Is Sonex the Best Choice

[Direct C51]

I've been happily part of a flight club with reasonable rental prices and good aircraft since I've gotten my Private ASEL. I'm going to be moving soon and looking at buying once I leave the club. I really like the RV-4 but realistically I'm probably 5 - 10 years from affording one. I've been thinking about a Luscombe, Cessna 120/140, or the like. There is something about these classics that I like, but not the slow speed, 60 years of corrosion and other problems, and the restrictions of certified aircraft. I do plan to have my A&P by the end of the year, but still prefer experimental. My mission will be mostly 100 - 300 mile day or weekend trips and local aerobatic or fun flights. I only need room for a 5'10 175 lb male and a 5'8 140 lb female. I would like an honest 100 knot cruise minimum. Aerobatic is highly preferred, +6 -3 for rolls, loops, and other light aerobatics. Experimental is also preferred, however I am looking for a completed flying airplane. I have no intentions of building right now. My budget will be about $25,000 and am looking for something very fuel efficient with an engine that is cheap to overhaul or replace when the time comes.

Although I would love an RV, I have found the Sonex to meet my mission and budget. The used market is pretty big, speed and GPH are right, and the aerovee seems to be a reasonable price with a cheap overhaul.

What are some other airplanes I should be comparing the Sonex to? So far I have found nothing that comes close. The RV12 is way too expensive and not aerobatic. The Zenith 601 seems to be hard to find used and also expensive. What am I missing here?

 

[zaitcev]

I settled on Sonex for exactly the same reasons: there is basically no alternative in the similar budget. However, at 6'5" I am too big for anything but Onex, so I had to give it up.

In my search, KR-2 and Sonerai came up. They are inferior to Sonex and KR-2 is also said difficult to fly.

You may be able to get a well-used 150 Aerobat with a runout engine, too.

 

[frfly172]

Your going to have a tough time finding an airplane to compete against the sonex. Their ideology is to produce an aircraft at a very economical budget.

 

[docmirror]

Yes. Didn't need to read the OP, but yes.

Only thing I would like that it doesn't have is a bridle or reinforced area for a BRS, which could be added, but would be extra weight. Sigh.

 

[Henning]

Well, it look like you've done your homework and figured out what works for you. The next step up from the Sonex will cost $10-15k into a Mustang 2 or RV-4, although you may get a T-18 Thorpe for your $25k, that would be worth investigating.

 

[Direct C51]

The Sonex does sound very appealing to the pilot on a budget who isn't afraid of experimental. Does anyone know how these Aerovee engines are holding up? Are they legitimate engines? What are the negative traits of a Sonex? What is the closest competitor in the $25,000 used experimental market?

 

[Henning]

The Sonex does sound very appealing to the pilot on a budget who isn't afraid of experimental. Does anyone know how these Aerovee engines are holding up? Are they legitimate engines? What are the negative traits of a Sonex? What is the closest competitor in the $25,000 used experimental market?

As I said, I think you can get a T-18 for $25k, don't expect an award winner.

As for the Aerovee, IIRC that is a direct drive prop bolted to the crank flange with a spacer. Here is my problem with that on all automotive engine refits: The rear main of neither the crank nor the block were designed to absorb the gyroscopic forces of a propellor affixed to it. If it is a custom billet steel crank, I have no major issue with it, but I'd consider reinforcing the nose of the case before I flew a lot of hard aerobatics above 3 Gs. With a factory cast crank I wouldn't fly aerobatics without exploring the CG consequences of losing the prop, and if that specs out, I'd limit my aerobatics to "safe landing site made" areas.

An aircraft engine has a much longer nose bearing than a car rear main. For auto conversions you want a redrive, or a carrier bearing in a bell housing for the nose.

 

[mondtster]

As I said, I think you can get a T-18 for $25k, don't expect an award winner.

As for the Aerovee, IIRC that is a direct drive prop bolted to the crank flange with a spacer. Here is my problem with that on all automotive engine refits: The rear main of neither the crank nor the block were designed to absorb the gyroscopic forces of a propellor affixed to it. If it is a custom billet steel crank, I have no major issue with it, but I'd consider reinforcing the nose of the case before I flew a lot of hard aerobatics above 3 Gs. With a factory cast crank I wouldn't fly aerobatics without exploring the CG consequences of losing the prop, and if that specs out, I'd limit my aerobatics to "safe landing site made" areas.

