Sonex B models

[planeolbob]

Hi Everyone,

I can now share with everyone a little project I shared with Jeremy in July of 2012. As you all know I have been building and flying my Sonex since 1999. In every way it is a great aircraft. The only thing I wished it had was a little more shoulder room. So beginning in early 2012 I started a design study I called the "WideX'.

The goals of the study was to see what would happen to the aircraft if 3" was added to the fuselage at the break. I took the plane of the Fuselage at the canopy rail and used that as the reference plane for the modifications to the plans. My background as an architect and a 2D cadd program led me through the plan modifications sheet by sheet. Another goal was to keep the modified part count to the minimum.

By early July 2012 I had enough complete to send to Jeremy showing that you could add this much space and not change FWF except for a few shims. The tail would remain the same. The wing outboard of the fuselage would remain the same save a bit of modifications at the root. Of course all of the skins and supporting structure was changed a bit. I had to detail each part.

The spar was a little tricky. In the old days when we cut and trimmed our spars they came 2" longer than needed. The WideX design added 1 5/8" between the pins. Note that this is not where the test wing hanging on the wall failed. By inspection I concluded I could increase this distance and just make a non aerobatic aircraft (remember, this was just a study).

Anyway, Oshkosh 2012 came around and Jeremy and I had some discussions on the possibility of something like the "WideX". However, at the time the turbo was taking up all of his efforts along with the Onex so this was pushed back.

We talked from time to time and in the fall of 2014 he told me that things were starting to move on expanding the product line. I must say that in typical Sonex Fashion they have gone far beyond expectations and the B Models will be a great hit. I can't wait to sit in one.

Bob Mika
N178KT

PS Now, if I could just find an old set of uncut spar caps............

[tonyr]

I think the new models should be known as

ChuBeY and ChuBeX

[NWade]

It's not all about performance. I'd gladly give up 20 horsepower, 30 lbs of weight, and a few more $ for a TSO'ed engine. If I only flew over Kansas I might think along your lines but then again I'm probably in the minority.

Is an RV12 some sort of standard reference? That design would not influence me one bit if I had the designers pen.

Kip -

Well you probably think I'm crazy, then. I fly over the rugged North Cascade mountains with a glider - no engine at all! ;-)

As for a TSO'ed engine: I'm curious to hear you explain what appeals to you about a TSO'ed engine. Is there some tangible benefit or feature that a "Certified" engine provides (which other Sonex-approved engines don't)?

And I cite the RV simply because its one of the most-successful LSA aircraft out there. You may not like its looks (I know I don't). But the entire RV series in-general is the "gold standard" in Experimental Aircraft, in terms of both quantity built and their reputation for quality. I also happen to fly with "Van" himself each summer (that glider thing again). Its given me an opportunity to bend his ear and have some wonderful evening chats. I had a really illuminating talk on the merits of the Jab3300 versus the Rotax, for example. Van is a conservative chap when it comes to safety and engineering; yet even he doesn't recommend an O-200 for any of his aircraft. If you don't like Vans as a reference, look at the other major kit-makers. None of the designs over the last 15 years recommend an O-200 for a ~100HP application. They all pitch a Rotax, Jab, or UL Power as the first/best solution.

--Noel

[WaiexN143NM]

Hi all,
Would love to see if the new electric flaps could be retrofit to the older model 'A' aircraft. Maybe sonex could come up with an optional kit to include bracket , motor, hardware, and install instructions. Wishing.....just wishing..........
Congrats to Sonex.

WaiexN143NM
Michael Radtke

[vwglenn]

I love Sonex for not being a stagnant company. Many have criticized the size and begged for more engine options over the years. Looks like they listened.

I'll hope to continue to enjoy my original Sonex the same way I enjoyed my ragwing 170 knowing it's the original.

If they come out with a Twoex (tandem Onex) I might need to dust off my checkbook. :D

[SonexN76ET]

Noel,

I think you need to respect my friend Kip's opinion. He has flown his Jab 3300 Waiex to 48 states and out to Catalina Island among other remote areas. He is a highly experienced international corporate jet pilot so he knows a thing or two.

Like Kip, I would like to see the new lighter weight O-200D as an optional engine choice. I would welcome the peace of mind a proven, certified engine provides. Once you start flying your Sonex you will understand. Where I fly, there are very few open areas to set down on if you loose an engine. The thought of loosing an engine is constantly on my mind. Yes, I know a certified engine does not guarantee anything, but it sure would be nice to fly with the same confidence I had in flying behind a certified power plant.

