Trade for CH 601 XL-B??

Dav8or

Dav8or

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Dave
I have owned my '66 Mooney M20F for over 10 years now and I'm seriously considering something else. These are the reasons compelling me-

  • I never needed four seats and honestly I don't really need two seats.
  • Even though it is in good shape and has modernized avionics, the Mooney is pretty old and it reminds me every year and annual. Speaking of which...
  • The Mooney annuals are painful. If you have them done professionally, they are very expensive and if you do them yourself (with IA sign off of course) they take forever, at least at my pace. In my current financial situation, I pretty much have to do them myself.
  • I'd like to save even more money and a reduced fuel burn would be nice.
  • The insurance just keeps going up and I assume that going to fixed gear will lower that.
I don't really travel with my plane. I just fly for fun "around the patch", but because of the speed of the Mooney, my patch is pretty big! I will miss the speed, but that's why I don't really want to go with certified two seater like a Tomahawk, or Grumman Yankee, they're just too slow. Many will suggest a Vans RV and they would work, but they are just too expensive!! I really have to either be able to trade straight across, or buy something even cheaper. I much prefer low wings, so that brings me to...

...the Zenith/Zenair/AMD/whatever they're called CH 601 XL-B, or the 650. It seems like it might be a simple, economical ride that isn't too slow. I'm hoping to hear from some real owners about what to expect with regards to real world cruise speeds and also ownership expenses and concerns. Also any thing else I should really consider, or look out for. You know, all the stuff I probably didn't think of yet.

Thanks in advance!
 
How about a Sonex?
 
skier said:
How about a Sonex?
Click to expand...
I looked at them, but I think they'd be too slow and most seem to be built with questionable engines IMO. I'd really like to stick with time tested and proven aircraft engines. Lycoming, Continental, or Rotax.
 
I've owned and flown my 2008 AMD 601XLi-B SLSA for nearly five years and love it. I converted it to experimental six months after I bought it and then got my Light Sport Repairman-Inspection certificate. I do my own maintenance and condition inspections and enjoy working on the plane almost as much as flying it. My Zodiac has an O-200-A, and that limits useful load; empty weight is 846 pounds, so with full fuel it's basically a single place airplane. I can take a light weight passenger (175 pounds or so, which is what I weigh) up for an hour or hour and a half if I limit my fuel to 12 gallons. A Rotax 912 would offer similar performance but provide about 100 pounds more useful load. I average 105 - 110 knots cruise.

Hope this helps.
 
Sonex seems to have a good lineup, but I'm not a fan of the fuel tank located right above your legs. I know the Ercoupe had a similar location. I wonder what the accident stats show for post-crash fires.

I do like the Rans S-21. Fairly low price. Different engine choices. Looks like an easy build. Cruise speed with the Titan engine option is 155 mph. The speed with the Rotax 915 iS engine is lower at 145 mph, but can probably be raised if you make it a constant speed prop.

You dismissed the RV series due to price. I'm guessing you'll dismiss Sling as well since they are even more expensive. Sling does have a good lineup though.
 
Stan Cooper said:
I've owned and flown my 2008 AMD 601XLi-B SLSA for nearly five years and love it. I converted it to experimental six months after I bought it and then got my Light Sport Repairman-Inspection certificate. I do my own maintenance and condition inspections and enjoy working on the plane almost as much as flying it. My Zodiac has an O-200-A, and that limits useful load; empty weight is 846 pounds, so with full fuel it's basically a single place airplane. I can take a light weight passenger (175 pounds or so, which is what I weigh) up for an hour or hour and a half if I limit my fuel to 12 gallons. A Rotax 912 would offer similar performance but provide about 100 pounds more useful load. I average 105 - 110 knots cruise.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

That does help. Thanks! I was hoping for a bit faster cruise, but thanks for the honesty. How are the annuals?
 
SoCalPilot88 said:
Sonex seems to have a good lineup, but I'm not a fan of the fuel tank located right above your legs. I know the Ercoupe had a similar location. I wonder what the accident stats show for post-crash fires.

I do like the Rans S-21. Fairly low price. Different engine choices. Looks like an easy build. Cruise speed with the Titan engine option is 155 mph. The speed with the Rotax 915 iS engine is lower at 145 mph, but can probably be raised if you make it a constant speed prop.

