I believe this is simply an obsession with short term profits and quarterly earnings at the expense of long term sustainability. IMO, Lycoming is deep into this right now, and it has made building massively less affordable.
Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Sonex Closing Down
- Thread starter Snowflake
- Start date
One of the comments (somewhere above) suggested that Van's might take over Sonex as a low end product range filler. Don't think so. In addition to the engineering and logistical problems, there's another aspect: handling qualities.
I've flown two different Sonexes, one with the (late) president of the company. The pitch sensitivity of the Sonex is such that they earned a spot on my do not fly list. On my flight with the president, he said that the plane was tricky to flare, and on landing, to just add a little power instead.
And, yes, I've flown 50+ "makes and models" of homebuilts, 80+ individual airframes, and have flown gliders with no force feedback on the elevators. (At the gliderport, word always went out for a pilot's first flight in the Schweizer 1-35, IIRC. Spectators would line the runway to watch the PIO on first takeoff. Mine was less than others', but still worth the viewing.)
For Kitplanes, I wrote a technically accurate flight review of a Waiex, I believe, concluding with a statement something like, "If you're prepared to accept handling qualities well outside the norm, you can join the ranks of satisfied owners." Or something like that. Boy, was that statement inflammatory -- although correct and I still stand by it. The (late) president of Sonex replied with a rebuttal that was, I believe, slightly longer than the original article, demanding that Kitplanes publish it in its entirety. Don't recall if my editor then flew the Sonex, but he had a friend of his fly one. The friend's comment was substantially more derogatory than what I published.
Contrast this to the RV-14 development, which was held up while Van's tweaked the elevators, or the RV-15 development, in which essentially the whole airframe went through evolutionary development, some parts multiple times.
And it doesn't help that there was a very high profile Sonex "impossible turn" (I think) stall/spin fatality. And, personally, it doesn't help that a good friend was killed in another Sonex stall/spin accident, even though that accident had multiple questionable pilot decisions.
All airplanes have quirks, and so do Van's -- but pilots adapt. And after pilots adapt and have a good owner experience, objective evaluation of their plane goes away. "This is the best airplane ever."
Not to gratuitously disparage anybody, but there's significant aspects that were never really brought out... For many magazines, too much candor means loss of advertising means going out of business.
I've flown two different Sonexes, one with the (late) president of the company. The pitch sensitivity of the Sonex is such that they earned a spot on my do not fly list. On my flight with the president, he said that the plane was tricky to flare, and on landing, to just add a little power instead.
And, yes, I've flown 50+ "makes and models" of homebuilts, 80+ individual airframes, and have flown gliders with no force feedback on the elevators. (At the gliderport, word always went out for a pilot's first flight in the Schweizer 1-35, IIRC. Spectators would line the runway to watch the PIO on first takeoff. Mine was less than others', but still worth the viewing.)
For Kitplanes, I wrote a technically accurate flight review of a Waiex, I believe, concluding with a statement something like, "If you're prepared to accept handling qualities well outside the norm, you can join the ranks of satisfied owners." Or something like that. Boy, was that statement inflammatory -- although correct and I still stand by it. The (late) president of Sonex replied with a rebuttal that was, I believe, slightly longer than the original article, demanding that Kitplanes publish it in its entirety. Don't recall if my editor then flew the Sonex, but he had a friend of his fly one. The friend's comment was substantially more derogatory than what I published.
Contrast this to the RV-14 development, which was held up while Van's tweaked the elevators, or the RV-15 development, in which essentially the whole airframe went through evolutionary development, some parts multiple times.
And it doesn't help that there was a very high profile Sonex "impossible turn" (I think) stall/spin fatality. And, personally, it doesn't help that a good friend was killed in another Sonex stall/spin accident, even though that accident had multiple questionable pilot decisions.
All airplanes have quirks, and so do Van's -- but pilots adapt. And after pilots adapt and have a good owner experience, objective evaluation of their plane goes away. "This is the best airplane ever."
Not to gratuitously disparage anybody, but there's significant aspects that were never really brought out... For many magazines, too much candor means loss of advertising means going out of business.
