Sonex: any experiences?

[photofly]

Does anyone here have any first-hand knowledge of the Sonex homebuilt?

[futboler14]

My dad has been building the Sonex Tail dragger since about 2005 off and on.

He will be retiring from CN in December and is looking forward to his retirment project.

We've been to Oshkosh twice now to see their HQ. Very nice people and I'm looking forward to flying it.

I have 3K+ hrs but never flown a tail dragger, so it won't be me making the maiden voyage.

If you want I can PM you his email address. He is always looking to talk about his build. He has pictures and can explain more than I can.

[structurespilot]

From what I've see they are priced well, but they don't go very fast. If your a weekend warrior flying around for pancakes, it would be great. They have come up with a single seat with folding wings, so you can actualy trailer it home. They are testing two new projects, an electric aircraft, and a single seat jet. Two very cool ideas, both in the test flight phase. Check out the website there's lots of good info.

[Colonel Sanders]

they don't go very fast

Except for bragging rights, that's probably the least important characteristic of a homebuilt. Most of them hardly ever get flown anyways - quite often they're crashed on the first flight, the handling scares the builder, the bugs aren't worked out, etc.

When was the last time you saw a worn-out homebuilt on the ramp, with thousands of hours of flight time on it?

[structurespilot]

I just think the builder spends so much time and effort building their A/C, that they don't want to whore it out like a Cessna at a flight school.
Currently in USA there are now more homebuilt aircraft taking to the air each month than certified aircraft. Also if it were not for Homebuilt experimental aircraft creating innovation in avionics, we wouldn't have all the PFD's and glass cockpits that we enjoy now.
Van's Aircraft is an excellent example of a great, well handling homebuild which cruises at 173 KTS on only 180 to 200 hp. Statistics show that the first flight crash comes from a lack of experience on type, and a general lack of flying.
Many builders have spent years building, and neglected to get some training on type, and keep their flying skills sharp.

they don't go very fast

Except for bragging rights, that's probably the least important characteristic of a homebuilt. Most of them hardly ever get flown anyways - quite often they're crashed on the first flight, the handling scares the builder, the bugs aren't worked out, etc.

When was the last time you saw a worn-out homebuilt on the ramp, with thousands of hours of flight time on it?

[Jungle Jim]

Colonel Sanders,

You're talking out of your rear end now! I have a Thorp T18 that is every bit as reliable as any Cessna or Piper product with over 500 hours on it. It has an IO-320 with C/S prop and goes like stink. I did get a proper check out. I try to fly every nice day and it may not get to many thousands of hours in my life time but it is a reliable, honest fun aircraft to fly. You should try one sometime or at least do your research before you jump to conclusions.

Jim

[Colonel Sanders]

I have a Thorp T18 ... with over 500 hours on it

Probably one of the highest-time homebuilts in Canada, as compared to any older Cessna with 5,000 to 10,000 hours on it. Over how many decades was the 500 hours accumulated?

But the point has been missed entirely. I still believe my earlier statement to be true - that except for bragging rights, the speed of a homebuilt is almost entirely irrelevant.

All homebuilt makers lie about how fast their airplane goes, how much it weighs, and how long it took to build. That's a given. Everyone lies about sex, too.

Far more important than the cruising speed of a homebuilt is:

- years (decades) to build
- ease of building (special skills/tools required?)
- cost to build
- handling characteristics

Like it or not, it is a fact that homebuilts have an atrocious safety record, especially with respect to the first few hours of flight. Safe slow-speed handling characteristics are far more important than another 50 knots of cruise speed, because when it gets crashed, it doesn't cruise too quickly after that.

Also, I find it interesting that all the trendy composite homebuilt aircraft have almost totally disappeared, and have been replaced by boring, cookie-cutter all-aluminum construction of tiny, cramped two-seat aircraft with no baggage carrying capability (eg Vans). Note how the Vans aircraft meet the four above parameters.

[Shiny Side Up]

Also, I find it interesting that all the trendy composite homebuilt aircraft have almost totally disappeared,

That's because there's only a small fraction of the population who gets any joy out of working with fiberglass, usually the same fanatics who build their own canoes as well. Its a terrible, messy, smelly, nasty job. Bending metal and popping rivets is relatively easy work and not so frustrating when it doesn't turn out. On that note sewing your own fabric and ironing it also has a certain meditative quality and welding steel is just plain an artform.

[photofly]

What's the stall like on the T-18?

[structurespilot]

Colonel Sanders your ignorance is proven. "All Homebuilt makers lie".
Older Cessnas have been around for how long? 1950, 60, 70, etc... No wonder they have so many hours. I'd take a flight in a RV any day over an old clapped out Cessna.

I have a Thorp T18 ... with over 500 hours on it

Probably one of the highest-time homebuilts in Canada, as compared to any older Cessna with 5,000 to 10,000 hours on it. Over how many decades was the 500 hours accumulated?

But the point has been missed entirely. I still believe my earlier statement to be true - that except for bragging rights, the speed of a homebuilt is almost entirely irrelevant.

All homebuilt makers lie about how fast their airplane goes, how much it weighs, and how long it took to build. That's a given. Everyone lies about sex, too.

Far more important than the cruising speed of a homebuilt is:

- years (decades) to build
- ease of building (special skills/tools required?)
- cost to build
- handling characteristics

Like it or not, it is a fact that homebuilts have an atrocious safety record, especially with respect to the first few hours of flight. Safe slow-speed handling characteristics are far more important than another 50 knots of cruise speed, because when it gets crashed, it doesn't cruise too quickly after that.

