Re: Sonex High Wing!
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:21 pm
builderflyer wrote:Skippydiesel wrote:Bryan/Scott
In Australia, the builder can nominate the MTOW, however I am not an engineer (farmer)
Either of you guys wish to comment?
Not either of the guys.............but isn't this the same airplane that the original builder thought, amongst many other things, that he knew better than the designer and that he needed to and, in fact, did change the angle of incidence of the wing? This is one of those airplanes that John Monnett would say "please don't call it a Sonex". Not meaning to offend you, but personally I would have passed on this purchase. Depending on what was or what is the actual desired mission of the original builder or yourself, there must have been a better alternative out there. Just my opinion.
Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261
No offence taken.
I did have it checked out by an aircraft engineer - he was very complimentary regarding the quality of the build and saw no potential problem(s) with the 1.5 degree change in the wing, angle of attack/incidence. The aircraft flies and handels normally, has tested good for the designed stall of 40 Kn (flaps MTOW) & 150 Kn (true) high speed cruise 5450 rpm @ 5500 ft.
Don't know the original builders intended mission but given the extra fuel capacity & the CS prop, would suggest the same as mine - long distance touring.
Alternatives/price range - I focused on finding a Europa XS/Rotax 912ULS - over two years, came close twice - no deal! Then Sonex came out of the blue - if you look past the fuselage construction, many similarities - so I purchased it.
As far as Mr Monnett - I would guess that every home build, has some degree of customisation/personalisation. Could be as small/insignificant as the paint job, right up a major change like a much larger engine. Lets face it Mr Monnett was no fan of the Rotax 9 range, so I am not surprised that he would disown anything outside his original concept.