.
A careful shopper today can buy a used airworthy Pitts S1Cfor around 40K. O 360, prop wheels and breaks etc are worth more than 40K.

 

[skirting_virga]

Take in a one ton Ram Diesel (a friend) for it's 100K service..... $2,500.00

Price gouging and middlemen are our national religion.

 

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

There's another aspect to the price consideration as well -- capability. I fly my little toy RV-9A IFR, all over the country, and outrun all kinds of spam cans Fifty years ago, that capability was unheard of in experimentals. And while I like some of the inexpensive low and slow single seaters, hangar plus insurance plus annual inspection (if you have to hire it out) can easily be 30% of the purchase price. The whole economy went bonkers since the COVID economic fiasco... and yes, I lost a friend to COVID.

 

[gemivnet]

Sad to hear about Sonex. I briefly looked at them when debating between the RV-12iS and Sling 2 but didn't find their offerings appealing as I was looking for something more up-market. I've always been interested in the SubSonex though, and this explains why there's been no additional information on the two-place jet. I would have been a buyer if it had come to market.

Regarding the rest of the discussion in this thread, being only three months into active involvement of this hobby, I don't have much of value to add about the past, but I do find my position in this a bit funny. I'm young and building an RV-12iS with an Evoke paint job, all in around $210k (the demographic mentioned multiple times by others in this thread). Could I have gone cheaper with a used engine or a different kit? Sure. But I wanted a modern, well-equipped airplane, not the cheapest path into the air. If I'm going to trust my life to something, I don't mind paying for reliability, support, and good avionics. For roughly double what a 60-year-old plane with steam gauges would cost, I'm getting something brand new and built myself.

And it's not just about the finished plane. I want to build. That's as exciting to me as flying. Once this one's done, a Sling TSi is next.

 

[Dugaru]

The Pitts engine that was available new outright for $4000 in 1977 is now $112,700.

We’ve moved from $2200 in the mid 60s to $4000 in 1977, and I’m… not following.

 

[Dugaru]

It cost me a grand total of $28,000 for airframe engine avionics, absolutely everything!

That is fantastic!

That’s about $2700 in 1965. People love to go on about the good old days, but you’ve proven that the dream of airplane ownership is still alive at the same prices available in the mid-60s. Well done.

 

[DanH]

That’s about $2700 in 1965. People love to go on about the good old days, but you’ve proven that the dream of airplane ownership is still alive at the same prices available in the mid-60s. Well done.

Yep. A moderator took down a previous post, but I have a complete project available right now, for $15K, with engine, prop, panel, etc. True enough, it's not a new Lycoming, and it would be a terrible cross country airplane, but those are issues of capability. I have a lot more cash in my RV-8 than any of my previous flying machines, but I learned with all of them, and had a whale of a good time. The -8 just offers more capability.

I had $12,000 in this one when I flew it to OSH and collected a gold Lindy. That's $23,911 today.



BTW, in terms of affordability, what something costs is the difference between acquisition cost and sales price. The RV-8 may be the most affordable airplane I've ever owned. I had about $105K in it at completion, November 2010. The CPI calculator says that $105K is worth $156,818 today. Checked the price of a nice fastback 8 lately?

 

[skirting_virga]

I had about $105K in it at completion, November 2010. The CPI calculator says that $105K is worth $156,818 today. Checked the price of a nice fastback 8 lately?

I think that's what people are complaining about. The cost of things they value is rising faster than CPI inflation. Whether CPI inflation has been "gamed" to understate actual inflation is a whole can of worms, but it's clear that things seem to be more expensive than we expect them to be. I've heard this referred to as "asset inflation" where things like real estate and airplanes are up a lot in comparison to commodities. I certainly notice it.

I doubt you could build the same RV-8 for 156,818 today. Engine prices are a huge chunk of that. Just your engine, with the Vans discount, is 65k.

 

[DanH]

I doubt you could build the same RV-8 for 156,818 today. Engine prices are a huge chunk of that. Just your engine, with the Vans discount, is 65k.

You're right of course. Both airframe kits and engine have risen more than the CPI. If the 2006-2007 dollars spent for airframe and engine are adjusted to current value, I would be about $30K short to build new.

However, that doesn't change my proposition, to wit, I can get my entire investment back tomorrow, in inflation adjusted dollars. Sure, I've paid insurance and maintenance and fuel and hangar costs and ate a lot of steak with my RV buddies...but the airplane itself is on track to cost me nothing.

Ahh, but the concern is the current and future builder? Consider...right now, right here, we have a dozen, maybe two dozen RV-15 projects being built because the builders expect a profit.

 

[Carlos151]

Ahh, but the concern is the current and future builder? Consider...right now, right here, we have a dozen, maybe two dozen RV-15 projects being built because the builders expect a profit.

It's already started on the Facebook RV-15 builders page. Two RV-15 wing kits supposedly listed for sale with a "make me an offer, skip the line" posting.
Building, if you can call it that, for all the wrong reasons IMHO.

 

[airguy]

Yep. A moderator took down a previous post, but I have a complete project available right now, for $15K, with engine, prop, panel, etc. True enough, it's not a new Lycoming, and it would be a terrible cross country airplane, but those are issues of capability. I have a lot more cash in my RV-8 than any of my previous flying machines, but I learned with all of them, and had a whale of a good time. The -8 just offers more capability.

I had $12,000 in this one when I flew it to OSH and collected a gold Lindy. That's $23,911 today.

