Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:14 pm
by ASchlem
Are there any new developments?
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:35 pm
by lakespookie
Sonex is doing an EAA Homebuilder week presentation i suspect you can get an update there i would signup for that.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2024 5:14 pm
by Eric W
Anyone see the Homebuilder week presentation? Any updates on the High Wing?
(not replying to the original HW thread as it had morphed into a discussion of individual mods to the low wing + weight considerations)
Thanks!
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2024 5:19 pm
by BobDz
The prototype is supposed to be at Airventure
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:46 pm
by Eric W
Thanks Bob. I was there last year (2023) and did the factory tour. My son will be with me this year, so I’ll probably do the factory tour again so he can see it.
Will be good to see the prototype, and try it for size, if they’re able to. I sat in the Onex prototype before whichever Oshkosh was the first one they had that - I also sat in the revised-turtledeck 2-seat jet at the factory last year, so I expect they’re pretty open to getting people into their products and getting our feedback.
Bump: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 11:23 pm
by BRS
Just bumping this thread to keep it alive.
Has anyone heard if the HighWing will be flying and at OSH? Seems Sonex is keeping tight lipped about progress.
-brs
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2024 4:53 pm
by Bryan Cotton
https://www.sonexaircraft.com/highwing-update-060724/
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2024 1:10 am
by Skippydiesel
Fuel capacity at 113 Litres, is good for Australian conditions.
Max weight 680 kg will fit right in with our new, 760 kg Category G class.
Baggage at 41 kg ? Given the 372 kg empty weight, subtracted from max weight 680 kg, leaves a max load of 308 kg - subtract max fuel, 84 kg, leaves 224 kg. Two 90 kg pilots leaves 44 kg baggage. Leave one pilot at home 
No projected cruise or stall figures ???
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 11:01 am
by Bryan Cotton
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2024 10:59 am
by Eric W
Some quick comparisons based on my actual Sonex / 3300 and what was said in the interview:
Sonex gross weight 1150 lb, empty weight 660 lb, payload 490 lb. So 2 people and a just over half full tank (was how I usually ran it), no baggage at all.
HW gross weight 1500 lb, empty weight 820 lb, payload 680 lb.
So there’s 160 lb more airframe and 190 lb more payload. Most all of that more airframe weight is structure, because the engines are about the same. From the Hornets’ Nest update, the increased structure weight is understandable - adding a 2nd-layer baggage floor, adding a 2nd-layer (not in the low-wing Sonex) internal “ceiling” box structure, and the whole airframe just a little bit bigger all around. The extra shoulder-room width should make a big difference.
I’m guessing they won’t be going with the Ti rod main gear legs - at least not at the same diameter as Sonex. I never had a problem, but one of the subsequent owners of my airplane bent at least one of the main gear legs, and I’ve heard of other instances of this.
Another comparison - I had that Sonex flying for $32k in 2008. With the highest-cost big engine. I did build “from plans” and scrounged a good portion of the welded parts from other builders who changed their gear / stick choices, etc. It did not have an autopilot or any sort of screen-based instruments. Just a couple of steam gauges and the minimal com & xpdr.
In the interview, where the Kitplanes reporter put text for the Xenos quick-build kit price, when they were talking prices, I heard this differently in the 2023 webinar. I heard that the kit was projected to cost along the lines of the Xenos you-build-it-all kit price, not a comparison with the “quickbuild” kit price. I’m a build-as-much-myself as they’ll allow kind of customer.
Anyway, it seems to be giving what I’d be looking for: more payload than Sonex, high wing for easier in and out (plus the look-down for photos with no strut is nice). I think the addition of the internal “ceiling” will minimize the feeling that you’re sitting behind / below the spar pass through section.
Thanks for the updates, and I’m looking forward to trying on the prototype in only about 6 weeks!