You dismissed the RV series due to price. I'm guessing you'll dismiss Sling as well since they are even more expensive. Sling does have a good lineup though.
Click to expand...
I'll check out the S-21. Haven't looked at that yet. To be clear, I am NOT building a plane. Anything I buy has to be already built.
 
If you don't really need 2 seats and like RVs, RV-3's tend to be significantly cheaper than the later models with all of the performance and handling benefits, payload notwithstanding.

Zeniths don't get as much attention as RVs but people that have them sure seem to like them.

With either airplane, especially buying used, understanding wing structure, structural issues, and possible mods is critical.

Nauga,
canopy shopping (like window shopping, I didn't beak another one)
 
Last edited:
I believe the Zenith 601 was the precursor to the Sportcruiser. Any interest in the Sportcruisers as they are quite nice aircraft in my biased opinion (as an owner.)

I found that my mission really was hauling myself to breakfast and maybe (maybe) offering to take someone up once in a while. Otherwise 90% of my flying is solo. That made an LSA perfect for my needs. There are quicker LSAs (CTsw for example) but I still see 120 knots TAS at fast cruise in my Sportcruiser burning 5.5 gallons per hour.

Good luck - looking forward to reading about what you end up buying!
 
I’m kinda in the same boat. I own a Skylane RG that cruises at 156 KTAS, but kicking around the idea of experimental so I can save money and do my own annuals. Plus, I’ve never had a passenger in the back seat, and only once in the front.

However, some of the cruise speeds offered by some home builts are rather dismal in comparison with my Skylane RG. I can probably give up a few knots, but no way can I go back to Cessna 172 speeds. I also love the stability in turbulence offered by my Skylane’s relatively high wing loading.
 
nauga said:
If you don't really need 2 seats and like RVs, RV-3's tend to be significantly cheaper than the later models with all of the performance and handling benefits, payload notwithstanding.

Zeniths don't get as much attention as RVs but people that have them sure seem to like them.

With either airplane, especially buying used, understanding wing structure, structural issues, and possible mods is critical.

Nauga,
canopy shopping (like window shopping, I didn't beak another one)
Click to expand...
I have considered all the Vans including the 3. I do like the extra cabin and panel space that a two seater, or four seater provides. Also, I have only seen the RV-3 as a tail dragger and that's just not something I have any interest in taking on at this point. I'd also like to keep my insurance premiums at the minimum and I suspect tail draggers are like retractables with a higher premium, but you are correct, the RV-3 is a lot of bang for the buck.

Once I settle on a replacement, I will indeed immerse myself in everything there is to know about that plane and also reach out to community members for the pre-purchase as well as some transition training.
 
rtk11 said:
I believe the Zenith 601 was the precursor to the Sportcruiser. Any interest in the Sportcruisers as they are quite nice aircraft in my biased opinion (as an owner.)

I found that my mission really was hauling myself to breakfast and maybe (maybe) offering to take someone up once in a while. Otherwise 90% of my flying is solo. That made an LSA perfect for my needs. There are quicker LSAs (CTsw for example) but I still see 120 knots TAS at fast cruise in my Sportcruiser burning 5.5 gallons per hour.

Good luck - looking forward to reading about what you end up buying!
Click to expand...
I might be interested in a Sportcruiser, but I think they may be outside my budget.
 
Dav8or said:
That does help. Thanks! I was hoping for a bit faster cruise, but thanks for the honesty. How are the annuals?
Click to expand...
Easy, peasy; it's a stone simple airplane. It takes me about a week, not rushing anything. I clean and gap the plugs, check compression, change oil and filter, cut the filter and inspect for metal, retorque and safety wire propeller bolts (it's a wooden prop), clean or replace the air intake filter, clean and grease wheel bearings, check brakes and tires, check mag timing, inspect control cables and adjust tension if necessary, inspect airframe and control surfaces for cleanliness, corrosion, smoking rivets, etc., check engine compartment wiring and hoses for wear and chafing, etc.
 
Dav8or said:
I looked at them, but I think they'd be too slow and most seem to be built with questionable engines IMO. I'd really like to stick with time tested and proven aircraft engines. Lycoming, Continental, or Rotax.
Click to expand...