An aircraft engine has a much longer nose bearing than a car rear main. For auto conversions you want a redrive, or a carrier bearing in a bell housing for the nose.

Would your opinion be changed if the VW engine in question had a second bearing added by the prop? Some conversions appear to do this and I've always figured the extra support wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Direct C51]

Thanks Henning, I'll look in to any crank or case nose issues with Those flying Aerovees. The T-18 is nice for sure, but initial cost, fuel burn, engine overhaul, etc are all a little more than I'm looking for, especially compared to the Sonex. I have long thought the Lycomings and Continentals are, although well designed for what they do, quite outdated technology. These new Aerovee, Jabiru, Rotax 4 stroke engines seem like a breath of fresh air in the GA engine department.

Unfortunately I've never seen a Sonex in person. Does anyone own or know of an owner of a Sonex within a reasonable drive or flight from central North Carolina?

 

[steingar]

Of all the automotive applications the Aerovee seems like the least problematic and most affordable, at least based on everything I've read (not a mechanic and I've built naught but a bad reputation). I doubt any automotive engine is going to allow one to do worry free aerobatics.

 

[Henning]

Would your opinion be changed if the VW engine in question had a second bearing added by the prop? Some conversions appear to do this and I've always figured the extra support wouldn't be a bad idea.

That is what I would be referring to as a carrier bearing in a bell housing, yes. That would change the equation. Several of the conversion also use a redrive gear or belt that removes the prop from direct contact with the crank, that is fine as well, given the housing structure is adequate.

 

[Henning]

Of all the automotive applications the Aerovee seems like the least problematic and most affordable, at least based on everything I've read (not a mechanic and I've built naught but a bad reputation). I doubt any automotive engine is going to allow one to do worry free aerobatics.

Wouldn't be particularly difficult either, it just costs a bit of expense and weight in a redrive, you really want one anyway because the engine and prop are designed to work best at disparate RPMs. Personally I would love a Lenco 2 speed box as a gear reduction so I can switch from 1.6:1 to 1:1 depending on power and atmospheric requirements.

 

[bullwinkle]

I built half a Sonex (the fuselage and the tail were completed). They are great little airplanes...very capable and nimble for what they are and what they cost. They are very durable and built like tanks.

For the size people you are hauling, it looks like it would fit you well. However, be aware that with the 80hp Aerovee engine they are a tad underpowered, and will leave you wanting long runways when anywhere near gross on a hot day. At high elevation on a hot day, it's a one seat airplane. Seriously. Expect cruise around 130mph.

The Jabiru 3300 is a much better performing engine for that airframe, but now you are looking at $40-45k. For that you get awesome climb and cruise at an honest 150mph+, and the ability to haul anything you can close the canopy on (I mean the engine will lift it, not that's it's safe to fly over gross!).

 

[simtech]

As I said, I think you can get a T-18 for $25k, don't expect an award winner.

As for the Aerovee, IIRC that is a direct drive prop bolted to the crank flange with a spacer. Here is my problem with that on all automotive engine refits: The rear main of neither the crank nor the block were designed to absorb the gyroscopic forces of a propellor affixed to it. If it is a custom billet steel crank, I have no major issue with it, but I'd consider reinforcing the nose of the case before I flew a lot of hard aerobatics above 3 Gs. With a factory cast crank I wouldn't fly aerobatics without exploring the CG consequences of losing the prop, and if that specs out, I'd limit my aerobatics to "safe landing site made" areas.

An aircraft engine has a much longer nose bearing than a car rear main. For auto conversions you want a redrive, or a carrier bearing in a bell housing for the nose.

Henning, have you flown a thorp? I considered one but I've read they are not for new and low time tail wheel pilots as they are a handful on the ground compared to an rv.....

 

[whifferdill]

As for the Aerovee, IIRC that is a direct drive prop bolted to the crank flange with a spacer. Here is my problem with that on all automotive engine refits: The rear main of neither the crank nor the block were designed to absorb the gyroscopic forces of a propellor affixed to it. If it is a custom billet steel crank, I have no major issue with it, but I'd consider reinforcing the nose of the case before I flew a lot of hard aerobatics above 3 Gs. With a factory cast crank I wouldn't fly aerobatics without exploring the CG consequences of losing the prop, and if that specs out, I'd limit my aerobatics to "safe landing site made" areas.

