I think a secondhand Sonex is right for me, Seeking Opinions

[T41pilot]

Thanks guys! Great insights so far. I will mention that though I rent a -150, I did my first 45 hours in an AA-5 which requires you to actually fly it. Baggage weight and space are virtually not a concern because all the XC would be to places where we could permanently stash a suitcase and a toothbrush. I think I'm hearing that I should wait and save for a 120hp and not expect to fly off of wet grass. WaiexB22, I'd love to take a look, I'll send you a PM in a bit here.

I've been flying my Turbo Aerovee off a 2600 ft grass strip for the last couple of years. I'll mention that I installed 500x5 tires so that it would taxi better in grass. The bulk of my TO/Landings have been on grass also. Might be an issue with 80 Horse but the Turbo does fine even at gross simulated with bags of rocks instead of a person. I've recently completed the phase one testing and my plane will be going up for sale in a week or two. I'm already looking forward to the next build. My B model has lots of extras including a finished baggage area. Once I get an Ad put together, I'll post on Facebook and here. I have yet to get pictures of all the goodness before I post.

[karmarepair]

Insurance.

Get in touch with Jeff Schultz (see his web site to find his email) and budget for a full weekend, maybe two with him to get Time In Type/Transition Training. He is in Central Missouri.

[Bryan Cotton]

Insurance.

Get in touch with Jeff Schultz (see his web site to find his email) and budget for a full weekend, maybe two with him to get Time In Type/Transition Training. He is in Central Missouri.

Good point. My insurance company required my son to get to 100 hours total/50 hours tailwheel before I could put him on the policy. If you are serious about tailwheel get the endorsement soon and build some hours.

If you don't have a tailwheel endorsement I don't think Jeff can instruct you in his Sonex. One of the limitations of experimental instruction.

[karmarepair]

If you don't have a tailwheel endorsement I don't think Jeff can instruct you in his Sonex. One of the limitations of experimental instruction.

Not true. The OP will need the endorsement to get insurance for flying solo in his own plane, but he can log hours of instruction with Jeff regardless. Jeff's Jabiru 3300 powered airplane is tail wheel as it happens And he's one of the best instructors I have ever flown with.

[Bryan Cotton]

Not true. The OP will need the endorsement to get insurance for flying solo in his own plane, but he can log hours of instruction with Jeff regardless. Jeff's Jabiru 3300 powered airplane is tail wheel as it happens And he's one of the best instructors I have ever flown with.

I can't quote the regs so happy to be corrected. When Sonex was offering transition training, they said you couldn't fly the tailwheel trainer unless you had the endorsement. So I had the impression that the LODAs only allowed transition training, i.e. Jeff could not train a student pilot for hire in his Sonex, or do a tailwheel endorsement in his Sonex.

So if you don't have an endorsement and you fly with Jeff, can you log PIC time or just dual?

[MichaelFarley56]

Years ago when I went through the process of obtaining a LODA in my Waiex, the rules stated that I was only allowed to offer "transition training" in the Waiex. I was not able to provide training for a license or any endorsement. The thought process via the FAA was that all of those training events could be done in a certified airplane first, and then the same make & model training could happen in the homebuilt.

They did allow the CFI to sign off a flight review as part of the training, however.

You guys raise a good question on the tailwheel endorsement and when it's required. I don't remember with 100% certainty that it was written down that a student needed to have the endorsement prior to transition training but I believe that is the intent. Take that for what it's worth...

I'm not sure if the rules have changed since then as this was in 2015 or so.

[Bryan Cotton]

And back to insurance - good to start building tailwheel time (and experience) now, locally, so you are insurable. Adam did his first 30 hours in the J3. Finished with about 70, after switching to the 152. When they said he needed 100 total, 50 tailwheel he only needed 20 more tailwheel which he did in the Waiex.

[WaiexB22]

I am time building in a citabria right now for insurance purposes. Flying without at least liability insurance is not something I am willing to do at this point in my life. I had plenty of total time, but not enough tailwheel.

Since you are local - there is a citabria for rent through aerowood in Monroe KEQY. There are a few instructors there that can get you your tailwheel and you can start to build tailwheel time. IMO all the fun planes have the little wheel on the back....so if you're going to buy a fun plane whether be a sonex or not, I would suggest building tailwheel time rather than C150 time while you're renting. I would love to trade some of my 172 nose dragger time in right now.

[Skippydiesel]

I think I'm hearing that I should wait and save for a 120hp and not expect to fly off of wet grass. WaiexB22, I'd love to take a look, I'll send you a PM in a bit here.

A plug for Rotax ;

A Rotax 912ULS(100hp) will cost you more to purchase new (preloved always a good cheaper option).
Will give you cheaper running costs, so saving, (balancing out the initial cost) over time.
Likely deliver greater range/litre burnt.
Will be quieter & smoother in operation and have great resale value.
As a partially liquid cooled engine, is more challenging to get the cooling just right.
Rightly or wrongly the Rotax has the best reputation for reliability, the majority easily exceeding TBO, without costly intervention maintenance.

I would speculate that the Rotax 100 hp, through a reduction gearbox, will easily equal/possibly exceed, the performance of a 120 hp engine.

The downside is; Sonex have only recently "recognised" Rotax as an engine option.
This means that earlier builders have had to come up with their own engine mounting system and cooling strategie (many of which are truly exceptional)
When Sonex decided to change its policy on Rotax, they came up with an engine bed adapter - It does work but is not great, in that it does not control engine movement well.
I understand that recent Sonex plans will include a purpose built Rotax engine bed/frame.

[Bryan Cotton]

Will give you cheaper running costs, so saving, (balancing out the initial cost) over time.

The Rotax is awesome. But cheaper running costs than what? And does that include reserve for overhaul? The AeroVee burns 4GPH and for $2500 worth of parts you can do a major overhaul.