Nope, 1-35. The 1-26 flew pretty much like a 2-33, and I was unaware of anybody having problems with them. The 1-35 came in both taildragger and nose skid versions and, because of my powered aircraft tailwheel experience, I was allowed to fly both and had no problems with either version.
Last edited:
I confess: we’re building a Zenith 801.
And just to make the old school guys here happy, we got a great deal on a 2000-hour O-320-H2AD from a flying 172 that was being upgraded to 180hp, and we’re doing a dirt simple VFR panel. I think of the 801 as the anti-RV: slow, ugly, a good lifter, and super roomy. You can get a LOT in an airplane if you just give up speed and looks.
It’s the perfect hangar mate for my RV-9A, which nestles nicely under the big fat high wing. And the ugliness is a good thing - you get extra lift and takeoff performance because it’s so ugly the ground repels it.
Attachments
I so agree….when “used” 2 seat homebuilts are regularly selling for $150K+, the notion of “affordable” flying has long since passed. The pilot population that is willing and able to pay these amounts is definitely finite.
Whilst I agree with that sentiment of “affordable flying”, and that the number of people that can afford it is finite, that number has been growing exponentially, hence the price has with it. The US on average minted 1000 new millionaires every single day in calendar 2025. That’s why there are massive waiting lists and stonking ebitda margins being extracted by Cirrus/Gulfstream etc. It’s also why private equity are swarming all over the supply chain. Demand is driving the price, not lack of supply.
The affordable end of our hobby is on the receiving end of it unfortunately.
Whether it’s sustainable or not nobody knows. But the fact that it seems to be occurring in the face of extreme input inflation (US sourced aluminum has increased in price 50% in 18m versus flat in the rest of the world) makes me think it has legs.
Maybe $200 oil might temper things.
Last edited:
I find the biggest problem to selling an airplane is finding hangar space. Hangars near Houston are $500/mon and higher if you can find one. I could sell 5-10 airplanes right now locally, but no place to put them.
There is no shortage of people with deep pockets, but when you tally up the cost, it becomes a less fun hobby.
$500 mo hangar
$5/gal gas on avg of 10gal/hr
$2000 insurance for a low time t/w pilot
$200/yr database subscriptions
$1500/yr condition inspection
$1000/ yr general maintenance and upgrade
$10700/yr if pay cash for the plane and then $50/hr on gas alone.
Average private flyer flys 50 hrs the first year and tapers off to 20-25 hrs by year 4.
Based on 30 hrs per year. Total cost per hour runs around $406/hr to operate the plane.
Throw in a payment on a $90k rv6 at $1500/month, depending on interest rates, and now you are all in at $2500/mon and you are looking at $30200/yr to own and operate for 30 hrs.
$1000/hr is hard to swallow for most sane people. I am not sane, I have 3 planes.
The only thing cheap in aviation is the owner.
Ultralights were the answer back in the 90’s. Buy a used one for $2500, 3 gph gas and $50/month hangars. I owned a bunch of them back in the day.
Unfortunately those days are long gone.
There is no shortage of people with deep pockets, but when you tally up the cost, it becomes a less fun hobby.
$500 mo hangar
$5/gal gas on avg of 10gal/hr
$2000 insurance for a low time t/w pilot
$200/yr database subscriptions
$1500/yr condition inspection
$1000/ yr general maintenance and upgrade
$10700/yr if pay cash for the plane and then $50/hr on gas alone.
Average private flyer flys 50 hrs the first year and tapers off to 20-25 hrs by year 4.
Based on 30 hrs per year. Total cost per hour runs around $406/hr to operate the plane.
Throw in a payment on a $90k rv6 at $1500/month, depending on interest rates, and now you are all in at $2500/mon and you are looking at $30200/yr to own and operate for 30 hrs.
$1000/hr is hard to swallow for most sane people. I am not sane, I have 3 planes.
The only thing cheap in aviation is the owner.
Ultralights were the answer back in the 90’s. Buy a used one for $2500, 3 gph gas and $50/month hangars. I owned a bunch of them back in the day.
Unfortunately those days are long gone.
One of the things I enjoyed most about EAA's Chapter Leadership Academy is the tour of the Sonex plant on the other side of the field. And Mark Schaible is just a good, good guy. He spoke to our EAA chapter a year or so ago and I was close to deciding that now that the RV-12iS is finished, a Sonex would be my third airplane I'd build. It's too bad. Everyone using a commodity is in danger right now.
