When I was in the space business, we had a standard response to delays, mishaps, accidents, failures, and tragedies. The public, social media, the press all put enormous pressure and sometimes ridicule on dedicated people who were doing their best in an extremely complex and dangerous business. Our standard (and pretty much only) response? “Spaceflight … is hard!” For any launch to happen, tens of thousands of parts (and millions of lines of code) have to function perfectly at the perfect time or the whole thing stops or blows up. It boggles my mind that we ever flew and I was gobsmacked by the talent of the hundreds of thousands of people who made it work.
Well, as hard as spaceflight truly is, I am beginning to think that we need to grant that the homebuilt aircraft kit business is just as hard, maybe harder. At least with government funding, the money continues to flow (for a while) as you sort things out. With small companies and shaky financial markets, there is little to no room for error, mistakes, or misjudgments. And quite frankly, although I am not a businessman, I am not sure how the business plan works for the many companies that support our industry.
On Friday (March 27), time ran out for a longtime keystone of the industry, Sonex Aircraft. Company owner Mark Schaible, in an emotional video, announced that the company was closing its doors due to lack of financing with little hope of recovery. Comparing Sonex’s situation to the Van’s Chapter 11 reorganization from two years ago, he admitted that the Sonex case was much worse.
Our household built, owns, and flies two Sonex aircraft designs, the SubSonex personal jet and a Xenos motor glider to which we fitted an experimental electric power plant. We have enjoyed both of them and recognize the value for the dollar provided by Sonex’s philosophy of keeping things simple and inexpensive.
As an aeronautical engineer, I know that we are never going to get the raw performance out of a Sonex aircraft that we will out of something more powerful but much more expensive. Sonex was founded on the idea that airplanes could be built in a less expensive way and still provide enjoyable flight characteristics for someone who just wants to get airborne for fun. They filled this niche well, and at least a couple thousand kits and plans sets have been sold, many airplanes finished, and many are flying their missions well.
The failure of Sonex as a business does not mean that the designs are a failure. I enjoy strapping on my little jet and zipping around the mountains and desert for far less money than I currently have in my F1 Rocket project. But rising costs in all areas of kit design, production, and delivery may make Sonex the canary in the coal mine. Sonex aircraft were designed around the Aerovee automotive conversion engine, which is far less money than the skyrocketing costs associated with aircraft engines. The prices of aluminum, rivets, wire, and instruments are all going up faster than the general rate of inflation and if folks can’t afford a more expensive kit, you’d have hoped they could have afforded a Sonex, but the customers are even being priced out at that level.
The aircraft kit industry is small and I know most of the players personally. It is painful to see the people I consider friends work so hard for so little return or to have to declare failure and an exit that means financial ruin for their company and themselves as well. I first visited Sonex when I was new to aviation journalism but was greeted warmly by the Monnett family, the staff, and by Mark Schaible, then the general manager. I watched the company continue to develop for more than a decade, watched John Monnett sell the company to Mark, and saw the development of the Sonex Highwing, a highly anticipated design by those looking for a budget airplane with the wing on top. Unfortunately, economic conditions have now put a hold on that dream.
A common refrain among people trying to break into aviation is that “airplanes are just too expensive!” and I don’t disagree with it. Aviation is too expensive. But the truth is it has always been too expensive. Yet many get into it anyway, trading sweat for flight time, trading the cuts and scrapes of building for a flying machine, and flying for as long as their gas money allows. If you want it bad enough, you’ll find a way and many have. Charles Lindbergh borrowed the money for his first airplane from his father (who was trying to figure out what his drifting son would become). Sonex was founded on the idea of making getting in to aircraft ownership as inexpensive as possible, but the experiment has at least paused and, barring a miracle, come to an end. We hope that someone with new ideas for inexpensive aircraft will come along, but they are going to have to have very sharp pencils to make it work.
The folks at Sonex have always been great people. They tried their best, they delivered much, but in the end, financial conditions beyond their control ended their dream. But the people remain, and we hope that they find new ways to contribute to aviation. The kit business is hard—and getting harder all the time—so when you see Mark, or John, or any of the folks from Sonex at AirVenture, thank them for what they did. No company lasts forever, but their contribution remains in the airplanes they helped build and the pilots who enjoy them.
It’s hard to follow that thoughtful essay, but this news makes me very concerned about the small family-owned and -staffed company that provided the kit for the aircraft I built. We’re having our annual factory fly-in in a couple of weeks, so I guess I’ll find out soon.
So very sad.
Great, heartfelt, article, Paul!
Note Sonex comment that used market is competition. If getting airborne is priority and shiny/new isn’t, used makes a lot of sense.
Much like boats, value is condition based, and much like new boat market that collapsed years ago, hard for new to compete on price with adequate used.
If the build is the priority then perhaps plans built is the safest path to avoid the next Ponzi experience…and if Ponzi seems harsh, imagine if it was your life goal of aviation gone via an earnest apology.
