What would you do different?
What changes would you like to see or believe would help Sonex grow again?
I’d like to see more engine choices and perhaps a concerted effort to support other engine options with mounts & FWF packages. I tend to believe this is one of the keys that helps Zenith aircraft have success.
What do you think?
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Taildragger
I think they may need to pare down the offerings to focus on the parts of the business that have the highest probability of profitability. There may be some very difficult decisions to be made if there are serious investors looking to get the company back in operation.
One thing they need to address or figure out a solution to is the second hand market. When builders are selling their planes for less than the cost of a new kit - valuing their time as $0 - and undercutting the sale of a new Sonex kit. I personally find that frustrating that buyers are placing no value on the builder’s time, and the buyer is just trying to get the plane off their hands, and both without really thinking about it are hurting Sonex.
This is what I was thinking. I’d do the Sonex B and Highwing. Skip the jets, Onex, Waiex, and Xenos.
Skip … Waiex … As aWaiex builder, I swallow hard and suck it up when I know it is best for the company. I know I’ll still be able to complete it.
I would give the company back to Mark and order him to hire an accountant to be in charge of the product line. Then I would order him to get back to work on the High Wing.
Tongue in Cheek,
Wes
I would develop a longer wet wing varient (not as long as the Xenos) specifically for touring.
Increase dihedral for improved Cruise stability (hand/feet off controls)
Higher Max weight (at least 600kg , greater duration (at least 100-120 L usable fuel)
Ditch that silly centre of fuselage fueling point.
Improved rudder efficiency.
Have flat spring main undercarriage (similar to the Onex) for better dirt/grass handling.
Economic cruse speed 120-130 knots (with 100 hp engine). 
None of us have good insight into the core costs, logistical challenges, and profitability (or lack thereof) for different Sonex & AeroConversions products. So I’m taking this in the spirit of “make a wild-ass guess” at what would be sensible, and not any attempt at Monday-morning-quarterbacking the fine folks at Sonex. With that in mind, here’s my WAG:
Sunset the AeroVee lineup. Used Rotax 9-series engines in the 80hp and 100hp variants are now cheaper than a new AeroVee or AeroVee Turbo kit.
Yes, Rotax engines are more complex. But they are also more-reliable, have less variance in their parts batches, fewer suppliers/vendors to manage, and require a LOT less hand-holding & ongoing support by company staff. The cheapness of the AeroVee is offset by the inconsistency of the solution and the extra labor it demands of both owners and Sonex staff.
Between the Jabiru engines, UL Power engines, and Rotax engines there are plenty of choices for Sonex builders at a variety of price-points and HP ratings. Don’t let an airframe company get bogged down in being an engine company; especially when your engine products are unlikely to be used in the majority of your airframes (much less any broad swath of E-AB aircraft).
Continue to support existing AeroVees in the field for small consumables and wear-items, but push people to other VW-conversion suppliers if they really want to build, buy, or overhaul one. Leave existing drawings & instructions, but make it clear that a VW-based installation is an “unsupported” option.
If possible, “open source” the vendors and parts necessary to maintain/rebuild AeroVee engines so that the existing fleet can carry on without penalty (and without requiring as much involvement by the factory).
Sell the Sonerai line back off. Its a completely different construction approach, requires a whole extra set of institutional knowledge, and is more distraction than value-add for the staff and the org’s capital expenditures. Its a cool piece of history; but unless you’re running a Hall of Fame, history isn’t business.
Cut the SubSonex & the Onex. They’re cool airplanes, but the sales-volume/demand is likely just too low to be sustainable long-term. Carrying inventory and dealing with builder support brings a higher chance of being a net loss over the long run.
Take a hard look at the rest of the AeroConversions products. If they aren’t netting positive revenue, explore selling them to another aviation company that is in a similar business-line (i.e. Aircraft Spruce / Wicks, or the vendors that sell things like controls & trim systems through Aircraft Spruce / Wicks). Those vendors/companies are already engaged in the business of selling components to people across many types of aircraft - so you’re giving these products a shot at a wider market (so that they could be viable products for another small business entity) while helping to ensure a supply-chain for yourself without getting bogged down in having to deal with a lot of stock, or as much shipping & customer support, for these small-dollar items that distract from airframe kit sales & support.