Attachments
Seriously, realize that Sonex doesn't appear to have been selling much when compared to competition. Although sales numbers tend to be private, registrations are not.
Ron Wanttaja recently posted his annual survey of EAB registrations on another forum. In 2021, there were 532 active "Sonex" registrations. By 2025 it had only risen to 579, a delta of 47. That would be new US registrations less deregistered, EAB only.
Same period, Vans registrations increased by 724, and again, remember, that would be US EAB registrations only. For example, it would not include ELSA, SLSA (i.e. a whole bunch of RV-12's), or foreign registered.
The data also suggests Carbon Cub and Zenair had more EAB completions in 2025 than Sonex did in four years. Rans and Sling were very close behind CC and Zenair.
Yep, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Registrations are not sales, and sales don't always equal profit. Still, we don't need perfect accuracy to see a trend here. Business doing what business does...
Ron Wanttaja recently posted his annual survey of EAB registrations on another forum. In 2021, there were 532 active "Sonex" registrations. By 2025 it had only risen to 579, a delta of 47. That would be new US registrations less deregistered, EAB only.
Same period, Vans registrations increased by 724, and again, remember, that would be US EAB registrations only. For example, it would not include ELSA, SLSA (i.e. a whole bunch of RV-12's), or foreign registered.
The data also suggests Carbon Cub and Zenair had more EAB completions in 2025 than Sonex did in four years. Rans and Sling were very close behind CC and Zenair.
Yep, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Registrations are not sales, and sales don't always equal profit. Still, we don't need perfect accuracy to see a trend here. Business doing what business does...
AeroEngineer
Well Known Member
What a tragedy. The video was very sad to watch. Such a huge impact to the owner and his family. No fun for the employees, either, of course, and then you've got all the builders out there... nobody wins.
And; What a shock. I had always thought that Sonex sold well. Not as well as Van's, of course, but comparably with Zenith and Rans and Sling and Cubcrafters. I guess not!
Now that I think about it, my mistaken perception of Sonex's success was probably due to how much product development they always seemed to have going on: a prototype electric airplane, a jet, the wider "B" models, the Rotax firewall-forward, and now the high-wing, and most of the two-seater jet... That's a lot of new products in just the last 10 or 15 years (during which time Van's developed "just" the RV-14A, 14, and the RV-15 prototype).
As many others have commented: Apparently the market for a work-intensive "old-school" low-budget kit is very small. ("Back in my day, we all built RV-4s the hard way, and there were many of us". Yes, ok, but how many of you would have built a kit with pre-punched holes if that had been an option? Or just bought a used RV-4 if those had been available?).
And: Apparently, nowadays, selling fancy toys to the wealthy is where the money is. (But we have known that for over 20 years, since the rise of Cirrus and of two-hundred-thousand-dollar LSAs. Like Bryan pointed out, the average American has a lot less spare cash today than they did in the 80s and 90s, when you take into account how much things cost and how little income has gone up. Everything is less affordable than it used to be, to a large fraction of the population, so fancy toys of all kinds are more profitable to make than less-fancy ones).
I optimistically imagine that, once the dust settles from all this... plans-built Sonexes will continue to be built, just as EZs and Pietenpols continue to be built. If they really are really good (and simple-enough) airplanes, then the plans and the community might be enough of a critical mass to keep things going for decades. Hopefully the components that are hardest to fabricate (weldments, cowlings, canopies) can be professionally supplied for a reasonable cost... but if the numbers are low enough, then, who knows. Fingers crossed. They seem like really neat airplanes.
I have still not flown in one but now I'm extra curious and will prioritize making it happen this summer.
And; What a shock. I had always thought that Sonex sold well. Not as well as Van's, of course, but comparably with Zenith and Rans and Sling and Cubcrafters. I guess not!
Now that I think about it, my mistaken perception of Sonex's success was probably due to how much product development they always seemed to have going on: a prototype electric airplane, a jet, the wider "B" models, the Rotax firewall-forward, and now the high-wing, and most of the two-seater jet... That's a lot of new products in just the last 10 or 15 years (during which time Van's developed "just" the RV-14A, 14, and the RV-15 prototype).