Also, I find it interesting that all the trendy composite homebuilt aircraft have almost totally disappeared, and have been replaced by boring, cookie-cutter all-aluminum construction of tiny, cramped two-seat aircraft with no baggage carrying capability (eg Vans). Note how the Vans aircraft meet the four above parameters.

[Colonel Sanders]

Colonel Sanders your ignorance is proven

Actually the shoe is on the other foot. I have flown many, many different types of experimental/exhibition and experimental/amateur-built aircraft including first test flights.

Also, I was unimpressed with the North American P-51D (in your avatar) when I flew it decades ago. With that thin wing it was fast and God it was flatulently noisy, but couldn't turn worth beans. I was really glad I didn't have something maneuverable like an armed Mitsubishi A6M on my tail when I was flying it.

[Beefitarian]

So have you flown the sonex or are you just in the thread to give the guy a hard time?

[rv6a]

I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as an RV6A builder & owner, I have to disagree with much of what has been said. Mine has over 600 hours accumulated over nine years. It would have more than that but I work full time in a non aviation job. Stall speed is 54 knots at full gross, and 75% cruise is 172 knots. I normally reduce power to save fuel for a cruise of 150 knots, and that is the speed I put on the prop card at fly-ins. Build time was 2700 hours over a 5.5 year period. You may call me a liar but those are the real numbers.

Yes, it is not as spacious as some of the four seater certified aircraft, but it is plenty comfortable for two of us. Baggage space has never been a problem, and we are able to pack (legally) enough clothes and camping gear for the trips we take. It has taken us safely across Canada, up north, and into the US several times.

It didn't crash on the first flight, and hasn't fallen out of the sky since then. None of the other ten or so RVs on our field have crashed either, so I'm not sure how someone can say "most homebuilts crash on the first flight". At least two of these other RV's have significantly more hours on them than mine. It may be "cookie cutter", but there are lots of options to personalize them through paint schemes and panel options.

I don't find it boring to fly. It is maintained better than some of the certified aircraft on our field, and is far more affordable. Not only that, I can go out for some light aerobatics which is something I couldn't do when I had a 172.

And to stay on topic, there is a Sonex at a field north of here. I don't know much about it as far as performance, etc. but it hasn't crashed yet either.

Sorry for the rant. I normally just lurk and don't post, but sometimes it's just too much to hear opinions stated as fact.

[rigpiggy]

Also, I was unimpressed with the North American P-51D (in your avatar) when I flew it decades ago. With that thin wing it was fast and God it was flatulently noisy, but couldn't turn worth beans. I was really glad I didn't have something maneuverable like an armed Mitsubishi A6M on my tail when I was flying it.

thing is the japanese fighter wouldn't be on it's tail as they were 30-80 kts slower, allowing the P51 to choose when to engage. Also the Japanese fighters tended to blow up after a short burst versus the punishment that the american fighters would take.. Apologies for thread drift

[Colonel Sanders]

sometimes it's just too much to hear opinions stated as fact

You don't have to believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebuilt_aircraft#Safety

The safety record of homebuilts is not as good as certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.[4]

The accident rate for homebuilt aircraft in the USA has long been a concern to the Federal Aviation Administration.

What part of the above is "opinion" as opposed to "fact"?

Homebuilts have a horrible safety record. They are not flown very much, and when they do, they are responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of accidents.

My most recent experience with a Sonex - this one was NOT flown by me - was one that lost control on landing and smashed up the VASI lights next to the runway. I kept it in my hangar until the guy arranged for it to be trucked home in pieces.

[Buschpielot]

Is it just me or does Colonel Sanders sound a lot like Hedley?

[photofly]

Hedley wasn't a card-carrying member of the liberal party.

[RenegadeAV8R]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebuilt_aircraft#Safety

The safety record of homebuilts is not as good as certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.

Homebuilts have a horrible safety record. They are not flown very much, and when they do, they are responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of accidents.

But why are the homebuilts involved in a higher percentage of accidents than the certified light aircraft?

Is it because they are incorrectly built?
Is it because the design is incorrect?
Is it because homebuilts require different piloting techniques?
Is it because the pilots are inexperienced?
Is it because the pilots lack recent flying experience?

Most homebuilts takes several years to built and it is very possible that a large percentage of homebuilder do not fly very much during the construction phase of their homebuilts aircraft, and is also possible that several of them do not have an extensive flight experience to start from. And the homebuilders with the least flight experience have probably only flown one type of aircraft; the one used to get their licence... several years ago. Some builders are also probably more attracted by the building than the flying.

So what is the problem? The homebuilts aircraft themselves? Or is it the lack of experience/knowledge/proficiency of the pilots?

I do not have an answer to photofly's question, but it is wrong to bash the homebuilt segment of aviation without providing explanation.

[Shiny Side Up]

So what is the problem? The homebuilts aircraft themselves? Or is it the lack of experience/knowledge/proficiency of the pilots?

Ultimately its a combination of one or more of all of the above. In my experience there is a wide spectrum when it comes to the quality of the work, and you'll find a lot of guys who think they're the next Burt Rutan. Call up Murphy and ask them about how many ways people have randomly modded the Moose. The pilot/builders themselves run the gamut in ability experience as well, and I know of a few guys who figured they were going to be Clyde Cessna and teach themselves to fly the airplane they built (but often what they forget is that Clyde crashed his first airplane he built at least 16 times before he came up with the final design of the progenitor of all Cessna aircraft). You get all sorts. I remember when I was a lot younger there was a fellow who came to the lumberyard where I worked determined to pick through the piles to find some spars for his own aircraft design - but when the boss asked him if he wanted some custom cut pieces, he said he didn't want to pay a lot of money for the two pieces of wood that he was I would assume going to trust his life to. Now I know that's probably at the extreme end of the scale, but they are out there.