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:26 am
by Scott Todd
I can’t believe no one is talking about this. I watched the video by Experimental Aircraft Channel about 5 times. Its a pretty cool airplane. I really want one but I’m afraid its gong to be out of my price range. A $30K kit will make it a $80-90K airplane. Even buying a $10k AeroVee and basic instruments will still put you around $60. For reference, my second hand Onex was a complete package with engine, prop, EFIS, and other misc stuff. My Spruce bills still added up to $10k by the time time it flew. Its amazing how all that stuff just keeps adding up. Still, Its a cool airplane and could be a lot of fun
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:36 am
by Bryan Cotton
We sat in the prototype yesterday. Comfortable and roomy. Visibility more like a C140 than the Waiex.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:41 pm
by Eric W
Really nice size. Super easy to get in & out, but watch your head on the wing. The additional width will make it a lot more comfortable than my legacy Sonex. “Bubble” doors won’t really help this design much, as the center of the bubble is well ahead of your elbows, and your elbows are back near the door frame. Look at this compared with a Rans S-21, for example, where the widest part of the bubble door is right at your elbow. Seat angle and cushions were excellent. Lots of room in the panel. The dihedral is built into the center section, so the outer wing panel joint is exactly flat (wasn’t sure whether the dihedral would occur at the wing outer panel joints). Also did the factory tour. This is all that there is at this point, but what’s there so far looks really good! There was a pair of wing outer panels sitting in a rack in the factory - but they’re for the 2-place jet. They were VERY tentatively forecasting flight before the end of the year, with maybe deposits (small $ to hold a place in line) towards the end of the year, with MAYBE tail kits early '25. But don’t hold them to all that, as there’s a whole flight test program to get through, and any updates out of that need to be proven in.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm
by Eric W
More photos. I think that rear-most “window” is the panel for the BRS, if so equipped, and not really a window to look thru. Don’t worry about some skin edges sticking up - not all rivets were installed, and it looked like some were Aluminum just to hold it together for display at the show. Panels in the top of the wing - where the aux fuel tanks will go in.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:52 pm
by Eric W
More photos. Bottom photo of the panel was with wide angle lens.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2024 9:16 pm
by WaiexB22
I really liked the plane and I confirmed it is the exact same FWF as the B model. It looks great in my opinion and looks even better next to the spec sheet. My only negative comment is the visibility over the panel. I’m not a big guy and the seat was very low relative to the top of the panel to me. I’m not sure how much this would matter in a level flight attitude…and you could always add cushions to the seat to raise the seat up (head space wasn’t an issue for me)
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:39 pm
by Bryan Cotton
With respect to visibility, the Waiex has ruined everything else for me.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2024 5:05 pm
by Eric W
Scott Todd wrote:I can’t believe no one is talking about this. I watched the video by Experimental Aircraft Channel about 5 times. Its a pretty cool airplane.
Quite a bit more active discussion at that EAC video in the comments. A lot from people who aren’t Sonex fans or who don’t understand the objectives of the airplane (want it to be another STOL competitor or something), but some more perspectives over there.
Probably best that most of them don’t know about this forum. It’s really not advancing our conversations about this airplane to have a bunch of “but it doesn’t do” whining & complaining.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 12:48 pm
by BRS
WaiexB22 wrote:… My only negative comment is the visibility over the panel. I’m not a big guy and the seat was very low relative to the top of the panel to me…
I didn’t get to visit OSH this year. Checking out the HW proto would have been tops on my list. Vsby over the panel was/is my biggest concern as this is the main beef about the Sonex-A that I fly. Can’t see traffic in front of me.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 2:55 pm
by Bryan Cotton
BRS wrote:
WaiexB22 wrote:Vsby over the panel was/is my biggest concern as this is the main beef about the Sonex-A that I fly. Can’t see traffic in front of me.
My A model was the same until I put a hard foam booster under the seat cushion. Now I can see the horizon in front of me. The high wing is the same, but you do lose the unobstructed view through the bubble canopy.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 5:44 pm
by flyguy0609
Bryan Cotton wrote:
BRS wrote:
WaiexB22 wrote:The high wing is the same, but you do lose the unobstructed view through the bubble canopy.
Yup, After flying under a bubble canopy, all high wing aircraft are pretty claustrophobic.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 7:05 pm
by Skippydiesel
High Wing/Low Wing - In the end both have their benefits/disadvantages - in my view end up pretty equal. It all comes down to individual pilot preference.
