SonexBuilders.net

I have always been a huge fan of John Monnette and I can hear him now, BUT! Give me a moment to explain!

I really want to just clip that edge case were its MVFR or overcast and no precipitation with light turbulence. The reason is I want to do a lot of traveling and it's those edge cases that account for 90% of my delays today. Like here in Georgia you can have weeks of these low nuisance clouds with very little water in them. They are just blocking your "Light Sportness" from getting out to clearer skies.

Technically, its just hooking up one of these Garmin ils-in-a-box to the MGLs and having the nav/collision lights but I wanted to see if anyone had gone to this land of taboo first? Nothing like first hand experience, right? You can PM if you want to avoid the the wrath of your fellow builders :p

I would strongly recommend against trying to do any IFR flying in a Sonex design. The wonderful, light handling characteristics and instantaneous control response that the Sonex enjoys is the exact opposite of what you want in an IFR platform. I certainly wouldn't want to end up in the clouds in a Sonex. There are other designs that are far better suited for that type of flying. Go into the clouds at your own peril.

Sonerai13 wrote:I would strongly recommend against trying to do any IFR flying in a Sonex design. The wonderful, light handling characteristics and instantaneous control response that the Sonex enjoys is the exact opposite of what you want in an IFR platform. I certainly wouldn't want to end up in the clouds in a Sonex. There are other designs that are far better suited for that type of flying. Go into the clouds at your own peril.

Not arguing at all, just asking - why does poor visibility (light IFR to get through clouds to VFR above or below seemed to be the ask) make light control response dangerous? He was specifically asking about low turbulence situations.

JimP wrote:Not arguing at all, just asking - why does poor visibility (light IFR to get through clouds to VFR above or below seemed to be the ask) make light control response dangerous? He was specifically asking about low turbulence situations.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have notice there is a trend on this forum to answer in the negative.

I have flown in several cub clones that are equiped as I described and they were all very pleasant even in moderate turbulence. In fact two are equiped with the MGL auto pilot and it was kind of fun letting it do the flying and you just tweaked the engine and talked to the ATC. When it came to landing you just waited until you popped out of the clouds and you grabbed the stick and landed it like normal.

Something similar in a Waiex would be nice.

I think autopilot coupled to a gps would be mandatory.
I inadvertently flew into IMC conditions on approach to OSH this year. Scared the be BeJesus out of me. Mistakenly thought I could climb out of it. A few minutes in, I decided to do what my instructors told me, turn 180 and head back out. Had I not had my MGL with horizon, and my iPad with my flight path, I can really see how a VFR guy could die quickly.
My personal belief is a Sonex is too tender to be able to hand fly IFR limits. Maybe with a really good autopilot.

fastj22 wrote:My personal belief is a Sonex is too tender to be able to hand fly IFR limits. Maybe with a really good autopilot.

Well, again I wasn't talking about IFR limits. I was talking about MVFR and overcast with no precipitation or convectives. That sheet of low clouds where another 2,000 feet the sun is shining?

That is Georgia for about 80% of the winter months. It's not cold here, just cloudy.

The design of the Sonex offers very light control forces which can be problematic for any sort of IFR flying. A certain amount of your attention will be on non-flying tasks (tuning radios, copying ATIS, briefing approaches) and the last thing you want to see is some sort of unusual attitude every time you look back at the artificial horizon.

Just my opinion but it’s not just light control forces; in general you will find the Sonex to be pretty statically and dynamically neutral in terms of stability. In other words, it goes where it’s pointed, regardless of airspeed, bank angle, etc. In a Skyhawk or Warrior, if trimmed properly, they tend to return to their original path even if bumped around in turbulence a little. This inherent stability allows you as the pilot the chance to divide your attention between flying the airplane and all the other IFR tasks we already mentioned. The Sonex on the other hand would require pretty much 100% of your attention to be focused on just keeping the wings level, and that’s mentally exhausting! You don’t want to be fighting the airplane all the time while following ATC instructions, navigating, etc.

