Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 3:13 pm
by daleandee
There is a Sonex for sale on Barnstormers that is also being advertized on YouTube. The seller (identifies as a broker) has been told by Brian & myself via YouTube comments that this plane is not a B model.
I pointed out what I believe is clear evidence to the contrary and the the broker’s reply is below:
Not sure what to tell you but I was not certain and reached out to the factory with the serial number. I am a broker and have no experience with Sonex. I knew I was not a good source of info so I did my research and solicited information from people who know more than anyone, the people who designed the aircraft. They confirmed it was a 3 so I am going to go with what the factory said. Until someone from Sonex reaches out to tell me otherwise I cannot list it as anything but what the factory says.
It was not recently built. Sat with a pickled engine for a few years. If you review the content in the post you will see more info about the plane.
Here’s the Barnstormers ad: https://www.barnstormers.com/classified … 477KD.html
Here’s the YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJpOTebDcC4
Are we wrong? Will the factory clarify/verify that this in fact a B model Sonex? I’ll gladly apologize if I’m incorrect, but I’d also like to avoid an unaware buyer making a mistake …
TIA
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 4:03 pm
by T41pilot
If the interior shot from the youtube video is from the same Aircraft, then the shape of the Glareshield and dash and dual sticks are not consistent with a B model.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 4:21 pm
by Murray Parr
A Model cowl
A Model Fuel tank
A Model Glare Shield
A Model flaps
Appears to be a tapering front of fuselage
A Model serial number (B models have B in the serial number)
If it is a B model, they must have gone to great efforts to convert it to an A model…
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 4:32 pm
by Bryan Cotton
We tried!
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:19 pm
by WaiexB22
I hear the model 4 flies better anyways 
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:07 pm
by Scott Todd
From personal experience, I can attest that the model 4 flies better…
Unless its the V tail one. Then the 3 is better
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:24 pm
by Scott Todd
On a serious note, its a cute airplane. Pretty simple panel. No radios. Can’t see an oil cooler. It could be a good project for someone. Buyers should be cautious. The FAA may be sticky on issuing an airworthiness certificate (at least in my neck of the woods). The new owner will need at least some build records or something from the original builder(s) to prove it was amateur built. And then a repairman certificate may also be difficult to get. I’ve found projects this close to being finished are always easier to sell once the Airworthiness certificate has been issued. Still could be a good deal for someone 
I think we should start in informal poll on what it will go for. I’ll start at $6,500.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:45 pm
by WaiexB22
I have heard the model 4 was an attempt at a direct competitor to the vans model B (bankrupt)…too soon?
In all seriousness, we all know the factory did not confirm that this was a model 3 or a model B. If anyone is seriously interested I would ask for the correspondence from the factory that led to his overconfidence.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:49 pm
by BobDz
WaiexB22 wrote:If anyone is seriously interested I would ask for the correspondence from the factory that led to his overconfidence.
The skeptic in me is willing to bet a shiny nickle that they will say it was a phone call
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:02 am
by daleandee
WaiexB22 wrote:In all seriousness, we all know the factory did not confirm that this was a model 3 or a model B. If anyone is seriously interested I would ask for the correspondence from the factory that led to his overconfidence.
I’m certain that no one at Sonex gave him permission to call this a B model Sonex. If so they should be taken to the woodshed for a bit of comeuppance. I don’t want to point fingers and call this broker dishonest but he is not being truthful here.
I put another comment on his youtube page after looking at more photos posted here:
https://bids.airspaceauctions.com/Listi … ils/241302
He claims he did due dilligence in his research but a quick look at only the engine mount answers the question as well as the other items already cited i.e. glareshield, panel, tapered fuse, flaps, turtledeack formers behind the seat, etc.
I guess I should let it go but it grinds me a bit to see someone continue misleading … especially after having indisputable evidence presented to them. Maybe someone at Sonex should give Matt Hutton a call at 254-271-9909 or 254-735-5030 and find out which employee they need to discipline …
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:11 am
by Bryan Cotton
I think the B vs A model is probably the least of the problems with that broker. He may not realize the classic A model is really cool and that the B model is not better in the minds of us classic guys, just a little different (this is humor before any B guys attack me). Hard to believe there are no builder logs or anything, there must be a story hidden there and how can an A&P prove that the airplane is an amateur built effort without any records?