I had a nose roller Sonex with the VW conversion and there were several reasons I sold it and built my current aircraft. IMHO 80hp isn't enough power for the Sonex unless you like C150 performance. The tail dragger I have now is that same airframe but has 120hp Corvair conversion. It has been an excellent powerplant and quite reliable thus far. The cowling used for the nose with the Corvair engine installed tends to help take some of the "ugly" off of the front of the airplane. ;)

I can cruise at an honest 120 knots and never stress the engine at a fuel burn rate of 5.6 or so per hour. The fuel tank is in the same location as the old Cub aircraft. The tank is quite robust and if you hit hard enough to break the tank you've got bigger problems to deal with.

These are light airplanes and the tail dragger is quite easy as far as tail draggers go but you can't sleep through the landing unless you want to be awakened quickly or spend a few dollars on repairs. o_O

Here's a video of a short flight from a few years ago:

 
Stan Cooper said:
Easy, peasy; it's a stone simple airplane. It takes me about a week, not rushing anything. I clean and gap the plugs, check compression, change oil and filter, cut the filter and inspect for metal, retorque and safety wire propeller bolts (it's a wooden prop), clean or replace the air intake filter, clean and grease wheel bearings, check brakes and tires, check mag timing, inspect control cables and adjust tension if necessary, inspect airframe and control surfaces for cleanliness, corrosion, smoking rivets, etc., check engine compartment wiring and hoses for wear and chafing, etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Sounds about what I'd like. The Mooney is a lot more than that. It takes me nearly a whole day just to take off and put back all the inspection and access panels. There are loads of them all held by a gazillion screws of varying type. All of them so tired of being run in and out every year + repairs over the last 55 years. Greasing the landing gear is also a messy hours long affair. Anyhow, it goes on...

Stone simple sounds nice now.

Speaking of landing gear, how robust is the gear on these planes. The Vans are well known for their wimpy, fragile nose gear. Anything like that here?
 
Dav8or said:
Thanks. Sounds about what I'd like. The Mooney is a lot more than that. It takes me nearly a whole day just to take off and put back all the inspection and access panels. There are loads of them all held by a gazillion screws of varying type. All of them so tired of being run in and out every year + repairs over the last 55 years. Greasing the landing gear is also a messy hours long affair. Anyhow, it goes on...

Stone simple sounds nice now.

Speaking of landing gear, how robust is the gear on these planes. The Vans are well known for their wimpy, fragile nose gear. Anything like that here?
Click to expand...


I have an RV9A (nose dragger) There's nothing wrong with the nose gear on the RVs, you just can't land on the nose gear or slam it down after touch down.
 
Dav8or said:
Speaking of landing gear, how robust is the gear on these planes. The Vans are well known for their wimpy, fragile nose gear. Anything like that here?
Click to expand...
No; the gear is very robust, although the original bungee cord shock on the nose strut was a huge PITA to replace, so one of the first things I did was replace the bungee cord system with the Viking "Steel Bungee" spring system which is well designed and the spring tension can be adjusted for various engine weights.

The Main gear is fabricated from a very beefy single piece aluminum bar stock.
 
SoCalPilot88 said:
but I'm not a fan of the fuel tank located right above your legs. I know the Ercoupe had a similar location. I wonder what the accident stats show for post-crash fires.
Click to expand...
As do Cubs, T-Craft, Aeronca, etc... people talk about it but I think post crash fires are pretty rare in that class of aircraft, if you hit hard enough to rupture the tank you're probably dead anyway.

A guy in the hangar next to mine had a 601 with a Corvair engine, he loved it and flew it all over the country. I think it would easily exceed LSA speeds, but as an experimental engine builder you can set the "max continuous HP" to whatever you want...
 
Just a note on the sonex fuel tank. It is a thick rotationally molded tank not a thin sheetmetal one. Post crash fires have been very far and few between. I seem to only recall one and that was soneone stalling it in and crashing nose first into the ground. There was no chance of survival even without a fire. There are many other crashworthy things to worry about in a sonex (or most homebuilts) but the fuel tank isnt one of them
 
nauga said:
If you don't really need 2 seats and like RVs, RV-3's tend to be significantly cheaper than the later models with all of the performance and handling benefits, payload notwithstanding.

Zeniths don't get as much attention as RVs but people that have them sure seem to like them.

With either airplane, especially buying used, understanding wing structure, structural issues, and possible mods is critical.