As many others have commented: Apparently the market for a work-intensive "old-school" low-budget kit is very small. ("Back in my day, we all built RV-4s the hard way, and there were many of us". Yes, ok, but how many of you would have built a kit with pre-punched holes if that had been an option? Or just bought a used RV-4 if those had been available?).
And: Apparently, nowadays, selling fancy toys to the wealthy is where the money is. (But we have known that for over 20 years, since the rise of Cirrus and of two-hundred-thousand-dollar LSAs. Like Bryan pointed out, the average American has a lot less spare cash today than they did in the 80s and 90s, when you take into account how much things cost and how little income has gone up. Everything is less affordable than it used to be, to a large fraction of the population, so fancy toys of all kinds are more profitable to make than less-fancy ones).
I optimistically imagine that, once the dust settles from all this... plans-built Sonexes will continue to be built, just as EZs and Pietenpols continue to be built. If they really are really good (and simple-enough) airplanes, then the plans and the community might be enough of a critical mass to keep things going for decades. Hopefully the components that are hardest to fabricate (weldments, cowlings, canopies) can be professionally supplied for a reasonable cost... but if the numbers are low enough, then, who knows. Fingers crossed. They seem like really neat airplanes.
I have still not flown in one but now I'm extra curious and will prioritize making it happen this summer.
Last edited:
mike_tailwind
Member
Yes, there seems to be a lot of money flowing into the high end of the market. $200K+ EABs seem to be doing OK, and with the price and wait-time on engines, there has to be demand somewhere.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
I've always considered the Sonex to be one of the oddest looking experimentals on the market and limited in scope due to the small engine. Even though I would never consider building one I still regret seeing one of our well-know manufacturers shut the doors.
With the plan's-built community shrinking to miniscule dimensions I can't see how very many builders would consider that route for putting a Sonex in their hangar.
I think plenty of people have the spare cash - they are just spending it differently. People are willingly choosing to drop $80k+ on new trucks, $50/meal on Ubereats, and hundreds of dollars a month on subscriptions for anything you can imagine. All of that is discretionary spending that very well could go into this hobby. They didn't do that back in the 80's or 90s.
The bifurcation of the EAB market mirrors the GA community. There are those who save for monthly $250/hour rental while the other half fly in luxury cabin class airplane. If you care to look, the members of the AOPA board all fly in either PC12, TBM, Vison Jet, or Cirrus.
The lower end of the home built market has disappeared. Engines are astronomically expensive. If one can afford 60-80 grand for an engine, what's an extra 10 grand for a fancier airframe? Thus, the lower end airframe manufacturers are taking a hit.
It used to say on the Van's website, that the best engine option is to take 6-8 grand and convert it into a used Lycoming. Those days were 20+ years ago. A used Lycoming today is $30,000+, if you can find one
It used to say on the Van's website, that the best engine option is to take 6-8 grand and convert it into a used Lycoming. Those days were 20+ years ago. A used Lycoming today is $30,000+, if you can find one
Huh. I've always thought they were pretty close to the RV in the looks department. Even better in some ways. But they are definitely not Vans quality construction. More like they were the higher end of the ultralight scale in terms of finish and performance. Built smaller and lighter than an RV, didn't need a larger engine to get similar performance.
“Get off my lawn”
Things change folks. The aviation industry is fraught with failure and has a long history of that. As Dan H stated, business does what business does…..
Industries, hobbies, and lifestyles change too. It is to be expected and Sonex position isn’t really exceptional.
Things change folks. The aviation industry is fraught with failure and has a long history of that. As Dan H stated, business does what business does…..
Industries, hobbies, and lifestyles change too. It is to be expected and Sonex position isn’t really exceptional.
N10KE
Well Known Member
And $165-250k on a Ducati motorcycle. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/duca...motorcycle-is-already-sold-out-135940211.html
Makes that $500k RV-10 look a lot more reasonable.
Exactly this.