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:14 am
by daleandee
Bryan Cotton wrote:I think the B vs A model is probably the least of the problems with that broker. He may not realize the classic A model is really cool and that the B model is not better in the minds of us classic guys, just a little different (this is humor before any B guys attack me). Hard to believe there are no builder logs or anything, there must be a story hidden there and how can an A&P prove that the airplane is an amateur built effort without any records?
Thanks for the confirmation on the coolness of the A models over the B models (yes this is humor also).
From his site there is this answer to a question about the build:
Q: Does the plane come with any build logs/receipts for parts? posted by: ********* 12/9/2023 5:14 PM CT
A: No build logs or receipts. The builders were a group of friends, mostly engineers from Honeywell. They finished the build and never got an AP to sign off. Its ready for someone to get an ap involved and fly off its 40
He may not realize that it will take a DAR and not an A&P to sign it off for an A/W but what do I know?
So as you noted … nothing to go on will make it difficult going forward unless you want to buy it for another of the listed suggestions:
An alternative use for this project could be parting out the build to sell off the parts, or use the engine to complete another project. This whole project can be purchased for a fraction of just the engine cost. The airframe could be repurposed as a centerpiece for a FBO, restaurant, man cave, or a property entrance. Project aircraft shows in like new condition.
Perhaps the bidding should start at $2000.99 (minimum 2k) …
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:26 am
by Scott Todd
C’mon Dale…Don’t start outbidding me before it even gets started.
What’s your guess on selling price? Come on everyone. Lets toss some numbers out there. I’m at $6500 but I think it could be lower. If I didn’t just start into an RV-6 project I picked up, I would consider seriously bidding. Its a long way to haul it to AZ but could be a good deal.
For other viewers out there, I’ve done dozens of technical, pre-flighit, and first flight inspections. Group built airplanes tend to be pretty nice as everyone is always checking up on each other.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:52 am
by Area 51%
The FAA registry shows the serial number to be 1152 and a certificate was issued for it on 8-14-2012.
I have my doubts that more than 1000 Bs have been sold, and as I remember, they didn’t come out till 2016.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:10 pm
by Scott Todd
Even though the FAA database shows a ‘certificate’ was issued, people shouldn’t get that confused with an Airworthiness Certificate. Its only a registration. It still has to go thru an Airworthiness inspection.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:35 pm
by 13brv3
Best I can tell, there wasn’t an airworthiness cert issued, and you’d never get one without the N number on the plane. If anyone wants to see what the FAA has, you can send them $10 for a CD- https://aircraft.faa.gov/e.gov/ND/
If it can’t be proven that this was amateur built, it could be a really nice lawn decoration. It’s really hard to believe anyone would have build such a nice plane, including paint, and never got it inspected. Of course it’s always possible the builder had some sort of issue that prevented him from completing the process. Hopefully someone can pick this up and get it flying legally.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:56 pm
by daleandee
Scott Todd wrote:C’mon Dale…Don’t start outbidding me before it even gets started.
What’s your guess on selling price? Come on everyone. Lets toss some numbers out there. I’m at $6500 but I think it could be lower. If I didn’t just start into an RV-6 project I picked up, I would consider seriously bidding. Its a long way to haul it to AZ but could be a good deal.
For other viewers out there, I’ve done dozens of technical, pre-flighit, and first flight inspections. Group built airplanes tend to be pretty nice as everyone is always checking up on each other.
It might be worth $6500.00 if you need the parts bad enough. I believe anyone buying such a project and planning to fly it would pull the engine and go through it. It is admitted that the plane has been sitting for awhile and no one knows the expertise (or lack) of the engine builder. My best guess is that it is somewhere between a 2008-2010 A model. Does it have the Aerovee 2.0 or 2.1? That is a very important question as the older cranks & hubs tended to have issues. The older ones also had the 10 amp dynamo but I’m preaching to the choir.
For me it’s not worth much as even after going through all the work to get an AW certificate (I’m certain it could be done eventually) I still wouldn’t be able to get the repairman’s certificate so I’d need an A&P for condition inspections and many that I know aren’t too keen on auto conversion engines.
So for parts I’m guessing that it will likely go in the 5K range. I think the broker knows this also as the minimum was set at 2K …
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:59 pm
by Area 51%
Scott Todd wrote:Even though the FAA database shows a ‘certificate’ was issued, people shouldn’t get that confused with an Airworthiness Certificate. Its only a registration. It still has to go thru an Airworthiness inspection.
My point was that paperwork had been issued long before the B model came out.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 2:06 am
by daleandee
Area 51% wrote:
Scott Todd wrote:Even though the FAA database shows a ‘certificate’ was issued, people shouldn’t get that confused with an Airworthiness Certificate. Its only a registration. It still has to go thru an Airworthiness inspection.
