Sonex crew: WT-9 or RV6A?

[jjbardell]

Hi all. It has been a while. I hope everyone is doing well. I've been absent from aviation this past summer as I worked out my next steps. I am at a cross roads and knew posting on the Sonex forum would yield me some honest responses...it always has.

Update on Sonex #0864. I am happy to report the new owner is nearing completion of the 350IS along with some other enhancements. I hope to see it fly again soon. The conversion to a UL was a lot more work on an A-model than they were planning.

I have come across two planes in my quest to replace the Sonex. One is tried and true. An RV-6a with a o-360 constant speed prop. Basic steam gauge panel (begging for a new custom panel :D) with IFR capabilities. 8-9gph and a solid 175mph TAS. Easy to describe, they are like McDonald's...one on every corner. Higher fuel burn, much higher overhauls. No pic needed...everyone knows what they look like.

The other is a new plane to me. A Dynamic WT-9. It's beautiful, sexy and unique. Common in Europe and rare around here. A great IFR panel and the singer sewing machine engine...A Rotax 912ULS certified. AP, Garmin 430W, Leather, and the fun stuff I crave (Constant Speed prop and Retractable gear). Parts come from Europe, more expensive, Carbon fiber, lighter but sips 4.5gph while still maintaining 145mph.

Here is one with optional winglets flying and a newer paint job...which I must add. lol.

I loved the Sonex for it's unique style and rare duplication. I love the Dynamic for the same and the fact that a Lancair is my idea of beauty in the air. This is a mini version of that. Both engines are reliable (my #1 concern). Both have ranges of 800nm (or as I like to say, well beyond my bladder). Both can handle IFR. The Dynamic is ~20% upfront and saves about $8k on overhauls and ~$2k on fuel (assuming 150hrs /yr which is what I average).

Let's take a poll...what would you do? Comments are welcome too!

[Kai]

Well,

I have flown an RV-7, and my club owns a WT-9. The RV impressed me!

As the ceo of the tech dept in the lsa section of our national airsports federation, I have been to Aerospool (the manufacturer) twice to evaluate the Dynamic. It is a thing of beauty, looking a little like a two seat Lancair, the workmanship is like a Mercedes, a very professional setup. It cruises beautifully, a very nice touring machine.

Try to steer clear of the earlier versions without the winglets. Even the newer ones with these on, display some surprising stall characteristics, especially with a rainwet wing (1.st generation Wortmann laminar airfoil; have a chat with sailplane pilot). I have unintentionally been upside down twice because of this. Make very sure you're up high when this happens, because recovery takes a while.

Originally the plane was developed with an electric motor flap drive, which works very well. However, empty weight enforcement is strict over here, and to save weight the mechanical raster thing was developed. You need a very strong biceps to get the the handle in the pos 3 raster. If by any chance you fail to get it completely snapped in place, there is a chance that the handle will snap out of its raster when you're on short final: it has happened before and it will happen again. I'm not going to eloborate on the consequences :-(

Recently I had to pass a flight review with a cfi, shooting t&g's at an international airport in the club Dynamic, which has this confounded tv screen instrumentation. You cannot believe the aoa lift reserve indicator screeming it's head off, with the nose more or less pointing straight down- no doubt a result of the peculiar airfoil lift characteristics.

I am too old for this kind of unpredictability. I like my Sonex better.

Thanks
Kai

[builderflyer]

There is more than one good reason why over 10,000 examples of RVs have flown. On more than one occasion RV owners will tell me "if I couldn't fly my RV I would give up flying at all"! Product loyalty is out of sight. It's simply a fact that you couldn't go wrong with a well built RV.

Have you checked the price of insurance? RV insurance is relatively "cheap". WT-9 insurance cost is likely "through the roof if" even available. The cost of insurance may very well offset the savings in fuel.

Good luck on whatever you decide,

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jab 3300 #261

[MichaelFarley56]

Hi Josh,

I've been thinking about your question a lot and as I continue to weigh the pro's and con's, I can't help but lean more and more towards the RV.

The WT-9 is a beautiful airplane and as I might have mentioned, there's certainly points to be gained by simply having a sleek and unique design that's not all that common. I'm sure it's built well and would serve you well, but the RV's are such a great airplane, solid design, etc. it's hard to pass them up.

Furthermore, if you want to modify an RV-6A, all parts are available and easy to purchase; there's a gigantic owner support network, it's probably cheaper on insurance, fixed gear so it's simpler, etc.

For your intended mission (a decent amount of cross country ops), having a slightly larger airplane with more interior room and more baggage space may be worth it. Not to mention more speed and the ability for grass/soft field operations if you want!

Best of luck with whatever you decide!

[samiam]

I'd go with the RV. I listened to the aux fuel podcast recently, and all I could think while listening to it was that your mission really called for an RV, it's a pretty perfect match. I've flown a -7A (never been in a WT-9) and I don't think there's really anything I could possibly say badly about it.

[jjbardell]

Thanks for all the input and feedback. It appears to be clearly an RV. Will keep you posted on my buying status!

[Gordon]

The RV is your best choice in the long run. I built and flew my RV-6 for 450 hours, 180 hp with a constant speed prop. This is an excellent airplane and an easy taildragger to handle. Sold it and built an RV-7 and put over 200 hours on it. The '7' is a better airplane in many ways. With the bigger vertical stab and rudder you can get a good solid slip, much better than the '6'. The gross is 1800 vs 1600 on the 6. The vne is 230 mph, up from 210 on the 6. My 6 would cruise at 200 mph, very close to vne. The wing does not protrude all the way into the fuse on the 7 making it easier to plumb, wire it and hook up controls. The 6 is 23 ft span, the 7 is 25 ft. The empty wt of my 6 was 1124 lbs. with 1600 gross (I0-360 and c/s) The empty wt of my '7' was 1003 lbs and the gross was 1800 lbs. (0-320 and fixed pitch). They both flew excellent......no faults.

The '7' will cost more but then it is also worth more upon resale. The cabin width is 43" on both, which is a little on the tight side. The most bang for the least dollars is the '6' or cheaper yet an RV-4.

There are many to choose from on Barnstormers......."pick you poison".

I am building a Onex this time just for a change of pace.......but the RV's are still "top dog".

Gordon........Onex.....Hummel 2400

[Brett]

Prob not that particular model of plane but typical canopy style of the modern fast LSA...

https://www.facebook.com/www.CONTACTMag ... 3461400097

[jjbardell]

Prob not that particular model of plane but typical canopy style of the modern fast LSA...

https://www.facebook.com/www.CONTACTMag ... 3461400097

Well...that about sums it up. I am thankful he had a chute, but am curious as to why he was not throttle idle, stick full forward, full right rudder. But, that is not meant to open a can of worms. Thankful he is ok.

It is pretty solid and always goes back to an RV. Great insights, I knew this group would be great to chat with.