You make a valid point, and the rewrite of the rules will make it easier for one to do the condition inspections and maintenance on a homebuilt not built by the buyer. A big caveat emptor might be in order, though, since the buyer is trusting the quality of the builder’s work.
Competing on the “cheap scale” has always been a questionable business model to me.
I’m sure companies like Walmart & Amazon would disagree that its a questionable business model.
But GA sadly does not have the economies of scale or growth potential that other industries can rely on to ensure success with low-margin products. Combine that with a robust used aircraft market (of both E-AB and Certified models) and the shrinking amount of disposable income across the middle strata of American households, and you have a very tough situation to overcome. Boats, Gliders (Sailplanes), Motorhomes, and several other sectors are all seeing similar trends…
I am not as pessimistic. Having run, saved and started a number of businesses in my 40+ year career, I would comment that failure is part of gaining experience. Wernher von Braun often commented on the learning gained through failure. Sonex has many great assets and I’d bet good money the company will be back soon, better than ever. Those who have spent their careers in secure government jobs will never understand this, but risk of failure is a great motivator to do well. I also believe that in many regards it is easier to start and run a business today that is connected to the aircraft home building industry, thanks to the Internet, modern CAD/CAD/CNC technology, 3D printers, etc. Important is to follow solid, traditional business practices, avoid all forms of debt, and remember the three most important rules: (1) don’t run out of cash, (2) don’t run out of cash, (3) don’t run out of cash. Dolly Parton’s three rules of success are also well remembered: (1) be the first, or (2) be the best, or (3) be the most affordable. See the reviving UL industry for some great examples of small companies making Flying Affordable Again.
I tend to think much the same. I know nothing about Sonex specifically, but I have seen this pattern many times before in my 40+ year career. The founder of a business built it up from scratch and often owns it debt-free. This allowed the founder to survive the industry ups and downs. The founder decides to retire and sells the business during a relatively prosperous economy and its value is high. The buyer has to finance the purchase and takes on substantial debt. The numbers work in the prosperous business climate. A few years later, the next downturn comes as they always do. Unlike the founder who had few fixed costs and could quickly adjust variable costs to match the current economy, the new owner has a high monthly debt service cost that can’t easily be adjusted. This is fatal when sales fall below that needed to cover the high fixed cost.
I am purely speculating, but if I were a betting man, and I’m not as I know math too well, I would bet this isn’t far off the mark of what happened to Sonex. The good news is that a new buyer now has the opportunity to buy the assets at fire sale prices and restart the business with little, if any, debt. That doesn’t help Mr. Schaible unfortunately, but it might allow the company to continue.
Good thoughts and you may be correct. The way to transfer a profitable business is to have the new owner buy it out over time from a portion of the profits. Thus, both buyer and seller are incentivized to make sure things run smoothly during the transition. Another approach and one I used successfully to divest from a business I helped grow was to convert it from a closely-held partnership of a few owners into a SARSEP. I could leave on my terms, was divested over a period of five years when I acted as an unpaid consultant, and all employees received ownership for free. This ended up very well for the company when it was bought out a decade later in a friendly acquisition. Whether any of this might have worked for Sonex is pure speculation. I am optimistic that the company will be back soon as it has so much going for it.
I agree, but when the video specifically mentioned “bank”, I assume my scenario is the more likely one.
I’m not going to pretend I know more than someone who’s personally connected to the Sonex aircraft or the family behind it. They’ve poured their hearts, sweat, and years into this.
That said, as an avid homebuilder, a CFI, and someone who’s spent way too much money at Aircraft Spruce on things that, in the grand scheme, have very little practical purpose, I do have some thoughts.
I’ve watched too many “kit aircraft” companies quietly disappear into the vacuum of aviation dreams. The problem, as I see it, is that the kit business model itself is fundamentally unsustainable. It demands all the same competencies, engineering talent, customer support, and manufacturing discipline as any “real” aircraft company—minus much of the heavy FAA overhead—yet it operates in a painfully small, fickle market that’s constantly threatened by the next shiny new model cannibalizing the last one.
It’s telling when I browse Barnstormers these days. Van’s aircraft are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars, with some listings creeping toward half a million. Everything is loaded with glass panels, dual electronic displays, oversized tundra tires, wild custom paint schemes, and every bell and whistle imaginable. It’s as if every builder truly believes they’ll be flying hard IFR in the system or bouncing their bush plane onto the next dry riverbed or skiing across some remote lake.
In many ways, we homebuilders have done this to ourselves. We’ve moved far beyond simple kits. We now expect waterjet-drilled pilot holes, pre-machined fittings, and highly detailed manuals full of precise CAD-generated drawings. We’ve shifted from being true homebuilders to something closer to assembly-line workers with champagne tastes—dreaming of landing on that sandbar, becoming the next YouTube star, or earning a fancy Garmin-supported ambassador title.
I can’t help but wonder: if Van’s had stayed true to their roots—a simple, two-place, low-wing zippy kit—and if Sonex had stuck with their proven base model instead of chasing the expense and complexity of a high-wing version, would our community be reeling from these kinds of disasters today?
