SonexBuilders.net

Its interesting. I don't know that I would call the canopy bow a "roll bar" though. It would fold to the turtle deck if you ever went upside down on the ground.
At least it looks like the wings are back in the original Sonex configuration.

I'll be interested to see what this actually looks like. With Sebring only a few weeks away, I would assume the prototype is done, but time will tell.

I can't help but wonder how this thing will fly. After all the talks from John Monnett about the fuselage acting as a lifting body, this new canopy/front end must change those aerodynamics to a degree.

Thanks for the update.

MichaelFarley56 wrote:I can't help but wonder how this thing will fly. After all the talks from John Monnett about the fuselage acting as a lifting body, this new canopy/front end must change those aerodynamics to a degree.

Did you notice the exterior side panels that round the side from the turtle deck to the front of the wing area? He also talks of covers for the canopy frame and lift struts. Not only is he changing the aerodynamics of the fuse but adding weight. With the 70" prop it seems that the landing gear would need to be longer, and it appears different in his mock-up drawings. Lots of changes.

I guess the real question is, if he is such a great designer/engineer ... why don't he just design an aircraft from the ground up that has all his "wonderful" ideas incorporated already?

Curious,

Dale
N319WF

He tried that with the Viking Fit last year. It didn't pan out. Nice idea though. Then the C150. But that won't sell in the US.
I trust he will find his niche. Not sure modifying a Sonex so drastically from the factory specs is the right way. I doubt the Monnett's will support it.

He is the ultimate experimenter, I'll happily give him that title. Unfortunately his customers are in most cases the victims of his failed experiments. This is a perfect example BTW. Now his existing Waiex customers will have to invest in a 'Viking Sport' kit to raise the thrust line of the engine they have already bought to make it work on their aircraft, not sure any of those customers were intending such massive modifications to their airframe when they originally committed to the Viking engine.

daleandee wrote:
Did you notice the exterior side panels that round the side from the turtle deck to the front of the wing area? He also talks of covers for the canopy frame and lift struts.

This project started out as just an engine change and just keeps getting bigger. Jan is doing a fantastic job of illustrating the avalanche of flow on effects that always happen when making any change to a design. One thing always leads to another.

I reckon he'll be extending the wing next :idea:

Steve 892

daleandee wrote:...
Not only is he changing the aerodynamics of the fuse but adding weight.
...
Dale
N319WF

Not a problem, Viking Sonex's seem to magically lose weight over time.
When we initially pushed Jan to finally give tell us the weight of Casey's Sonex back in May 2012, here is what he said:

Jan wrote:Viking Sonex numbers:

Right main - 345
Left main - 343
Tail - 34

Total 722

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Vikingaircraftengines/conversations/messages/1902

Yesterday Jan has added a "Testimonials" page on his website, curiously Casey's Sonex lost a few pounds:

After the Viking conversion, now 714 empty. I still haven't installed the thermostat with the warmer weather. But I estimate it will add about a pound.

http://vikingaircraftengines.com/testimonials.htm

rizzz wrote:Yesterday Jan has added a "Testimonials" page on his website, curiously Casey's Sonex lost a few pounds:

After the Viking conversion, now 714 empty. I still haven't installed the thermostat with the warmer weather. But I estimate it will add about a pound.

I had seen the "testimonials page" and even seen that quote but I didn't connect the dots. Great catch!

Dale
N319WF

I doubt there is any conspiracy about the weight of Casey's plane. Maybe he weighed the plane the first time with a tool bag in the plane, or just weighed with different scales. Lots of reasons for an 8 lb difference.

Some years ago the ultralight part of Oshkosh weighed planes. Just the difference between weighing in the morning and afternoon changed the weight by 10 lbs or so due to moisture condensation in the airframe.

rizzz wrote:

daleandee wrote:...
Not only is he changing the aerodynamics of the fuse but adding weight.
...
Dale
N319WF

Not a problem, Viking Sonex's seem to magically lose weight over time.
When we initially pushed Jan to finally give tell us the weight of Casey's Sonex back in May 2012, here is what he said:

Jan wrote:Viking Sonex numbers:

Right main - 345
Left main - 343
Tail - 34

Total 722

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Vikingaircraftengines/conversations/messages/1902

Yesterday Jan has added a "Testimonials" page on his website, curiously Casey's Sonex lost a few pounds:

After the Viking conversion, now 714 empty. I still haven't installed the thermostat with the warmer weather. But I estimate it will add about a pound.

http://vikingaircraftengines.com/testimonials.htm

Well. Lets do a normal error analysis. The difference or error is 8 lbs. He used three measurements, thus the total error of 8 lb will be:
8 = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^3)
Let's assume he used the same scale: x=y=z:
8 = sqrt(3x^2) or x = 8/sqrt(3) = 4.6 lb
The scale probably go to 500 or 1000, but let's say 500. The accuracy of the scale will be +- 4.6 or +- 0.9% (0.45% if the scale was 1000 lbs) If it was 1 1/2 year between the two measurements, than this is a pretty normal accuracy for a standard scale.