Undercarriage;
My last aircraft had fibreglass main and rubber donut nose wheel suspension - great on grass.
My Legacy undercarriage is way to “whippy” on grass and the tailwheel makes channels (digs in) if the ground is slightly damp. Further the whippy main has little/no natural damping making any landing, less than perfect, into a bounce, with the presence of surface imperfections adding to the tendency. I would council Sonex to come up with an undercarriage option that is more accommodating of unsealed runways (common outside the USA). For the mains, something similar to the Onex might be the way to go and an option for a wider/larger diameter tailwheel tyre is a must.
Fuel Capacity;
Anyone know what this may be?
Australian pilots tend towards wanting good duration - fuel options often far apart.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 7:40 pm
by Bryan Cotton
Skippydiesel wrote:
Fuel Capacity;Anyone know what this may be?
Australian pilots tend towards wanting good duration - fuel options often far apart.
In the video mentioned, Mark Schiable says the high wing has a 20 gallon B model fuel tank, plus two 5 gallon aux tanks in the wing center section. These aux tanks have shutoffs so you gravity drain them into the main tank when you have space.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 1:04 am
by Skippydiesel
114L - NICE! - thats about 7.6 hrs duration (to empty) for a Rotax 912 ULS at economy cruise power.
Aussies might increase those wing tanks to 30L +/side for an all up fuel load of 136L giving 9 hr duration.
OR if wing space does not permit increasing the size of the fuselage header
OR installing an in fuselage auxiliary.
If its the B model tank - I hope they have done away with the fool of a fill point location/system.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:08 pm
by Eric W
Skippydiesel wrote:OR if wing space does not permit increasing the size of the fuselage header
OR installing an in fuselage auxiliary.
If its the B model tank - I hope they have done away with the fool of a fill point location/system.
Wing space - you can see in one of the photos I posted in this thread about a week back looking at the top of the wing - the aux fuel tanks are in the wing center section that is integral w/ the fuselage. They did this so the fuel system could remain complete with the wing outer panels off for road transportation / long-term storage / reduced need for build space. Simplest place to add fuel capacity would be in the behind-seat baggage area, and they’re currently presenting 90 lb (of weight capacity, not fuel weight) available there. Personally, I can’t sit as long as the flight durations you’re proposing, so if I wanted that sort of range extension, some self-contained fuel cans/bottles back there, land, top off, keep going would work for me rather than installing anything more permanent.
They did say they’re using the B model tank - I can think of a couple reasons not least of which is reduced cost on their side having to carry different inventory at reduced quantities + amortizing supplier set-up costs for a new tank. You can see in one of my photos from the front the same fuel fill door surround feature as the B model in the windshield trim. It’s maybe not the best in that if they go with polycarbonate windshield material (which I expect they would, as it can be a flat piece that wraps into place) the polycarbonate supposedly degrades if there’s contact with fuel, but I never had an issue with my Sonex, even with the occasional drip. Just don’t let fuel sit on there and it seems to do ok. Or if the windshield gets stained or something over time, it’s just flat polycarbonate - not too expensive and very easy to cut and drill. You should be able to source it locally and not need to ship a windshield all the way from the factory.
Re: Sonex High Wing
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 7:33 pm
by Skippydiesel
Thanks Eric.
Fuel fill point -
My Sonex has wing tanks, that feed the centre/header tank (total capacity 100L). The only down side of this is, to put fuel in the header requires the transfer pump being switched on. This would be less of an issue with a high wing, as gravity will do the work automatically.
Fuel Capacity/Endurance -
Endurance for me is not about spending hours & hours in the air (I like to have a wee break/leg stretch about every 2-3 hrs) is about not worrying about where the next fuel is coming from ie having the duration to comfortably make it between refuelings, irrespective of the number of in-between stops.
It’s far safer & convenient to have built in tanks, that you can transfer from in flight/on the ground, rather than carry bladders or jerry cans that must be hoisted in/out of the aircraft and then decanted into the fuel tank.