I agree with Joe 100% on this... if you want IFR capability, even a little, the Sonex is not for you. It’s a fun to fly sport plane, not a stable IFR platform.

My two cents; take it for what it’s worth!

MichaelFarley56 wrote:The design of the Sonex offers very light control forces which can be problematic for any sort of IFR flying. A certain amount of your attention will be on non-flying tasks (tuning radios, copying ATIS, briefing approaches) and the last thing you want to see is some sort of unusual attitude every time you look back at the artificial horizon.

Just my opinion but it’s not just light control forces; in general you will find the Sonex to be pretty statically and dynamically neutral in terms of stability. In other words, it goes where it’s pointed, regardless of airspeed, bank angle, etc. In a Skyhawk or Warrior, if trimmed properly, they tend to return to their original path even if bumped around in turbulence a little. This inherent stability allows you as the pilot the chance to divide your attention between flying the airplane and all the other IFR tasks we already mentioned. The Sonex on the other hand would require pretty much 100% of your attention to be focused on just keeping the wings level, and that’s mentally exhausting! You don’t want to be fighting the airplane all the time while following ATC instructions, navigating, etc.

I agree with Joe 100% on this... if you want IFR capability, even a little, the Sonex is not for you. It’s a fun to fly sport plane, not a stable IFR platform.

My two cents; take it for what it’s worth!

Hmmm, thanks for the input. Sounds like fun actually. The Waiex is a 6G airplane and if it goes where I point it that is the plane I want. My Pier Arrow IV I purchased for the boys to finish up their commercial in is fun and all but it doesn't go where I point it. It kind of makes it's own way. I don't think it's even possible to have a bad landing in the stupid thing.

Did you know Bristell offers an IFR package on their LSA? Dan Johnson has a great article on the topic; https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/04 ... in-an-lsa/

Like I said the Cub clones used the exact same 8" MGL and two axis auto pilot sold by Sonex and they handled it just fine. From what everyone is saying it sounds like a great heavy IFR platform to be honest. Just need to plug all those holes in the cockpit where water can come in :p

I just want the Waiex to be my retirement plane. The one that can take me places and nibble on the edges of the bad weather without getting wet. Then the rest of my money can be spent on pretty girls and swank hotels.

subnoize wrote:Did you know Bristell offers an IFR package on their LSA? Dan Johnson has a great article on the topic; https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/04 ... in-an-lsa/

There are plenty of LSA factories that will build their airplane with avionics suitable for IFR flight. We’ve all seen LSA’s being used to practice IFR training in VFR conditions; that happens all the time. Personally I haven’t seen the Operating Limitations of an LSA, but if they say IFR operations are allowed (and there’s no placard on the panel prohibiting IFR flight), then it’s up to the PIC (I think).

The Sonex is certified as an EAB, just like an RV, Lancair, etc. so if you want to LEGALLY fly a Sonex IFR, just make sure your operating limitations allow it and you’re properly equipped per FAR 91.205. It’s easy enough to do if you so choose. Like John said, a good autopilot is a very good idea, and unless you want to deviate from the plans, you’ll have to be cautious of limited panel space and limited fuel quantity (although the B models eliminate those issues).

subnoize wrote:From what everyone is saying it sounds like a great heavy IFR platform to be honest

Please tell me you’re either joking or not talking about the Sonex! So far every response to your question contains the same answer....the Sonex is a BAD choice for ANY IFR flying. Having said that, it’s your money, your decision, and your life.

Good luck!

MichaelFarley56 wrote:Please tell me you’re either joking or not talking about the Sonex! So far every response to your question contains the same answer....the Sonex is a BAD choice for ANY IFR flying. Having said that, it’s your money, your decision, and your life.

Good luck!

Actually only one person read my original question, the guy in the second post.

The rest of you guys aren't answering my question. Try reading the question again.

Thank you.

PS. If what I am asking doesn't make sense to you, please ask me to explain but don't assume things and start lecturing me on things I did not ask.