My point was that paperwork had been issued long before the B model came out.
Good catch! I do see that Sonex LLC has replied to the YT video to confirm that it is not a B model Sonex …
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 8:07 am
by kmacht
[quote=“daleandee”]
Does it have the Aerovee 2.0 or 2.1? That is a very important question as the older cranks & hubs tended to have issues. The older ones also had the 10 amp dynamo but I’m preaching to the quote]
Just a few points of clarification regarding the aerovee. The original 2.0 motor did not have issues with the crank/hub. There were only 2 failures of a crank before they came out with the 2.1 motor. One was due to the builder not supporting the crank correctly when pressing off the hub. The other was due to a prop strike whete the hub wasn’t removed for inspection of the crank. The change in crank came about when they switched suppliers. It gave them an opportunity to use a custom crank that had enough material forward of the #4 bearing to eliminate the groove behind the press fit taper which was a weak spot but not failure prone. Regarding the alternator the 2.0 motor had the 20 amp alternator just like the 2.1 does. Only the very very early aerovess had the 10 amp. I believe they were just called aerovees and did not have the 2.0 or 2.1 designation.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:35 pm
by daleandee
kmacht wrote:Just a few points of clarification regarding the aerovee. The original 2.0 motor did not have issues with the crank/hub. There were only 2 failures of a crank before they came out with the 2.1 motor. One was due to the builder not supporting the crank correctly when pressing off the hub. The other was due to a prop strike whete the hub wasn’t removed for inspection of the crank.
I don’t want to rehash this but at that time I was flying an older Aerovee with the 10 amp dynamo and I recall on the old Yahoo Group there were four reported breaks. That’s a small number and, as you note, some were either builder error or an unreported prop strike. Yet there was a reason Sonex upgraded the crankshaft in the Aerovee & began offering factory installation of the prop hub (other changes came also for the 2.1). I’ve only read of one reported break with the new crank.
Have you seen these: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7488
(4:50 in this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F413qW8X3Q
The title of this thread is truth in advertizing. I’m not trying to be argumentative or cast any shade on Sonex but rather to give a true picture and say that these earlier issues were quickly addressed (as was the breaking of Corvair cranks early on).
Sonex has been very good at making these airplanes even better as over the years as there have been many changes, upgrades, and even needed revisions. We need this great comapny to continue to survive and grow but how they have overcome a few obstacles is also very important to show their successful history.
Dale
3.0 Corvair/Tailwheel
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 1:43 pm
by gammaxy
I suspect the total number of broken cranks is higher than any of these estimates. We just had another one in November. A young guy was on an adventure flying one across the country, even made a really nice Youtube video of the adventure until the propeller fell off.
Sounds like it wasn’t a 2.1, but statistically, it seems there are likely to be more of these issues out there. Hopefully we are able to learn from the break and get the message out to folks with the same engine to know what to look for. I’m concerned that young/new guys like this one (who weren’t around in the Yahoo days) are buying older engines that never got flown much and may be completely unaware of the possibility of a hub break.
Re: Truth In Advertising - Are We Wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 2:07 pm
by kmacht
I wasn’t saying that the 2.1 crank isn’t a better design, just that the 2.0 crank did not have widespread issues at the time that the 2.1 version of the motor came out. The change to the 2.1 motor was not specifically to address failures being seen on the older 2.0 version. Many aircraft were and still are flying behind the 2.0 crank and if installed correctly it works just fine. The 2.0 crank was a regular aftermarket VW crank that had the nose of the crank where the alternator pulley normally mounted machined to accommodate the taper fit hub. Because it started as an aftermaket crank it still had a groove behind the nose of the taper that isn’t in an ideal spot from a structural perspective. When they went to the 2.1 crank it was a custom crank made specifically for Sonex so they took the opportunity to eliminate that groove as well as a few other features on the crank that were not necessary in an aerovee. Similar to the aerocarb vs aeroinjector, they both worked just fine but when the aeroinector came out with the 2.1 motor it was a better design that improved the carb but wasn’t necessarily done because the original aerocarb was failing.
I put a little over 100 hours on my aerovee with the 2.0 crank with no issues at all but when I brought it home to do a number of upgrades (mostly bigger alternator and fuel injection) I fully admit that I changed the crank and hub over to the Force 1 design. I think it is just an overall better design than either the 2.0 or 2.1 crank as the hub itself is actually supported by the #4 bearing.