Being homebuilts, I would like to add one more point that I think is important to all of us. Regardless of what engine you install, equally important is how you install and control it. In the home built community, it is far more common to loose power from a control coming loose or a fuel system failure than from the engine coming apart. So, make sure you pay attention to detail!

Kip has minimized his chance of engine failure by having a highly professional engine installation on his Waiex. His engine compartment looks like something that came out of the Boeing factory. We should all strive to do likewise.

Please be respectful of all opinions here.

Thanks,

Jake

It's not all about performance. I'd gladly give up 20 horsepower, 30 lbs of weight, and a few more $ for a TSO'ed engine. If I only flew over Kansas I might think along your lines but then again I'm probably in the minority.

Is an RV12 some sort of standard reference? That design would not influence me one bit if I had the designers pen.

Kip -

Well you probably think I'm crazy, then. I fly over the rugged North Cascade mountains with a glider - no engine at all! ;-)

As for a TSO'ed engine: I'm curious to hear you explain what appeals to you about a TSO'ed engine. Is there some tangible benefit or feature that a "Certified" engine provides (which other Sonex-approved engines don't)?

And I cite the RV simply because its one of the most-successful LSA aircraft out there. You may not like its looks (I know I don't). But the entire RV series in-general is the "gold standard" in Experimental Aircraft, in terms of both quantity built and their reputation for quality. I also happen to fly with "Van" himself each summer (that glider thing again). Its given me an opportunity to bend his ear and have some wonderful evening chats. I had a really illuminating talk on the merits of the Jab3300 versus the Rotax, for example. Van is a conservative chap when it comes to safety and engineering; yet even he doesn't recommend an O-200 for any of his aircraft. If you don't like Vans as a reference, look at the other major kit-makers. None of the designs over the last 15 years recommend an O-200 for a ~100HP application. They all pitch a Rotax, Jab, or UL Power as the first/best solution.

--Noel

[N111YX]

Thanks, Jake. I was just about to bow out of this conversation so as to no hijack it but since the "B" models allow more engine options well-I'd say we can discuss engines a bit. If one does not understand the difference between a certified engine and a non, then I have just two points of research - paper trail and certification tests. I doubt that any "alternative" engine could satisfy either.

Does it make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. However, I've never lost a friend to a certificated engine failure. I've lost more than one using alternative engines.

I do like my Jabiru, however... ;)

[radfordc]

Hi Everyone,

I can now share with everyone a little project I shared with Jeremy in July of 2012. As you all know I have been building and flying my Sonex since 1999. In every way it is a great aircraft. The only thing I wished it had was a little more shoulder room. So beginning in early 2012 I started a design study I called the "WideX'.


We talked from time to time and in the fall of 2014 he told me that things were starting to move on expanding the product line. I must say that in typical Sonex Fashion they have gone far beyond expectations and the B Models will be a great hit. I can't wait to sit in one.

Bob Mika
N178KT

PS Now, if I could just find an old set of uncut spar caps............

Now we know why it's called the Sonex B.....B for Bob!

[DCASonex]

Have been flying Center stick, Dual Throttle, Electric flaps, (plus hydraulic toe brakes and panel mounted fuel shut off) since 2012. Have recommended Electric flaps to Sonex many times as safety measure which when combined with stick grip or toe operators for hydraulic brakes and panel mounted fuel shut off, means that all pilots can can fly with shoulder belts tight at all flight modes. No advantage to having a great strong air frame if pilots are injured or worse from being tossed around with head hitting panel in there.

Will be interesting to see how they did their electric flaps and dual throttle. Mine are very easy upgrades.

Note: As with Rotax engines, the Bing carbs on Jabiru and CAMit engines are also spring loaded toward WOT. This was not a problem with my dual throttle setup.

David A. Sonex TD # 1327 CAMit 3300 # 0004

[samiam]

The size of the cockpit and low fuel levels were two of my biggest hesitation points when looking at the Sonex line. The third was the lack of engine options. As someone who is just finishing up the tail kit, I am EXTREMELY excited.

One thing I am hoping: Sonex has really pushed the complete kit purchase, and sub-kits have been much more expensive. This is fairly unusual - the other big companies (Zenith, Vans, etc) don't really punish you for going the sub-kit route. I hope that Sonex embraces this as well.