Sonex Waiex B model kit questions

[Gordon]

Waiex B kit questions......

Nicholas........I like your enthusiasm......but your priorities might not be in the proper order.

You mentioned the RV-7 cockpit is a bit on the cozy side and I agree, it is 43" wide.....I have 800 hours in an RV-6 and an RV-7 so I am well aware of the cozy fit. The RV-14 is the answer to that problem at 46" wide. The Sonex is only 40" so keep that in mind. The Rans S-19 does NOT do aerobatics but maybe that is not a deal breaker. Have you been in an airplane and done some aerobatics and pulled 4 G's? You may not like it.....I sure don't. You should get a ride with someone and try out that environment.....it may not be a priority for you and your "better half".

Engine subject........a local builder installed an LS-1 Corvette engine in his RV-10 because he wanted the "latest high tech" engine with more power than the standard Lycoming I0-540. At about 10 hours he had an "off airport" landing.....the oil sensor failed and told the ECM (computer) that there was no oil pressure so the engine went into "limp mode" (there WAS oil pressure, it was a sensor failure)...... which would be no more than an inconvenience in the Vette. He was lucky and got it down in a hay field with no damage. Had to take the wings off and trailer home........fixed it and then at 21 hours the reduction drive jammed up and put him on the ground again. Once more was very lucky and this time did a "dead stick" landing at the airport.......he was still in the pattern.

NOW........the airplane is "out of service" for an extended period as he is installing a Lycoming I0-540. My point would be this.......an LS-I small block Chevy is a great engine, bullet proof and they run for ever........However it is the little things (accessories, redrive, etc) that will put you in your grave.

Be careful with your choices and get your priorities straight. Research EVERYTHING, listen to pilots that have been doing this for more that "5 minutes" and learn from THEIR mistakes.

There is lots to learn Nicholas...........but I admire your courage and enthusiasm.

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

[Flynic3]

Gordon,

Thank you for all your wisdom and the food for thought you have given. That is one reason I post my ideas on a forum such as this. I tend to push the boundaries of convention when it comes to my ideas and it takes the wisdom of those who have been doing it for decades to bring me back to earth sometimes. I understand where you are coming from completely and I agree with everything you have said. More than likely I will be going with a traditional aviation motor like the Jabiru 3300/3310 for my Waiex build. I am interested in the new design of the Jabiru engine as they have addressed a lot of issues with this motor. There is also a new aviation grade Wankel engine that is being produced in Germany called the Geiger engine. It has addressss many of the traditional issues of the Rotary engine and looks like it will be a serious contender against the Rotax! I have been in an aerobatic aircraft in a few occasions and I absolutely love it! I took a ride in a Pitts special when I was younger and still remember it as one of the best aviation experience I have ever had! This is one reason why I would love to have this capability if possible. A local pilot friend Just finished building an aerobatic plane and will be spending a couple months in St Augustine to learn from Patty Wagstaff! So, I would have a local pilot who is trained in aerobatics to go up with possibly. More than likely I will build the Sonex as it will handle most of my mission profile! I just wish it has a little more fuel and maybe some wing lockers or something for more storage space....
I do really like the Rans S-19 though for numerous reasons and if this aircraft had sportmans serobatic capability than it would be a no brainer! I really prefer aircraft with a sliding canopy as I have acquired most of my time in Grumman low wing aircraft. I just feel the Rans S-19 looks more like a production aircraft when finished and just have a proper look about them! I am excited to see these aircraft in person this summer at OshKosh. I have also spoken with a couple of local Sonex builders and will be checking out their projects as well. If you look at the amount of registered S-19 to Sonex Aircraft there is no comparison at all! I will certainly have more support with the Sonex and I think that is an extemely important factor if I want to complete my kit. I greatly appreciate all of your insight and wisdom on this Subject! I am purely in the research stage at this point but will hopefully start my build this summer! Thanks again for the thought provoking posts my friend!

Best Regards,

Nicholas Dawson

[Gordon]

Waiex B model question......answers?

Nicholas.......When you start your journey in aviation you don't have a lot of the answers........but maybe more important at that point....you are not even asking the right questions.

It sounds like you are happy with G forces and Sportsmen aerobatics so the Rans S-19 doesn't fill the bill. Remember no matter which design you choose.......any negative G's will require inverted oil and inverted fuel systems. That's all doable but adds to the expense and installation time.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the 12k Rotary engine thing. There are a number of RV's that have went that route. By the time they bought the engine mount, reduction drive, dealt with the cowl issue, etc. it was not much cheaper than the Lycoming and the performance was ALWAYS disappointing. The biggest "downer" is the resale. The RV's have the highest resale of any homebuilt but an auto engine RV is a "true dog" to get rid of, taking a massive hit on resale. Long story short.......the auto conversion actually cost MORE in the end, at least in a Van' RV.