Lamenting the passing of a bygone era is always understandable but never productive. The era of bare aluminum and a turn-and-bank indicator is coming rapidly to a close, and a definitive one. In a world where the human knowledge doubling time has gone from 50 years in 1950 to 8 months in 2025, (estimated at 73 days in some areas like Medicine), we'd all better get used to rapid change because we're just hitting the steep part of the curve.
It seems to me Van’s and Sonex were aimed at different parts of the homebuilt market. Van’s leaned toward builders who wanted something closer to a certified airplane, while Sonex appealed more to the traditional, minimalist homebuilt crowd.
Personally, I never had much interest in building until I saw an RV-8 at an airshow. The all-metal construction and certified-like look hooked me. When I looked at other kits, I was pretty underwhelmed—RVs were the only metal kits that really interested me.
I was basically Van’s target customer. Nice paint and panels are standard in certified airplanes, so it’s not surprising that the same crowd wants that in their Van’s E-AB. I wanted the build experience, but I also wanted an airplane that looked and felt more like something certified. Seeing a video of Van’s doing drop test on the RV-14A to Part 23-type standards really convinced me these Van’s designs were well engineered.
IMHO, that push toward more refined, certification-like E-AB airplanes is a big part of why Van’s has been so successful—much like CubCrafters capturing a big segment of the market with a similar approach
Personally, I never had much interest in building until I saw an RV-8 at an airshow. The all-metal construction and certified-like look hooked me. When I looked at other kits, I was pretty underwhelmed—RVs were the only metal kits that really interested me.
I was basically Van’s target customer. Nice paint and panels are standard in certified airplanes, so it’s not surprising that the same crowd wants that in their Van’s E-AB. I wanted the build experience, but I also wanted an airplane that looked and felt more like something certified. Seeing a video of Van’s doing drop test on the RV-14A to Part 23-type standards really convinced me these Van’s designs were well engineered.
IMHO, that push toward more refined, certification-like E-AB airplanes is a big part of why Van’s has been so successful—much like CubCrafters capturing a big segment of the market with a similar approach
This is the exact same conversation we're having about Motorcycle racing and now Car racing, too. I've been doing it for 25 years and we've watched it deteriorate, along with motorcycle sales in general. I'm new to the EAB world (but not to flying), but it seems we are going down the same path.
Bringing back the old days isn't the problem- you need young people who are interested. Right now all of the "new kids" I fly with at the airline, half of them didn't even know anything about flying until they heard they could make good money and have good time off. No love of aviation outside of a job-very different than the way most of us grew up looking through the airport fence at anything with wings. So it's natural to see that most of the new generation of pilots doesn't even give my RV8 a second glance- they want to learn to push buttons on the Garmin and make the big money.
Hopefully some of that money makes it back to the EAB world.
I do think there's hope for GA in the form of the expansion of the EAB world- Come on down to Florida and small T hangars are $1400 per month with a 2 year waiting list. This more than anything put a crimp in my plan to go back to flying. But being able to do some of your own maintenance and cheaper options for avionics will hopefully give us a shot in the arm.
Ironically, when we do Motorcycle track days, they are sold out with the youngsters and Instagram crowd taking pictures of themselves "racing" and generally enjoying the track experience without the pressure of racing wheel to wheel. The original thought was it would lead to more people signing up for races- but that has NOT happened. The racing continues to decline while the track day market keeps growing.
Shifting priorities is the point- aviation will adapt too. And us old grey hairs will just have to deal with it and hopefully still have a place to go fly!
skylor
Well Known Member
Do you realize that what you said is not possible? By its very nature "the lower end" cannot disappear. It has perhaps changed from what is used to be, but there always has to be a "lower end" to everything. What we are seeing is both inflation at work and a changing demographic of the EAB aircraft community due to growth of the community. Regarding the inflation side, just compare the median home price of today vs. 1995: A quick check on my part shows median home prices in 1995 was ~ $115K vs $410K in 2025. Also, in 1995, EAB kit-planes were a much smaller niche of GA than they are today, thanks largely to Van's aircraft, and this expansion is, in my opinion, largely responsible for the shift in the cost, complexity, and utility of EAB aircraft. As other's have said, things change with time. Get used to it or get passed by...
Skylor
Last edited:
Jerry Fischer
Well Known Member
This is NUTS! JMHO
Jjackh10
Well Known Member
Yea, but with 245hp pushing 390lbs..... I would if I could!
