Sonex + Rotax = Sontax?

[bakfly]

Have anybody looked into the D-MOTOR LF 26 as an alternative for the aerovee engine.
The D-Motor is almost 50lb (24kg) lighter, produce 92hp at 3000rpm and almost 89hp at 2800rpm. It is Liquid Cooled can run on 95 octane or Avgas and fit on an Jabiru engine mount.
My nose-wheel Sonex is a bit nose heavy and a bit less weight on the nose would help and I can carry more load.
Cost almost AU$21000.

Peter Bakker,
Sonex 1430 Aerovee 2.1
Done 86hrs.

[phenry]

I have been watching the D-Motor for a very long time and it is a very interesting motor, I really like the simplicity. I have a nose wheel Waiex with an Aerovee and when the fuel gets low with two up the retreating COG makes flying very interesting. The D-motor would in my case make this worse. The cost is really up there especially in Australian dollars. As much as I like the D-Motor I think for the money a Rotax 912 would be a better fit.

[rizzz]

Have anybody looked into the D-MOTOR LF 26 as an alternative for the aerovee engine.
The D-Motor is almost 50lb (24kg) lighter, produce 92hp at 3000rpm and almost 89hp at 2800rpm. It is Liquid Cooled can run on 95 octane or Avgas and fit on an Jabiru engine mount.
My nose-wheel Sonex is a bit nose heavy and a bit less weight on the nose would help and I can carry more load.
Cost almost AU$21000.

Peter Bakker,
Sonex 1430 Aerovee 2.1
Done 86hrs.

Hi Peter,

If you have the standard Odyssey PC625 battery, you could swap it for one of these to get a bit less weight on the nose:
http://www.ballisticparts.com/category.php?cPath=141

I used to have the 16 cell version, it was probably a bit over the top for the little Subaru starter on my VW, I now have the 12 cell version and it does just as well (420amps of cold cranking power is plenty).
At only 2.4lbs for the 12 cell and 3.5 for the 16 cell, they're significantly lighter than any lead acid battery. Also important to note is that these are lithium phosphate iron batteries, much more stable and safe than the common lithium ion batteries (which an objection against the use of lithium batteries in aviation).

The only thing about them is, never let them run flat, they're dead once you do (I found out the hard way, that's when I swapped my 16 cell for a 12 cell).

[bakfly]

My Odyssey PC625 battery is fitted behind the seat in the luggage area.

[ViennaVA223]

Peter Anson:

I'm slightly confused by your post. Did you mean that, with a 60-inch prop, you had 3 inches less prop-ground clearance than Steve with his 57-inch prop? I would think that would give you 1.5 inches less clearance. Did standard tires reduce the prop-ground clearance another 1.5 inches (versus Steve's 5:00 X 5 tires)?

Also, regarding "you land in a tail low attitude," have you NEVER made a wheel landing in your Sonex? I would think that being able to do so should be in the toolbox of every tailwheel pilot. For example, I once had a tailwheel fall off (the vertical pivot bolt crystallized) during takeoff in a Super Cub; someone alerted me via radio that it had happened. I could have landed three-point, dragging the remaining leaf springs through the turf, but a wheel landing improved my directional control and perhaps prevented aircraft damage.

To those who have recommended the CAMit 3300 versus the Jabiru 3300, yes, the CAMit definitely looks like it incorporates several important improvements! I have not ruled that engine out.

I'm also very keen to hear how the AeroVee Turbo performs on premium auto gas. For both financial and environmental reasons, I'd rather burn premium mogas than 100LL. As I understand it, Sonex is still testing the AeroVee Turbo on mogas. And I'm still waiting to hear actual high-altitude performance data--WITH THE AIRPLANE TAKING OFF AT FULL GROSS WEIGHT.

FWIW, the ULPower engines--especially, for me, the 130-hp UL350iS--also look attractive, and the weight's right for the Sonex. One clear downside, I think, is that the engines are fairly new and don't have the field history that the AeroVee, Jabiru, and Rotax have.

Bryan Cotton: I've not considered the RV-12 because it's expensive, not aerobatic, and only comes with the tailwheel at the wrong end. LOL
Yes, I am a huge tailwheel snob. That's just what I am.

Thanks to all for your comments; I think you've raised some good points. I will continue to study the available engines and read carefully everyone else's comments about their experiences with their powerplants.