Nauga,
canopy shopping (like window shopping, I didn't beak another one)
Click to expand...
Agree with this.
And from what I've seen, you should be able to trade straight across for an older RV-6 too.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Agree with this.
And from what I've seen, you should be able to trade straight across for an older RV-6 too.
Click to expand...
I have been keeping an eye on old RV-6As and it is a possibility, but I was cautioned by my insurance guy that my insurance rates would go way up with any RV at least for the first 100 hours. In fairness, this may also be the case with a 601/650 too. I don't know yet.
 
Dav8or said:
I have been keeping an eye on old RV-6As and it is a possibility, but I was cautioned by my insurance guy that my insurance rates would go way up with any RV at least for the first 100 hours. In fairness, this may also be the case with a 601/650 too. I don't know yet.
Click to expand...
Here's a datapoint for you:
I bought my RV-9A with 0 hours in type.
I had around 450 total hours at the time.
Insurance required 1 hour dual, and was $1150 the first year.
When I renewed, I added 120 hrs in type and an IR, and insurance went down to $950.
I now have over 200 hrs in my -9A and I'm renewing insurance right now.
In a week or so, I'll let you know what it'll be this year.
 
A few months ago I was quoted 200 bucks more for an rv6a at 5k higher hull than my arrow. All in all very manageable increase for me. Finding a 6a at said price point has been a much taller order however, which is why I put it on hold until the credit frenzy cools.
 
Insurance seems to run in the range of $900 to 1200 a year for the average pilot and average lower cost airplane so just figure in $100 per month. Then add your hanger fee, and average out your monthly cost of annual/maintainence. Then add your wet costs per hour times estimated yearly flying time and you can see there are cheaper hobbies but NONE nearly so much fun as flying.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Here's a datapoint for you:
I bought my RV-9A with 0 hours in type.
I had around 450 total hours at the time.
Insurance required 1 hour dual, and was $1150 the first year.
When I renewed, I added 120 hrs in type and an IR, and insurance went down to $950.
I now have over 200 hrs in my -9A and I'm renewing insurance right now.
In a week or so, I'll let you know what it'll be this year.
Click to expand...
I think I would be pretty happy with a -9A, but they're just too expensive for me. Vans seem to be hot property right now.
 
I'm in the process of flying my 601 XLB around the US. My plane has the wing lockers and I can carry a lot of stuff, including camping gear, electric scooter, spare parts, etc.. The bubble canopy makes for a great flight experience. It's a fun and easy plane to fly, but the transition from a Mooney will take a few flights.

Engine choice is important. I have a heavy O -235 so I built the plane as light as possible.

The plane has a very wide cg which makes w&b pretty straight forward.

If I had to do it over again I would have put a Viking 130 in it.

The plane does not drop a wing in a stall. It simply mushes. Stalls are a non event.

I have vg's on my plane which provides better handling in the flare or flying slow. The stall speed with full flaps is low 30's. This is somewhat irrelevant in that the descent rate at this speed is very high. So, unlike most certificated planes, you don't land right at the stall speed. You are landing quite a bit faster, around 50 mph or so at touchdown.

It's a simple plane which is good and bad. Some of the builds are not so good. Have someone who knows these planes do a pre-buy if possible.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Here's a datapoint for you:
I bought my RV-9A with 0 hours in type.
I had around 450 total hours at the time.
Insurance required 1 hour dual, and was $1150 the first year.
When I renewed, I added 120 hrs in type and an IR, and insurance went down to $950.
I now have over 200 hrs in my -9A and I'm renewing insurance right now.
In a week or so, I'll let you know what it'll be this year.
Click to expand...
Update: it’s $930 this year.
 
Dav8or said:
That's a lot cheaper than mine. I just paid $1500 for the Mooney.
Click to expand...
Pretty cheap for a retractable in today's market. You should get that thing sold right now. Airplane prices are nuts. Wait and you could miss an opportunity.
 
steingar said:
Pretty cheap for a retractable in today's market. You should get that thing sold right now. Airplane prices are nuts. Wait and you could miss an opportunity.
Click to expand...
That's what sucks! I wish I could sell now and then take a year off or something, let the world implode and then buy up a plane I want for peanuts, but I also want to keep my hangar. I rent one of the nice hangars from the county and they require you to own and keep a plane there for obvious reasons. The grace period for non ownership is kinda short and I also store other crap at the hangar.

Still... maybe I should sell now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top