Advice for New Buyer in MN?

[SonexerToBe]

'A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing'

I am looking to buy a built Sonex in the spring. I am based near Minneapolis, MN and plan to use the plane to fly between Minneapolis and Chicago (~340NM)... as well as for fun.

I am hoping to tap into the forum's experience regarding the following:
- Minnesota (ownership, service availability, maintenance issues, cold weather flying)
- Chicagoland (best airports to fly in/out for air traffic and city access - Is my plan realistic?)
- Plane specification (landing gear & motor selection, preferred options)

I would love to cover all expenses to fly with someone in the Minneapolis area. Message me directly if you fall into this category or just prefer to connect 1:1.

I have started my research but as the opening quote indicates, I am not too proud to ask for help or to learn something new.

Thanks in advance!!!

Sincerely,
Andrew H

[jowens]

Hi Andrew,
I am in the process of building a Sonex in Rochester, MN. If would like to see a sonex in the building process I would be happy to show you where I am at. My wings are more or less complete and the fuselage is close to the wing rigging stage.

Unfortunately, I cannot help with your question on how a sonex flies but do have some thoughts in general:
-Are you currently a pilot?
-What airplane do you currently fly and does this fulfill your mission to fly between Minneapolis and Chicago?
-If the answer is yes to the previous question- what do you want the sonex to do that is different than your current plane (faster, more quiet, lower expense...)?
-Is a two passenger airplane going to fit more mission long term?
-Depending on equipment and engine the useful load of a sonex may be challenging. The empty weight of the airplane may also help indicate any deviations from the plans the builder did, but more likely it is the bells and whistles they chose to install.
-Sonex pilots come in all shapes and sizes, I believe around 5'8" and small is preferable to fitting in the sonex.

If you are purchasing a completed airplane it is a bit more leg work to get a repairman certificate for the airplane versus being the builder. Experience varies on how difficult this certificate is to attain. If you are willing, doing the Condition Inspection (required annually) saves a lot of money and complexity with finding an A&P willing to work on an experimental airplane.

If you purchase a completed amateur built airplane it is highly recommended to find a builder of the same airplane type that would assist you with a workmanship inspection before even considering purchasing the airplane.

If you are going to the class B airspace of chicago and Minneapolis than the ADB-S mandate will be an important factor and expense to consider.

Jim Owens
Rochester, MN

[wlarson861]

I have a tail wheel Sonex with turbo AeroVee. I cruise at altitude @ 142 mph (122 knots). I did a flight plan from Buffalo Muni (KCFE) to Schaumburg (06C) which is 314 nautical miles and in no wind should be a 2hr. 37 min. flight burning 17.3 gal of fuel. Without my aux. fuel tank I would not be able to go non stop. Without the turbo it would take a little over 3 hours and would be non stop but below my fuel reserve minimum. The Sonex is a great traveler if you fit well and don't carry a lot of baggage. But it may not be the best choice if this is a primary mission for the plane. However if this is just a few times a year and the majority of you flying is shorter flights for fun then it's a great choice as it won't eat up the budget as fast as some other designs.

[SonexerToBe]

Jim, Bill, thanks for your replies.

I am attracted to the Sonex because it seems to fit the 80% rule for my expected use. I am 5'7", 140lbs and would be making the Chicago trip on my own with just my laptop and overnight bag.

This will be the first plane I own so I am flexibe regarding the model (within rea$on).

Bill's range calc's are sobering. From the Sonex website I thought the 80Hp engine ranges might cover the distance with ease. Hmm...

Jim, I am in Rochester weekly and would love to catch up. I will PM you to connect.

[samiam]

Remember, Bill's range calc's are based on the Turbo, not the stock 80hp engine. This could be dialed back to increase the range, but realistically the best solution would be some sort of aux fuel.

Truth be told though, if your primary mission is travel, the Sonex might not be the best plane. It is great and can definitely be used for travel, but long straight lines are not what the Sonex does best.

Additionally, most people who travel a lot will want to have their instrument rating - and the Sonex is not a suitable platform for IFR.

[SonexerToBe]

Good point Mike. IFR is in my plan so hmm again.

Too bad as I really like the features and benefits of this platform.

This leaves me wondering what planes you would recommend I compare for this intended purpose?

[andrewp]

>> This leaves me wondering what planes you would recommend I compare for this intended purpose?

A Cessna 182 ;-) ....

Sonex will absolutely go from point A to point B quite well and experimentals are inexpensive to add auto pilots to, but it is close to neutrally stable so it ain't what you want for IFR. But that is what makes it fun to fly.

IFR platform is a whole other set of considerations IMHO.

[vwglenn]

If IFR is your plan, the Sonex is probably not what you're looking for. Often the irony about general aviation is you can't be in a hurry. When you mix hard deadlines with travel in a small plane you can easily be pushed into making decisions which compromise safety. If I was looking for an economical two seat commuter that was capable of being equipped for light IFR work, I'd be looking at the Grumman Yankee series of aircraft.

If you're looking for joy/fun per dollar spent, you won't beat a Sonex.

[andrewp]

What Glenn said.

[Bryan Cotton]

I have friends who do IFR lite in their RV7/7A's. For hand flying probably not the best IFR platform but with the addition of an autopilot it is a decent combination. The RV's have more panel and useful load to work with. An RV6 would probably be good too.

With a direct route of under 300 NM, any IFR certificated spam can could do it also.