Consider cutting the Waiex. It has a more-complicated control system, more cost, and more labor required to produce kit parts - just for a unique look that has no other advantage. The core of Sonex is about bang-for-buck, not being cool/stylish (even though we can all agree that Sonex builders are the grooviest). As neat as the Waiex looks to some, it doesn’t serve that bang-for-buck mission.
Examine the costs of continuing to sell the Xenos. BasicMed and Sport Pilot (esp with MOSAIC) has really cut into the demand for a “touring motorglider” that doesn’t require a 3rd class medical - and that was what traditionally drove the market for products like the Xenos. Having said that, as a Glider pilot myself I believe the Xenos still has value in its ability to self-launch and be used for thermalling practice, mentoring, and some soaring instruction. I also suspect that the Xenos structure is so close to the Sonex that it might be OK to preserve as a product-offering without much “carried cost”… But I don’t want my personal biases to override logic. Its a low-volume product, so close scrutiny is warranted.
Figure out how to accelerate the kit-production & completion of a few customer High Wings. This may be a tough task, financially. But getting that bird in the hands of builders and getting some up in the air is crucial for the long-term sucess of the lineup. You need people spreading the word about the increased size and capabilities of the High Wing vs. the original Sonex. There’s no question among Sonex fans that the High Wing has better cross-country legs and more useable load; but much of the rest of the E-AB world sees the family-resemblance and assumes its just “a Sonex with the wing on top”; instead of an enhanced bird with more to offer.
The only way to change that assumption is to get some of these birds to fly-ins and get builders & pilots to share their lived experiences online. Factory promotional material and a few magazine articles are not be as convincing as people seeing these things “in the wild”.
Try to put together a matrix of which processes and job-functions are requiring the most labor time. Is it sorting components and packaging kits? Tracking inventory? Supporting builders on a particular part of the airframe? Whatever that biggest time-sink is, work on ways to streamline/automate/eliminate it. Maybe its a sorting machine. Maybe its better processes or software for moving through the kitting procedure. Maybe its outsourcing things like hardware bundles, and that vendor drop-shipping those items to the builder. Maybe its re-writing instructions or putting together videos on a particular part or build-step so that you field fewer calls and emails from builders.
And if the time/labor for these improvements is hard to come-by, maybe start a loyalty/rewards program for builders who provide improved documentation or videos, or who are local EAA members that can physically help with odd jobs (i.e. building boxes/crates, helping audit inventory, etc). “Fans” often have more time and energy than company employees; you have to exercise careful oversight of what they produce or do, but it still might take less time and money than try to do it all yourself (or hire additional fulltime staff)!
Look at whether workshops or builder-assist programs could be profitable. This is a very tricky thing to estimate. There are labor costs to consider and effects on your existing workforce. And you have to try to guesstimate whether offering these programs nets you enough additional sales to make the extra costs and hassle worthwhile. Sonex held some workshops in the past, but phased them out - so its quite possible that they already determined that the answer is “No”.
That may sound like a lot, but I’m sure it’s just scratching the surface of what a new owner will want/need to examine… Running a small business ain’t for the faint-of-heart!
I’m curious to see what decisions are made once someone is able to peel back the curtain and understand the costs and complexities that Mark & company have been working their butts off to overcome these last few years. I’ll be rooting for them, no matter what tough decisions they make!
Noel - Excellent ! Well thought out - now you just need the $$$$$$$
That probably also makes sense.
Nay!! A renaissance is at hand! 
Wes
I’m a software developer by trade and when you want support on a software package, you pay a subscription. When I bought my kit, the guy selling it was just ready to be done with it and I got a full B kit for $21k (which even in 2022 was a song - much more so now).
Then I paid Sonex $100 to transfer the paperwork and that basically came with lifetime support.
If it were me, I’d consider offering a subscription-based support plan (say $100-$200year or whatever). That support plan would subsidize an employee’s time. And maybe I’d throw in a 10% discount on replacement parts if needed to fix an issue. Or even better, I’d up-charge parts by 10% for someone who didn’t want to subscribe. Several hours a day are spent replying to support emails or answering phones - and payroll is likely the company’s biggest cost.
And I’d probably set up a support ticket database that tracks every technical communication that a customer seeks support for.
@KerryFores - how many times a week did you answer the same question asked by three different people. I bet it was at least once a week.