View attachment 114252

BTW, in terms of affordability, what something costs is the difference between acquisition cost and sales price. The RV-8 may be the most affordable airplane I've ever owned. I had about $105K in it at completion, November 2010. The CPI calculator says that $105K is worth $156,818 today. Checked the price of a nice fastback 8 lately?

I had $110k in my IFR 9A when it first flew in Jan 2016 - with just over 2000 hours on it today it's worth considerably more.

 

[jrs14855]

We’ve moved from $2200 in the mid 60s to $4000 in 1977, and I’m… not following.

2200 was the total cost of my first Tailwind, completed in 1964. The 70's comment s were regarding my first Pitts S1S completed in 1977', In 1977 I was also helping a friend with a Starduster II. I helped him get a NEW 0 360 for $4000.

 

[Dugaru]

2200 was the total cost of my first Tailwind, completed in 1964. The 70's comment s were regarding my first Pitts S1S completed in 1977', In 1977 I was also helping a friend with a Starduster II. I helped him get a NEW 0 360 for $4000.

I think you’re making my point - right now you can get a Tailwind project with an engine for $18K (I can’t link it here) so things haven’t actually changed much from 1965, given that $2200 in 1964 is about $23K today.

So what you did in 1964 is totally doable today at the same price, maybe even less when you factor in sweat equity.

You are right that new engines are much higher in constant dollars, at least from what I can tell, but “new engines” and “budget flying” have rarely gone together. Same with “new airplane.”

 

[DanH]

2200 was the total cost of my first Tailwind, completed in 1964. The 70's comment s were regarding my first Pitts S1S completed in 1977', In 1977 I was also helping a friend with a Starduster II. I helped him get a NEW 0 360 for $4000.

Jim, yes, it's a sore spot! $4000 then is $22,500 now, and the current Vans price for an O-360 is $47,200.

However, it has nothing to do with the failure of Sonex. It says folks will pay more if the product is good enough, and won't buy the less desirable, even if cheap.

 

[jrs14855]

I think you’re making my point - right now you can get a Tailwind project with an engine for $18K (I can’t link it here) so things haven’t actually changed much from 1965, given that $2200 in 1964 is about $23K today.

So what you did in 1964 is totally doable today at the same price, maybe even less when you factor in sweat equity.

You are right that new engines are much higher in constant dollars, at least from what I can tell, but “new engines” and “budget flying” have rarely gone together. Same with “new airplane.”

That 18k project appears to be a old airplane. The 0 290G engine is one issue. I see many other potential problems just from the photos.

 

[Dugaru]

That 18k project appears to be an old airplane. The 0 290G engine is one issue. I see many other potential problems just from the photos.

I tried.

 

[RV7 To Go]

I considered the Sonex before deciding on the RV7 for my first build. I didn't like the useful load or the prop hub and cylinder head VW engine issues I read about on the Sonex. I feel sorry for the builders left holding the bag at the moment. The bankruptcy of Sonex leaves one less option for home builders.

I built my 7 for $85K CDN finished in 2017. Partially started kit, used O-360 engine (rebuilt), used FP prop, new Dynon VFR panel, new Flightline interior and pro paint job. I finished my 2 year build on my 8 last year for $100K CDN ($72K USD) using the same philosophy. Partially completed (25%) kit, used IO-360 (rebuilt), used interior, seatbelts etc (thanks VAF!) new AFS VFR panel, new Whirlwind CS prop and home brewed paint job. I could have saved $20K USD with used avionics and a FP prop but chose not to. Many people today have the desire and means to build a high dollar plane. I think a more economical RV can still be built if you have the mind set and the patience. It won't win a Lindy but it will put a smile on your face.

 

[simpsontl48]

The writing is on the wall...and it does not look good for the long term. Buyer beware.

 

[DanH]

Sonex is not even a leaf on your tail.

 

[Jjackh10]

Sonex is not even a leaf on your tail.

But is it this?

 

[Jerry Fischer]

I scratch built my Sonex over 5 years 3 months. I put in an AeroVee engine and have been flying it for 12 years. It's been from Boston to Oshkosh and back three times, and I do aerobatics nearly every time I fly. It cruises at 4.5 gph at 100 kts. It cost me a grand total of $28,000 for airframe engine avionics, absolutely everything! It was the only way I could afford to keep flying. Renting was too expensive and too difficult to get an aircraft when you wanted it.

It was inexpensive, easy to build, and easy to fly. It's absolutely necessary to have an airplane like that in the market. Vans learned they can have a profitable business if they went back and completely changed their business approach. I hope Sonex may be able to do the same, somehow.

Like most everyone, I'm rooting for them!

To quote one Paul Poberezny: "Freedom to create and Build..to dream..to fly"..nuff sed

 

[rockwoodrv9]

Just visited the space museum and saw a very nice Sonex on display. It was sad to see it there so nice while hoping the future is good news for all the experimental industry.

 

[enterprise]

On the 2 seat jet, at Oshkosh 2 years ago I was talking to Mark about the high wing and asked about the jet. He said he only had 5 remaining deposits on it and had decided to just cancel the project and refund them. Having to use the same engine with that much more mass meant it was just a trainer for the one seat and not really able to be used for anything remotely practical which I think was the communities hope. Their either needed to be a more powerful larger motor available (not the short cycle overhaul pumped up one they explored) or do what they did on the unmanned twin. That doubles the engine cost though and fuel capacity is already a major issue with the design. Looking back there is probably some could have would have should have on this project as the high wing seems where that development time should have gone, but we all have made the same mistakes of going down rabbit holes that seem great at the time.