If your bound to try an auto conversion in a Sonex you might want to look at that Honda Fit (?) pkg in Florida. There are a few Sonex's that are flying with it and builder websites to check out. Of course the Corvair is likely a better option in that regard. There are many more of those and they are getting good results. Dale Williams can answer all your questions on performance, cost and reliability on the Corvair.

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

[n307tw]

Hey Nicholas,

I am currently building the B-Model in subkits as I can not afford to buy the whole kit outright. They include everything, all the machined parts, formed parts, and laser cut parts. I agree their website has not been updated to reflect the new kits they offer and a lot of stuff is still based on their legacy kits. I completed the tail and about 80% finished with the fuselage and honestly the one thing that takes a while is the back ordered CNC machined parts that for every kit so far have not shipped with the rest of the kit. If you do build as a sub kit I would suggest tail first then wings then fuselage followed by everything firewall forward. Knowing what I know now I would have done the wings before the fuselage but that is part of learning. Also after talking to Mark I will probably save a few grand and opt for the wing spars not factory assembled and do it myself like most of the legacy guys out there.

As for the panel, I am in the design phase of my panel and it will fit an 8.5" MGL Explorer and I am panel mounting my ipad. There is plenty of room for switches, fuses and a MGL V6 radio too. I will not be going for the Sonex dial-a-trim as I think its ugly, bulky, and takes up too much valuable real estate on the panel, I prefer the trim on the older legacy models and will have a Ray Allen servo controlling it. Because of the extra space I even have enough room for a panel mounted cupholder - a must have for drinking (coffee) and flying. Best of luck to you on the build, look forward to following your progress.

-Tim

[EdW]

Why do you recommend wings, then fuselage construction? What do other builders say? Reasons?

Questioning mind (and about to order) wants to know.

Ed Just east of Graceland

[n307tw]

Hey Ed,

Two reasons I would go with wings first. First is that the fuselage takes up a lot of room and since I am building in my garage, space is pretty limited. It would be easier to build the wings and either hang them from the ceiling or build a wing rack and get them out of the way while you build the fuselage. Secondly, while building the fuselage (especially in a tri-gear like mine) you are required to rig the wings before installing the landing gear and other items so it can limit your build progress in some aspects without having the wings ready to rig. I bought the tail, fuselage, gear and control kit so far and I am kicking myself for not going with the wings first. I'll be ordering the wings soon and picking the kit up at Oshkosh this summer and can't wait. Obviously this is my opinion, but I have found from other builders' sites and even from the SonexFlight podcast that I should have built in the other order. Best of luck on your build Ed, definitely check out the podcast that Jeff, Gary, and John do monthly; a lot of valuable information on there. http://www.sonexflight.com

-Tim

[peter anson]

I built things in a different order and for a different reason. I did the tail parts first because the bits are smaller and easier to handle and store. I built the fuselage next and the wings last. My logic was that the wings are the most important part of the structure and I wanted to have as much experience of building as was possible before I started on the wings. I scratch built my Sonex in a tiny workshop, smaller than a single car garage, but I did have storage space in an adjacent car port. Even so I had the wings stored pretty much in the open, just wrapped in sheets of plastic, for quite a long time. They got rained on a lot. I guess on the basis of our contrary advice you can build the thing in any order you like.

Peter

[Bryan Cotton]

I built tail, fuselage, and then wings. The advantage of this sequence is you get maximum psychological benefit. Tails go quick. Fuselage goes on its gear and looks airplaney. Plus you can sit in it. Tim is right about storing wings. Mine are up and out of the way while I work the other 90%. There is no really wrong sequence.

[n307tw]

Curious here, has anyone gone against the plans and installed the gear on a tri-gear without rigging the wings? Seems like the plans are pretty insistent on rigging the wings before finishing the spar tunnel and mounting the gear. I even emailed Kerry to confirm and he said mounting the gear could throw things out of alignment when rigging the wings. That’s the only reason why I said I would have done wings first. Thanks guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MichaelFarley56]

Tim,

My Waiex is a taildragger but after looking at the plans, I recommend you follow Kerry’s advice on this one. When you’re rigging the wings you will have the forward part of the spar tunnel in place but the aft parts will be held on temporarily as you fit things up. Then, you will lock it all in place with cleco’s for the actual wing spar pin holes to be drilled, drill the holes, then final rivet the remainder of the tunnel.

In the end, you’ll want all that done and totally locked in first before attaching the main gear leg weldments just so nothing gets thrown out of alignment as you bolt that stuff on. I could see those weldments possibly throwing stuff out of alignment and the last thing you’d want to have to deal with is getting to the point you want to install your wings for the final time only to find those bolt holes aren’t aligned and the bolts won’t go through the spars! That would be a bad day!

Just my two cents of course...