If a support subscriber had access to that database, it should decrease the need for an employee to answer the same question every. time. it. gets. asked. Plus that would free up the same support guy to more completely answer the unique questions that people ask.
And perhaps the support plan would be included for X years (limited time) for kit purchasers. That would put a kit purchase and a completed plane (or a second hand project) on more equal footing so the company isn’t killing itself trying to compete with itself. If it was for a limited # of years for kit purchasers, it may also be an incentive for builders to complete their projects.
On the topic of paying for service/support: This can backfire spectacularly. About 15 years ago a German glider manufacturer (DG) went bankrupt and when the company was reconstituted, they tried to hold legacy owners hostage by forcing them to buy updated flight manuals every year (they tried to game the system by updating one page of the manual each year, then telling people they’d be in violation of FAA/EASA rules if they flew without current manuals). They refused to sell service parts to any owner (or that owner’s mechanic) if the owner hadn’t paid the annual fee for updated manuals. As you can imagine, it generated huge negative sentiment and eventually EASA slapped down their flight manual updating scheme.
Having said all of that, the idea of “free (non-transferrable) builder support for X years after kit purchase” is worth exploring. Maybe after that (or for secondary owners), you split support into a “free” and “premium” tier. Free tier gets you email support but no defined SLA, while Premium tier lets you access telephone support and guarantees an initial response by the next business–day.
Its tricky to find the balance where you engender brand loyalty and encourage builders, but also manage the total labor involved in product support. @KerryFores probably has more insight into this realm (and more scars) than all of the rest of us put together!
I forgot about the DG thing - as an owner of an LS-6 I should have known better.
Hi all, I am not much of a talker or expert. But on the subject if it was my company I want to insert one little thought. I believe in bringing all manufacturing of items in house. You can start with out sourcing but sooner or later it must be brought in house. My experience showed me over a 40% savings after time. That was a life tiime ago but my two cents.
Just to add another item on the to do list if I were the owner of the company …
I’d build two trainers (yes with Corvair power) and shoot for a 700 lbs. empty weight and gross at 1250 lbs. giving a useful of 550 lbs. With these I’d give introductory rides to new customers for free or a very reduced rate. If buying plans or a kit the ride would of course be free.
I’d also use these planes for transition training so customers wouldn’t be fighting the insurance company. Sonex was giving transition training before but the accidents with the Aerovee powered aircraft seemed (at least to me) to be the thing that put a stop to that.
Here’s a few of examples of what my trainers might look like:
Now this is all dreaming of course … unless them lottery numbers are good …
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Taildragger
I don’t know how Sonex looks behind-the-scenes, and that probably needs a lot of changes since… they’re failing. But, from a customer POV:
Based on what Mark said in his video, I believe Sonex is suffering from loss of revenue driven by 2 factors; The product line is ageing and a narrow market niche.
The target market for Sonex sits right between Zenith and Vans with Sling and others trying to muscle their way in. With roughly 600,000 active pilots in the USA, General aviation is a niche market, and EAB/ELSA is niche in a niche. How many pilots are willing to build an airplane that is nimble and quick, rides like an early 60’s English sportscar, and fits like spandex from the 80’s?
To begin with, I would market the AeroVee engine to drone manufacturing companies. The drone market is hot, and presents a huge opportunity to expand the market for an existing product. In addition to generating revenue, this would also stabilize the cash flow.
Next, get the high-wing back on track. I wouldn’t make any changes to the product lineup right now. Here’s why: There is a very high degree of commonality between the A and B model and considerable commonality between the Sonex and Waiex. There is 100% commonality in the material stock like channels etc. Given the low volume a fabricate on demand strategy keeps inventory costs to a minimum. A wing rib is the same for all 4 airframes.
Going forward, I would like to see a clipped wing Xenos. Why Xenos? It has a lengthened tail cone, and enlarged tail feathers (more engine choices) and a 1320 pound gross weight. (more useful load)
It’s easier and cheaper to develop an existing product into something new than it is to create a clean sheet design.
I do recommend a cowling redesign into something more contemporary than the pug nose cowl.
Let’s not forget that there was reason for the nose/cowling design, and also a reason it resembles the Wittman Tailwind. The lifting body design of the fuselage adds to the performance and efficiency of the aircraft.