It would be interesting to see what the cost of an RV 7 or 8 airframe would be if Van's used 6061-T6....
Maybe a lower priced basic kit is needed by Van's just backing off of so much labor that they apply to the kit.
As an extra bonus for those that want a polished (save $20K) aircraft, 6061 holds it's shine almost forever if hangared....
Maybe a lower priced basic kit is needed by Van's just backing off of so much labor that they apply to the kit.
As an extra bonus for those that want a polished (save $20K) aircraft, 6061 holds it's shine almost forever if hangared....
The difference in material cost in an RV-7(A) kit between the current 2024-T3 material and 6061-T6 material is about $630 in my back of the envelope calculation.
The current cost of an RV-7(A) kit (empennage $4500, wing $13,700, fuselage $15,100) is $33,300.
The airplane empty weight is 1130 lbs. Subtracting 280 lbs for the engine and 100 lbs for fiberglass, plexiglas and steel parts (estimate) gives an aluminum weight of about 750 lbs.
The interweb cost (upper end of the range) of 2024-T3 is $2.54/lb and 6061-T6 is $1.36/lb. So you would think that the cost saving would be just the difference ($2.54/lb x 750 lb) = $1905 for 2024-T3 minus ($1.36/lb x 750 lb) = $1020 for 6061-T6 = $885.
But, structure design is usually based on the yield strength of the material. The yield strength of 2024-T3 is 50,000 psi and the yield strength of 6061-T6 is 40,000 psi. So the weight of the 6061-T6 airframe would have to be higher to allow for the difference in yield strength. The weight of the 6061-T6 airframe would have to be 750 lb x (50,000 psi / 40,000 psi) = 937 lbs. The cost of this would be (937 lb x $1.36/lb) $1275.
So the difference in the aluminum cost is ($1905 - $1275) = $630. Hardly noticeable in the $33,300 airframe cost. The processing cost between the two materials (handling, punching, shearing, bending and packaging) is the same.
But the useful load would be reduced by (937 lb – 750 lb) = 187 lb, turning the RV-7(A) into a single place airplane.
AeroEngineer
Well Known Member
Ask Van's how many RV-4 kits they have sold over the past several years. (Answer: Very very few. And a decent fraction of them probably became Rockets...). The demand for less-expensive kits that require more work to build is so low, it's apparently not worth meeting.
Lots of RV's, one based Zenith, no CC or Sling's.
But how many are doing it on credit? Consumer debt has grown almost 60% since 2012, with half of that coming Post covid. people are dealing with the large gap between price growth and wage growth by using credit to do it. That can’t really afford an 80K truck, but the lenders have rebounded from the 08 fiasco and handing out credit like candy again.
I am not so sure folks have all sorts of money to throw around. May just look that way as we rebound from the post 08 credit tightening.
Wait…..you mean you can actually own an airplane without a loan…..????
You’re talking all crazy…next thing you’ll be making up stuff about some people own their homes without a mortgage, or their car without a payment…
You 1%-er…you…
Jjackh10
Well Known Member
I don't totally disagree but I'm one data point with a different view. I travel for work and live in my rv most of the time so a truck is part of how I make a living. It makes building unlikely. Last summer I was finally getting to the point of shopping for a Vans RV when my truck began failing. So I had to pay the ridiculous price of a new truck (actually closer to $100k).
Side note, new trucks are crap! I got the same truck 10 years newer. And for that money I got worse fuel economy, moody glitchy electronics, and nanny features that think they can drive better than me. It's like a hot crazy girlfriend, fun to look at, occasionally fun to play with, but most of the time it just makes me mad!
akschu
Well Known Member
Lots of interesting thoughts here… the true answer is that a lot of factors combined created this outcome. The perfect storm if you will. Here is my short list:
Business practice of running on deposits.
The EAB market maturing and becoming more mainstream causing shrinkage for those with less developed kits.
The EAB market shifting a bit to STOL like airplanes.
Covid expanding the wealth gap.
Regulation and other factors have caused housing prices to rise to the point where young people are house poor.
Video games, phones, social media has destroyed the ambition of many.
