Advice for New Buyer in MN?

[n982sx]

Your stated mission would be outside of what I consider normal for my 80hp Sonex.

I flight plan for two hour leg lengths, of 200 miles. However, I am willing to stretch the leg lengths to 250 miles if the winds aren't too unfavorable. This is somewhat conservative, but I would never plan on a 300 mile leg length.

A B model Sonex with five extra gallons is a different story. I have never taken Sonex's range numbers seriously however, which is the case for most manufacturers. Other than that, I have achieved most of Sonex numbers at some time or another.

However, in the middle of the summer getting to 8,000 ft in a 80 hp Aerovee is a task in itself. I've never achieved it with someone else on board. In the winter, yes, but all airplanes seem to fly like angels in the winter.

[SonexerToBe]

All good points that are well received.

I have great respect for safety and respecting weather conditions - Thank you for the reminder/caution.

The irony here is that in looking for my first plane... I probably found my second one!

Thanks for the tips and recommendations. Feel free to keep them coming.

I am doing a deeper dive into IFR certified planes and feel myself (unenthusiastically) looking at more common, rentable planes.

The RV planes are beautiful but probably not where I can $$$tart.

The Yankee would be interesting but range and stall characteristics have me looking for more info.

Thank you all for the great input...

[jjbardell]

I am regularly flying x-cntry trips in my Sonex. As a recent rental to owner, I was in a similar situation as you. I wanted cheap range and speed. Like Bill, I have a turbo (speed) and added a 6.5 aux tank (range). I'm upgrading to the 11 gal aux tank to extend our legs farther.

To compliment my range and speed I added autopilot which for longer trips I think is a must. The Sonex is not a hands off plane. The AP takes the workload off the pilot and saves your focus on the important stages of flight (landing) which is appreciated after 3-3.5 hours Sonex flying. My wife (115lb) and I (185lb) load our plane to the max gross and comfortably take weekend trips with 3-3.5 hour legs with fuel + 2 backpacks of stuff.

Like Bill, I cruise at 140-145 mph and based on a flight plan from my base which is NW of Chicago (3CK) to KMSP I show the following:

Dis: 267nm
Req Fuel w/o reserves: 18.3 gal
ETE: 2+40 (16mph headwind)
Alt: 6500 ft
Fuel burn: 6.3 gph

We regularly fly 3CK-KCGF (east of CLE) which is 330nm
Last weekend we flew to KMDH which is 270nm
All of those trips required 6gal of aux fuel, leaving 45 min of reserve.

I think the Sonex is a great x-cntry plane. When I need IFR, I rent an Archer III. On the VFR days, we fly the Sonex.

For landing in Chicago, it depends if you are mode-c or not.
-3CK (my base) is 45 min from the city, cheap overnight hangars, lower fuel prices, hotel. No courtesy though. In mode-c veil, but a lot of people based there without mode-c as we are on the edge.
-KPWK is closer to the city, expensive on all accounts, has several big runway options
-06C is directly west of ORD, not bad pricing, great restaurant, and a train line to the city that is close

If you end up visiting in Chicago, send me a PM, I'd be happy to take you flying in my plane.

[vwglenn]

The Yankee would be interesting but range and stall characteristics have me looking for more info.

I looked into them quite a bit over the years. I've never flown one but, from what I understand, the Yankees stall characteristics aren't as much of a problem as the spin characteristics. The plane has a couple things going against it in a spin. First, the fuel is in the spars which are round tubes like a paper towel roll. When the plane is spun the fuel is thrown to the wing tips which throws all that weight out there too making a spin harder to recover and starving the engine. Second, It was originally designed (by Bede) to be a homebuilt plane and, to make construction simpler, all the tail surfaces through the "B" are identical. The vertical can be taken off and used as a horizontal and so on. As I understand it, the vertical could be a little bigger to allow for better rudder authority. The early "fast wing" models are apparently the squirreliest and fastest. The "C" model has a bigger vertical and a couple more HP from the factory. They're slicker than other two seaters in the entry level (C-150/2, Piper Colt, Skipper, ect.) and need longer runways. But they're also faster on the same fuel consumption. There are plenty that have been modified for 150hp O-320 and extended fuel which can still be had for less than 30K. I saw one on Barnstormers recently that had the 320 conversion and 34 gallons usable. That plane would fit the mission you've described and could be used/certified for light IFR as well as get you a similar cruise as a Sonex.

I'm kinda biased but I would recommend you blow off the IFR and be good with a fuel stop and get a Sonex. :twisted: I owned an early 170 before I bought my Sonex (didn't build it). My Cessna had a four hour endurance and I rarely flew longer than 2 1/2 hours before I wanted a break. I can cover the same distance in my Sonex using less fuel in less time.

[SonexerToBe]

Glenn,

More great food for thought.

Thank you,
A

[Bryan Cotton]

I have a couple friends who were part of the Grumman Gang back in Conneticut. One had a Super Lynx with a hot rodded O-320 and one had a Tiger. They are great airplanes too. They are speedy considering the cost. I flew them both and thought they were good machines.

Edit:
http://www.grumman.net

[SonexerToBe]

I am so glad I joined the forum and asked. I am not surprised to find such great experience here.

I am glad I am not in a rush and will watch for some of the planes listed above over the next 6 months.

Bill and JJ, I appreciate your thoughts. I didn't realize there was an 11 gal aux upgrade available. Turbo wasn't really on my radar but I see the sweet spot you have aimed for. Maybe IFR falls into my 20% rental and maybe it is more like 30% at the end of the day.

I am wondering how easy it is to get AeroVee and Sonex service/inspections in MN. I will have to look into that...

[SP1]

With regard to the stability of the Sonex, wouldn't loading it near the forward cg limit make for a more stable platform?

[wlarson861]

Sorry this is a little late, remember that adding an auxiliary fuel tank is going off the reservation. Sonex does not like it for several reasons, outside the mission of the aircraft, weight and balance, extra weight even if your not using the extra fuel capability,etc. It isn't difficult to do and Josh has a blog on how he did his. Mine is about the same as his except for the tank mounts. On trips if you pack more fuel you have to leave more baggage at home (that pesky weight and balance thing). Without the gas loving turbo, the standard tank was fine as far as endurance. I'm glad I added extra fuel but would not recommend it to anyone who doesn't have a regular cross country that pushes the fuel boundary.