But these installations typically run a small diameter light weight carbon or wood prop. Very low propellor mass and gyroscopic stress. I would not worry at all about gyroscopic issues doing loops and rolls. You can put more gyroscopic stress on the flange (by rotating the prop disc) by raising the tail on takeoff than by doing a regular loop. It's all a function of propellor RPM, diameter, mass, and how fast you rotate the prop disc. I probably wouldn't do snap rolls or tumbles with this setup, but I would do basic acro. Many others do without issues.

Unfortunately I've never seen a Sonex in person. Does anyone own or know of an owner of a Sonex within a reasonable drive or flight from central North Carolina?

I have a friend and former Sonex builder/pilot who knows all the Sonex owners in the area. I'll check for ya.

 

[Direct C51]

Eric, thanks for helping me find a local Sonex owner. I swear someday we will be at the airport at the same time so I can check out your plane. I check your hangar every time I am there.

Andy - The Jabiru 3300 would be a lot of fun, but that puts the cost of acquisition and operation near an RV-4. I think I'd be stuck with a Aerovee Sonex for the time being. When you say a long runway, are you talking 2000, 2500, 3000? 130MPH indicated or TAS at altitude? I would be plenty happy with 130MPH indicated, as long as it isn't working the engine at max RPM, temp, etc. I've flown a Cessna 120 with 85HP and about 400 lbs heavier than a Sonex at gross. I can only imagine the Aerovee outperforms the 120 by a bit.

 

[FormerHangie]

The only other aircraft that comes to my mind is the Rans S-10 Sakota. There are not a huge number of them around but I see one on Barnstormers right now. It has a little more wingspan than does the Sonex, and I suspect is a little more aerobatically focused as well.

Most of those built have two stroke power, if that bothers you. I don't have any experience with either aircraft, but I will say I'm a little skeptical that any of the VW conversions can produce enough thrust to adequately power a two seat airplane, especially one with a short wing span like the Sonex. I know that the Limbach engine does well in motorgliders, particularly in cooler climates, but I just don't think that's enough thrust for a good rate of climb with two people in the airplane.

 

[Henning]

Thanks Henning, I'll look in to any crank or case nose issues with Those flying Aerovees. The T-18 is nice for sure, but initial cost, fuel burn, engine overhaul, etc are all a little more than I'm looking for, especially compared to the Sonex. I have long thought the Lycomings and Continentals are, although well designed for what they do, quite outdated technology. These new Aerovee, Jabiru, Rotax 4 stroke engines seem like a breath of fresh air in the GA engine department.

Unfortunately I've never seen a Sonex in person. Does anyone own or know of an owner of a Sonex within a reasonable drive or flight from central North Carolina?

While the technology of the Continental and Lycoming engines is out dated, so is that of the VW, same vintage in fact. The same technology upgrades to the VW technology of WWII is available for the Continental or Lycoming engine in experimental use. Electronic fuel injection and ignition are available for retrofit. Heck, you can buy a certified FADEC IO-240 from Continental.

However, yes, it will cost some more money than an Aerovee. Personally I would see what I could build out of an O-200. It's a low cost proven performer for strength and aerobatic durability, great aftermarket and performance parts support in the experimental and Formula market place.

The thing is, with direct drive on the crank, you run into an efficiency issue above 2800rpm where you either have to go with a sub optimal diameter for cruise speed props like the Formula race planes do turning an otherwise mostly stock O-200 over 4000 rpm. Works fine for one balls out race, not so good for day to day flying efficiency. The problem is prop tip drag. So, since HP is a function of torque and time, when time is the limiting factor, the other way to get the horsepower you need is to increase the torque. The limit there is the ICP (intra cylinder pressure) and detonation resistance value of the fuel. When you add that factor into the equation, if you need more power, you need to add more displacement.

That's why aircraft engines make such low power per cubic inch, because they have to do it at such a low RPM in comparison to the fuel burn properties. Gasoline burning engines are much happier to be putting out 75% power at 3200 rpm and running sustained high power at 4500 rpm because of the way the fuel burns. They can reduce their ICP requirements by buying power on the time side of the equation reducing their detonation limitation that way. That's where we gear and prop boats to operate on gasoline with car engines. We keep the ICP low and the torque up by using big bores, lots of surface to generate PSIs for high total torque per RPM.