I bought my EAB kit back in 2008 and am on the ultra slow build because life gets in the way, but I’m glad I bought when I did, because there is no way I could afford it now, and I have a very good job. The issue is that while I make double what I did back then, inflation grew 50%, taxation grew, housing grew, and competition for an aircraft engine really grew.
Market squeeze means survival of the fittest, and Sonex apparently didn’t have a product that could pull them through cash flow problems like vans….
Business practice of running on deposits.
The EAB market maturing and becoming more mainstream causing shrinkage for those with less developed kits.
The EAB market shifting a bit to STOL like airplanes.
Covid expanding the wealth gap.
Regulation and other factors have caused housing prices to rise to the point where young people are house poor.
Video games, phones, social media has destroyed the ambition of many.
I bought my EAB kit back in 2008 and am on the ultra slow build because life gets in the way, but I’m glad I bought when I did, because there is no way I could afford it now, and I have a very good job. The issue is that while I make double what I did back then, inflation grew 50%, taxation grew, housing grew, and competition for an aircraft engine really grew.
Market squeeze means survival of the fittest, and Sonex apparently didn’t have a product that could pull them through cash flow problems like vans….
I am sure much of what we see today is folks dropping down $250K in disposable cash for these planes, or at least a decent portion in cash. My point was that there is a limit to the number of the people that can do that. Once that pool of consumers (acces to cash + interested in plane ownership) is exhausted, what happens? Once you're past the top 5 percent, folks are already struggling with the gap in home price escalation vs wage growth. They can stretch for an $80K truck, but another $250K for a toy is another matter. May be there are enough folks in this net worth class to sustain current prices for many years, but have my doubts. Difficult to tell if this is a trend or an anomoly.
One of the interesting factors in Mark's video was his citing of the secondary market as a threat to the business. I think this is probably going to be - or is - true for Van's as well. In any event, a lot of people are holding a commodity that is at the upper level of its asset value right now. But, as with all commodities, there's a risk that the bubble bursts. There's a fundamental shift in the economy right now and the shakeout of its impact on American life will be enormous.
Best to just enjoy flying your RV and not worry about the future.
Best to just enjoy flying your RV and not worry about the future.
This is the lagest segment that used to buy EAB IMO. Unclear if the current group is a new, sustainable market segment or an inrush / bulge that will some day shrink. Only time will tell; But short term changes in market behavior are not always trend changes.
That exactly summarizes my thoughts!
Well, my experience is different that some. If it were not for Sonex, I would no likely still be involved with flying. I had a boring 172 and was not flying it much. I have my own hangar on my own property so no real cost there. A friend was building a Onex and I helped him with it, eventually flying off all the 40 hours of testing. I liked building so much I bought a Sonex project and finished it and built a Corvair 130 hp engine to go in it licensed and tested to 1320 lb. Loved the onex and the Sonex and my wife and I flew it all over including three trips to Airventure, a round trip of more than 1600 miles. We found it small for us and after a time helping my son in law build his RV10, I decided to get an RV9A, which I also love, but the Sonex was a great plane for me which we flew for over 400 hours, then sold it to a guy in Texas and flew the 900 miles to Dallas to deliver it to him. I built half of another Sonex but did not finish it and sold it to buy the RV9 during Covid. My Sonex flew great as did the Onex. Great planes, both and it is heartbreaking to hear of Sonex's demise.
Ed
Ed
Such people do exist, but we come from a much different era of delayed gratification.
What a great post. It used to be about the joy of flying and keeping things simple, fun, affordable, and rolling up your sleeves and doing things yourself. Now it's more about shiny "video game" avionics, leather interiors that someone else is paid to make, and yet another awful swoopy-lines paint scheme. How much accomplishment is there is signing a check? After 50+ years of flying I still love to go, but I don't get involved in the world of homebuilding anymore. That world has completely changed - for the worse.
Yes they do….and yes we are. In every aspect of our lives, we are different.Such people do exist, but we come from a much different era of delayed gratification.
Amen….and thank you for the kind compliment. Just my fat opinion there….but I am pleased, it resonated , even if only a little, and to a few.