Tailwinds,
Jan

[peter anson]

I'm slightly confused by your post. Did you mean that, with a 60-inch prop, you had 3 inches less prop-ground clearance than Steve with his 57-inch prop? I would think that would give you 1.5 inches less clearance. Did standard tires reduce the prop-ground clearance another 1.5 inches (versus Steve's 5:00 X 5 tires)?

I meant 3 inches less ground clearance than standard gear, standard tires and standard 54" prop. (60-54)/2 = 3
Here's a picture of me landing the Sonex.
http://sonexaus.wikispaces.com/file/view/wheeler+3+pointer.JPG
Now is that a wheeler of a 3-pointer? If you look very closely you will see that the tailwheel is slightly off the ground. In fact it was slightly off the ground in a sequence of three photos.
I used to fly a Skyfox, think factory built Kitfox, and I nearly always wheeled that on because landing approach speed was only 10 knots slower than cruise speed, so attitude was about the same. The Sonex landing attitude is fairly nose-high. Admittedly this is with only 20 degrees of flap. Full flap should get the nose a little lower. I'm not sure there is any advantage in keeping the tail off the ground. Rudder authority at low speed isn't a strong point.

Peter
Sonex 894

[Sonex 32]

Just for what it's worth, an LSA is restricted to 10,000 ft. MSL.

I am flying old #32, Tony Spicers Sonex with a Jabiru 3300 with 740 hrs. I climb to 8500 from my field elevation of 1100 on average of 6-8 mins using a climb speed off 120-130 mph. Ya gotta love it. Only burn on average 5 gph.
There are Jabiru 3300 out there for sale and after flying mine for over 5 years, I must say I love it!

Bob B
Sonex 032

[Concorde]

Just for what it's worth, an LSA is restricted to 10,000 ft. MSL.

I am flying old #32, Tony Spicers Sonex with a Jabiru 3300 with 740 hrs. I climb to 8500 from my field elevation of 1100 on average of 6-8 mins using a climb speed off 120-130 mph. Ya gotta love it. Only burn on average 5 gph.
There are Jabiru 3300 out there for sale and after flying mine for over 5 years, I must say I love it!

Bob B
Sonex 032

I maybe wrong but I believe it's sport pilot certificate that has 10000 feet restriction and not LSA .

[Sonex 32]

Wow, never looked at it that way! Thought if I as a cert licensed piloted flew under LSA rules they applied to all.
Thanks Ben

[Sonex 32]

Just been looking this up.
EAA
AIRVENTURE
EAA MUSEUM
SHOP EAA

Shopping Cart (0)
Sign In
EAA MEMBERSHIPAVIATION
INTERESTSADVOCACY &
SAFETYCHAPTERSEVENTSEDUCATION &
RESOURCESFLIGHT
EXPERIENCESNEWSABOUT/
SUPPORT
LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT

Aviation Recreation
The world of light-sport aircraft is achievable, affordable, and fun. Whether you’re a new pilot who wants to learn in as little as half the time, or an experienced pilot looking for fewer hassles, the sport pilot certificate is your ticket to fly.

ArrowJOIN EAA ArrowGIVE ArrowVOLUNTEER
EAA|Aviation Interests|Light-Sport Aircraft|Getting Started|Become a Sport Pilot|Existing Pilots
Light-Sport Aircraft
Getting Started
Instruction
Programs
Video
Discussion Board
At AirVenture
EXISTING PILOTS
An individual holding a recreational pilot certificate or higher may exercise the privileges of a sport pilot certificate, provided the holder complies with the privileges and limitations of a sport pilot certificate.

The main benefit for existing pilots is that sport pilot requires only a valid state driver’s license to establish medical fitness. No more need for a third-class medical!

Unfortunately, the rule includes one major exception: Existing pilots, including previous student pilots, who have had their most recent FAA medical certificate application denied, suspended, or revoked by the FAA are not allowed to operate using their driver’s license.

Here’s all an existing pilot needs to do:

Possess a valid pilot certificate.
Comply with the medical requirements of a sport pilot (valid state driver’s license.)
Have a current flight review (recorded in logbook).
Fly a sport pilot-eligible aircraft.
*****Operate within the privileges and limitations of the sport pilot certificate.******
Operate within the category/class ratings on the pilot certificate.
An individual with a private, commercial, or ATP certificate may perform the flight review in any aircraft authorized by the person’s pilot certificate, assuming the CFI is pilot in command.

A private pilot choosing to operate at the sport pilot level need not do anything more than comply with the rules. No change of certificates is necessary. If ramp checked, a private pilot may simply present the private pilot certificate and valid state driver’s license and inform the FAA inspector “I am operating as a sport pilot.”