For direct drive aircraft use, it is really hard to beat the aircraft engines we have now for efficiency and safety. For experimental use, one can easily and for a low cost upgrade to EFI and electronic ignition. One thing to always remember when factoring in cost to overhaul, it's a once a lifetime thing if that for most experimentals out there. If you build new, and you build a good O-200, chances are you will never overhaul it. An Aerovee I would bet overhauls on about a 500hr schedule.

 

[Direct C51]

A good, new, modified O-200 is a decent power plant, but you have to figure it will cost nearly 3x the $6900 price of a Aerovee. It will also be much heavier. Certainly there are complications with auto conversions, but I don't see an O-200 beating an Aerovee in price, efficiency, or weight. The Aerovee TBO recommendation is 600-1200. About half of an O-200 but the overhaul is only $2,000. I'm not arguing that an O-200 or the like are not great engines, just providing what I see are the benefits of engines like the Aerovee.

 

[Flymy47]

Recommend you head over to sonexbuilders.net and ask away there. Lots of good info on that site regarding alternate engines ie Jabiru, Aerovee, Corvair and the like. FWIW, Sonex limits firewall forward weight to 200 lbs or less.

 

[steingar]

Brad Frederick (The Flied Piper) is in the process of building one, and might be a good resource.

 

[LDJones]

OP: I keep coming back to the Sonex as the most bang for the buck in the small, affordable fun flying machines. A friend is convinced he can squeeze another 10-15 hp out of the AeroVee...but I've been afraid to ask how! :wink2:

I've never flown one but recently flew with an airline pilot that just finished his, so I'm going to bug him for a ride.

 

[docmirror]

Well, the VW design is going to start having trouble much over 80HP @ ~3600RPM. Sure, you can up it by higher C/R, and some tweaking to the cam, and some big valves, down draft dual carbs, etc. The problem is that things start to wear quickly when you get up much higher in HP. We want a reliability reserve in aviation which is why 200CI Conti engines only put out 100HP. The VW is 133CI, so by the same ratio, we would be putting out 66HP, so the VW is now putting out more than 25% more than the Conti by ratio.

The VW engine has to be relieved inside to swing the 82mm crank and rods. The cylinder studs have to be set in case savers, and the heads are bored so close that there's hardly any material left in the cylinder seat area.

I've built a few air cooled VWs back in the dune buggy days, including one with a Paxton SC driving it. I got around 110HP, and more was available but I wanted it to last for 2 seasons.

If I were to start modifying a VW like the Aerovee or Great Plains engines, I'd first work on the intake which has a bunch of turns, and stuff to get the intake charge routed up to the top of the engine. Buggy engines have dual down draft twin choke carbs on them for good breathing. Sadly, that will require a change in the cowl, and then things get more complicated. Frankly, I'd stay at 80HP, and deal with the limitations.

<edited for clarity and to fix some spelling. >

 

[kyleb]

To the OP. Go sit in a Sonex. It is a 1+1 aircraft, meaning that two normal sized people won't be comfortable for long.

As far as the Aerovee is concerned, it is an 80 hp engine, but that power is delivered at a high rpm, which means you'll need a short prop. All of that translates to limited thrust at low speeds (and the long takeoff rolls and slow climb mentioned by others).

We had a local gentleman who purchased an Aerovee powered Sonex that was already flying. He liked the combination so much (or little) that he put it up for sale very quickly and purchased one with a 6 cylinder Jabiru. He really liked that one. Didn't like the Aerovee one very much at all. I saw him bounce a takeoff in the Aerovee powered one. He had a passenger, lifted off, climbed to about 30', then the airplane sank all the way back to the runway, bounced and returned to flight. I'd consider the Aerovee powered Sonex a one person airplane unless you're a really good pilot - there simply isn't much excess power at low speeds and you can back yourself into a very small corner if you get slow. The low aspect ratio of the Sonex isn't your friend if you get behind the power curve.

 

[docmirror]

At the risk of angering the Sonex people, several builders have put 100-120HP Corvair engines on with varying levels of success. The nose of the Corvair really does require a thrust bearing, but thankfully, an enterprising company now builds one that has solved some of the vexing crank breakage issues. Make sure you have a good crank, and the journals are radiused right, and the front 5th bearing.