Last edited:
oldrockfan
Member
After several years break in my flying... I just retired early and as promised... I plan to get an airplane. I was totally shocked to learn of Sonex closing just as I was shocked to hear of Vans bankruptcy. So now what is a guy who wants to enjoy his retirement with an airplane? It seems like the number of private pilots is tanking fast and with the skyhigh costs... it is understandable. That video was brutal to even watch... I think the biggest problem is engine cost which has gone thru the roof.
Jerry Fischer
Well Known Member
Our Dads, Grandfathers watched the birth and advancements in aviation, heck, my Dad worked at Champion in Toledo during WWII. I served in the Navy Aviation branch and learned a great deal. I didn't start flying until after my 3 girls were grown and out of college. I started tail-wheel training at 61, built my RV7 over 3&1/2 years in my garage, and invested approx $46K with all new parts from horsetrading, and saving my money so I wouldn't
go into debt. I don't fly anymore due to my recognition of my limitations for a hobby which requires your undivided attention, reaction time and cost of operation.
So, I work with the youth program at my EAA chapter helping young folks learn about this great opportunity to learn more about aviation...Blue Skies
go into debt. I don't fly anymore due to my recognition of my limitations for a hobby which requires your undivided attention, reaction time and cost of operation.
So, I work with the youth program at my EAA chapter helping young folks learn about this great opportunity to learn more about aviation...Blue Skies
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. Thanks
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. Thanks
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…
Delayed gratification - there's a term you seldom here now.Such people do exist, but we come from a much different era of delayed gratification.
Yes, those of us who have heard it and understand it do exist.
I'm currently building a 7A. If I wanted to save money and time, I would have bought a completed plane. The challenge is building one yourself!
I chose the 7 over the 14 due to cost. The 14 would have been quicker to build, but costs more for the kit, and then there's the issue of getting hold of a 390, new or used (or building a worked IO360). The 14 was just a price point too high for my conscience.
Yes, I paid cash for my kits, no loans. I was raised with the firm belief that the only thing you borrow money for is a house. My daughter is currently driving a 21year old car so she can afford her mortgage - I'm proud of her.
As to Sonex, we did look at other kits, the Sonex was just too limited for our mission. It's resale value was also a factor.
At least with the 7, I should get most of my money back when it comes time to move it on.
The joy of building it is the difference and worth every $$.
Last edited:
Taking this a step further: In the mid 80's I went to an early Piper Fly In at Lock Haven. Got a sandwich and sat at a picnic table with a bunch of folks. Turned out to be mostly retired Piper management. Heard the following from a Piper guy. In the late 70's Piper started selling the original Piper Cheyenne. Couldn't build them fast enough. Every year they raised the price 10%. No drop in sales. But after about five years sales STOPPED.
The current situation is unsustainable. Not a matter of if but when.
One only has to look at the period starting at the end of WWII. Record numbers of small airplanes built and sold. Many believed that would go on forever. It ended in 1948. Piper bankrupt, others hanging by a thread.
The future survivers may be similar to the company building the Spirit. The Spirit makes me think of the RV3. The Spirit is no where the RV3 performance but 100 m/h on 1.9 gallons per hour. Rumored to be 69K, no assembly required. Folding wings, put it on a trailer and park it in your garage.
If entry level private aviation is to survive it will be airplanes like the Spirit. Removes Lycoming, Hartzell etc. from the equasion
Jim, that's not a good comparison to today.
I was a brand new Piper salesman when sales stopped in the early 80's. Can't be absolutely sure about Cheyennes but the price of piston Piper models doubled between 1978, the best sales year in GA, and 1983. There were two major factors; a period of runaway inflation, and the influence of the plaintiff's bar.
Here's the actual sales numbers in units...piston singles, piston multis, and total piston (credit GAMA):
Federal Reserve data, inflation:
Very high Fed funds rates were intended to tamp the inflation, but it sure did make it hard to finance an airplane:
There is an excellent Wikipedia page about the legal effect and GARA here. These days owning a trucking company has more liability risk than being a kit manufacturer.
We may be looking at an oil shock right now, but as an economic factor, recent oil has been cheap. Money has been close to free. Inflation has been moderate for a long time, the exception being engines...and engine prices didn't kill Sonex.
Last edited:
oldrockfan
Member
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.