You’ve got to know your core business and resist the urge to endlessly chase the next carrot. In my opinion, both companies were guilty of doing exactly that. And if you don’t chase it, the magazines lose interest in you anyway.
Sonex is worth saving. The community needs it. Now we just need someone smarter than me to figure out how to actually do it—someone who understands both the passion of homebuilding and the hard realities of running a sustainable aviation business.
Vans has stayed true. They don’t manage the panel, avionics or engine. If you paint yourself, limit the panel to a garmin G5 and ipad, and somehow get a good used engine- it can be affordable. You can end up with a great 40 year- lifespan plane, and you will get your money back when you sell.
Pilotgil – I agree with most of your post. But your statement about them sticking with the “base model” leads me to believe that you’ve never owned or flown in a Sonex…
I built a “legacy” Sonex, and without a doubt the “B” models were a noticeable improvement on the originals. Additionally, the High Wing provides a noticeable bump in payload and room while likely providing slightly less-sensitive handling – making for nicer XC capabilities. Some people critique the look and size of the High Wing, but it is essentially just a modernized Wittman Tailwind (a much-praised design) that has been made far easier and quicker to build. It also gave them something new to introduce alongside the new MOSAIC rules – ensuring that the GA community doesn’t think of them as an “old school” design that can only perform to the original LSA restrictions and gross-weight limitations.
If you want to critique the product mix, you would be on firmer ground if you pointed to the SubSonex (a very low-volume product) and the never-completed 2-seat-jet. Both were complex projects that undoubtedly took lots of time and money. But would that savings be enough to keep the company going? And would sales have been worse without a cool “halo” product like the SubSonex? None of us knows.
You could similarly question whether the AeroVee engine was ultimately a profitable arm of the business. And you can ponder whether things would be different if John Monnett had been open to mounting Rotax 9-series engines in the airframe from the beginning (I’ll note that used 912 models are now cheaper than the cost of an AeroVee kit). But hindsight is always 20/20, and no business is mistake-free.
I do agree with your conclusion, wholeheartedly: Sonex is worth saving.
…But the people who confidently claim to know why the business failed, or what they did “wrong”, are not the people who will ensure its future.
When I say “proven base model,” I’m talking about the “B” version—the one that built the Sonex reputation in the first place.
I have to wonder: if you know the cash is drying up, the last thing you want to do is throw a Hail Mary pass and hope it somehow lands while you’re lying awake at night listening to the Grim Reaper knocking at the door.
If it were me—and again, this is easy to say with zero skin in the game and the luxury of risk-free 20/20 hindsight—I would have sold off or shut down the AeroVee program, made the Rotax 912 the clear engine of choice, narrowed the product line down to only the models that actually make money, and stopped development on the high-wing version before it drained any more resources.
But all of that is so simple to suggest from the sidelines. It’s quite unfair to Monday-morning quarterback when you’re not the one carrying the weight, the payroll, the sleepless nights, or the personal financial risk.
At the end of the day, the Sonex is the right airplane for our times—affordable, efficient, fun, and perfectly suited to what most homebuilders actually need and can realistically afford. It deserves to be saved. I truly believe it will be saved.
My hat is off to Mark. He’s the Man in the Arena. He’s the one who stepped up, took the punches, and carried this dream forward when so many others wouldn’t. He should be applauded and lifted up, not torn down.
There is an implied caveat emptor in this story, where the burden falls on the buyer:
Don’t buy a kit piece-meal, or on time. If you can’t afford to purchase the kit outright (it’s usually only the first of other major expenses, like engine and avionics) wait until you’ve saved the money to do so. If you just can’t wait, that’s another red flag, but it’s on you.
If the kit company is unwilling to sign a production-position contract for a modest deposit, they may be skating too close to their fiscal edge. Once all the kit components are crated up and waiting for the shipper, send the certified check. If they are unwilling to wait until they actually have a product to sell you, the odds are they are using your money to pay for the cost of producing some earlier customer’s kit. While commonplace, that’s not a good sign. Should things go south for them, you may be left holding the short end of the stick with little recourse.
Also, for the modest cost (relative to the kit) of a plane ticket, take the time to visit the factory and get a feel for how well things are going. Better yet, go to Airventure/SnF for a couple of years, and spend time talking with their reps (and often owner) to get a feel for their character and trustworthiness.
Since 1980, the death of the middle class has a lot to do with the purchasing power for Sonex customers too.
Very sad however this type or business is very difficult and usually operates OK on a shoestring if basically no money is ever borrowed as then you can size the effort to the income.
And even worse it relied on a niche engine they did not have control over.
the market is very erratic if your customer base does not have a need for it on a continuing basis. the only reason the side by side and ATV business is doing well is that most customers have a use for it that is not purely recreational.
typically this type of business/market has problems when it is purchased or a large capital outlay is required to invest to do something. I assume he purchase it based on past income and projected that forward. unless things go well that is usually a recipe for disaster.
sad,
it really filled a niche in the market and