One can google "miss Cleanex" for some links to all things Corvair. One of them was on Barnstormers not long ago, and I recall it sold for under $30k. I have no info on how it flew, or what the reliability of the Corvair is like anymore. Generally speaking, the Corvair engine from GM was quite robust as they felt that the new engine type needed to be pretty tough. Sadly, all the Corvair parts are getting long in the tooth.

 

[kmacht]

If you are in the North Carolina area I would look up a guy named tony spicer. He was the first customer to build a sonex and has since built an rv-4 and is currently building a panther. He should be able to answer just about any question you have. You can also go to the sonexaircraft website and there is a place to search for builders and completions by state.

I would ignore what others are saying about the aerovee prop hub. This has been debated numerous times and it is usually people who never built or flown behind one and without any sort of engineering background that bash it. Go find someone with a few hundred hours behind one to talk to or give the factory a cal if you have specific concerns. Keep an eye out for announcements from the factory during Oshkosh as well. They have been developing a turbo for the aerovee that has been flying for at least a year now. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer it as an option starting during the show.

The only way to know if it is the right plane for you is to go sit in one and take a flight if possible.

Keith
Sonex #554

 

[FormerHangie]

OP: I keep coming back to the Sonex as the most bang for the buck in the small, affordable fun flying machines. A friend is convinced he can squeeze another 10-15 hp out of the AeroVee...but I've been afraid to ask how! :wink2:

I've never flown one but recently flew with an airline pilot that just finished his, so I'm going to bug him for a ride.

The limiting factor in a VW conversion is keeping the cylinder heads cool. You can squeeze more power out of a VW, at the expense of engine life. If someone wanted to cast up some watercooled heads, I think you could get that extra power, but if you're going to that much trouble, might as well just buy a nice, proven engine like a Jabiru or a Rotax.

 

[FormerHangie]

We tend to fixate on horsepower as a measure of what to expect out of an airplane, and we really shouldn't. What is most important is the amount of thrust you get from the engine and propeller, particularly at takeoff and climb speeds. That not as easy of a number to find, but it's what you need to know before making a decision.

Like I said before, I don't think the VW is an appropriate engine for a two seat airplane.

 

[zaitcev]

A turbo Aerovee would go some way to address power deficit. However, if you look at e.g. HKS, then HKS 700E asking price is $9,370, while HKS 700T $16,500. I expect the Aerovee turbo to be relatively expensive as well. It may in fact bump into the Rotax 912 territory.

 

[Henning]

OP: I keep coming back to the Sonex as the most bang for the buck in the small, affordable fun flying machines. A friend is convinced he can squeeze another 10-15 hp out of the AeroVee...but I've been afraid to ask how! :wink2:

I've never flown one but recently flew with an airline pilot that just finished his, so I'm going to bug him for a ride.

Given a properly tuned engine, there are two ways to increase power: add a denser fuel/air charge or increase RPM; so either cam, fuel injection/carb changes, or supercharge. The max I've been able to pull from a naturally aspirated two liter VW engine on gasoline is 220hp and that was at 6100 rpm. Want to go beyond that and it gets stupid expensive to keep it together and the temps under control. What limits them is the surface area of fins available to take away the heat.

There's a reason the Porsche Mooney didn't work out either.

 

[Henning]

OP: I keep coming back to the Sonex as the most bang for the buck in the small, affordable fun flying machines. A friend is convinced he can squeeze another 10-15 hp out of the AeroVee...but I've been afraid to ask how! :wink2:

I've never flown one but recently flew with an airline pilot that just finished his, so I'm going to bug him for a ride.

Given a properly tuned engine, there are two ways to increase power: add a denser fuel/air charge or increase RPM; so either cam, fuel injection/carb changes, or supercharge. The max I've been able to pull from a naturally aspirated two liter VW engine on gasoline is 220hp and that was at 6100 rpm. Want to go beyond that and it gets stupid expensive to keep it together and the temps under control. What limits them is the surface area of fins available to take away the heat.

There's a reason the Porsche Mooney didn't work out either.

 

[Direct C51]

I'm willing to sacrifice takeoff distance for cruise speed, fuel efficiency, and cost. Is the Aerovee powered Sonex really much more underpowered than a 1450lb+ Cessna 120/140 with a C85? That is the closest power/weight airplane I have flown to compare it to, and probably my second option on what to buy. If I can get an extra 25 MPH and burn 1GPH less than the 120/140 I would gladly be restricted to runways of 2500 ft or more. Not to mention its newer, experimental, and +6 -3 G.

 

[Direct C51]

I guess my best option is to beg an Aerovee powered Sonex owner to take me for a flight. Until then however, I'll be here discussing it with anyone who's owned, ridden in, or heard a rumor about the Aerovee.

 

[docmirror]

I'm willing to sacrifice takeoff distance for cruise speed, fuel efficiency, and cost. Is the Aerovee powered Sonex really much more underpowered than a 1450lb+ Cessna 120/140 with a C85? That is the closest power/weight airplane I have flown to compare it to, and probably my second option on what to buy. If I can get an extra 25 MPH and burn 1GPH less than the 120/140 I would gladly be restricted to runways of 2500 ft or more. Not to mention its newer, experimental, and +6 -3 G.

I think that without going out and comparing directly this might be pretty close. The C140 with C85 is pretty doggy on take off, and I think it's the weakness Sonex has as well. I don't own one, and I haven't done any studies, but frankly, I think the Sonex lives with an underprop for purposes of gear length, and high RPM. I think they are leaving some torque on the table with a prop of less than 65". We all know that most of the power is developed at the tips, and a two bladed prop should be around this length for the proposed HP.

Sonex says; 'trust us, use this prop'. But, I don't think they've done their diligence by only testing props around 53-57". The issue also may be that a 65" prop would approach mach @ 3600RPM, and 120kts, but I think it'll be close.

If I were looking for more thrust from the package, I'd look at a metal or composite prop around 65-66". Once again, all I've done is some estimates, nothing in the air.

 

[kyleb]

I'm willing to sacrifice takeoff distance for cruise speed, fuel efficiency, and cost. Is the Aerovee powered Sonex really much more underpowered than a 1450lb+ Cessna 120/140 with a C85? That is the closest power/weight airplane I have flown to compare it to, and probably my second option on what to buy. If I can get an extra 25 MPH and burn 1GPH less than the 120/140 I would gladly be restricted to runways of 2500 ft or more. Not to mention its newer, experimental, and +6 -3 G.

Yes, because of the sacrifice in low speed thrust due to the the small prop, combined with the substantially different aspect ratios of the aircraft.

Those are two big compromises that both have the most impact in the low speed environment.

 

[RoscoeT]

I'd look at a metal or composite prop around 65-66". Once again, all I've done is some estimates, nothing in the air.

I would hope the OP would consult with the actual designers on modified setups, rather than some internet armchair "engineer".

"Hey Bubba, gimme that there metal Cub prop to stick on this thing....might need to hacksaw a couple inches off the tips"...

 

[docmirror]

I would hope the OP would consult with the actual designers on modified setups, rather than some internet armchair "engineer".

"Hey Bubba, gimme that there metal Cub prop to stick on this thing....might need to hacksaw a couple inches off the tips"...

Well, I'm in armchair, and I do have an engineering degree so I guess that's me all over.

Funny, but the cub prop with a few inches hacked off might be just about right. Calcs show 54" is too short, and a cub prop with a few inches hacked off might put it at 65-ish inches.

<edit: notwithstanding the pitch, I haven't checked that on a Cub prop, but RPM would indicate the pitch would be off some. >

 

[RoscoeT]

Funny, but the cub prop with a few inches hacked off might be just about right. Calcs show 54" is too short, and a cub prop with a few inches hacked off might put it at 65-ish inches.

Hmmm. How are the harmonics? Any red arc? What RPM range? What RPM limit? How does the gyroscopic stress of the metal prop blades work out on that Aerovee hub? Why would it be that you will not currently find metal props on these setups?

 

[docmirror]

Prop dia(2 blade) = (((HP)sqrt)sqrt) * 21.9895

For 80HP, that works out to 65.76".

@ 3600RPM @ 120kts = 1040 ft/sec tip speed. I don't have the formula for mach # at altitude and temp handy but this is gonna be close.

 

[Henning]

I guess my best option is to beg an Aerovee powered Sonex owner to take me for a flight. Until then however, I'll be here discussing it with anyone who's owned, ridden in, or heard a rumor about the Aerovee.

I'd be interested to see how one performs as well and maybe compare it to a Rotax powered one.