Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Home Builders and Sport Pilots' started by Ted DuPuis, Oct 13, 2015.
The gentleman who's rebuilding my Carlson works on a 701 in the same time. He is planning on putting a WV engine into it. This should tell you everything about how tiny 701 is. I saw it in the shop and although it looks more imposing than Sonex, the gross weight is something like 1100 lbs. Nowadays it means that 701 is a single-seat airplane at best.
701's are TINY.......
The 750 is the minimum for Ted and Lori's needs.... If it helps... When I die.. Ted is willed my 801..... Don't tell him though..
Actually, it is given to..cloudninerescueflights.org/
Don't accept any mail or packages from Kansas....jus' sayin'
I have met Ted.... Got him a nice fuel discount on one of the cross country rescue trips passing though Jackson Hole.. He was saving 55 cats from Katrina.......
Well 54,, I had to put the dead one in the dumpster..... I am a pretty strong guy, but I had tears in my eyes that day...
Ted is ONE hell of the great person...
I like that idea of trading sierra for 750
Why buy a new kit? I highly suggest finding a second hand kit with very little actually built. These are for sale all the time. Some haven't even been started, however you will find a lot with maybe a little of the tail built. These sell for 50% the price of a new kit. Make sure to inspect the kit and anything already built very well. I went this route with my Sonex kit, and will easily make $30k.
I won't tell him! Oh wait...
That means more than I can put in words, Ben.
Me, too. That's the only time I've lost one. The ASPCA said afterwards (they were the ones I worked with) that given the condition of the cats and what they'd been through, they expected that more wouldn't survive the trip. They thought we did a great job.
Flew the Navajo 30 hours that week from PA to Canada (gravel strips with vet teams), Joplin, Seattle, back to Canada, and home. The picture you took of me in front of it is still one of my favorites.
Thanks for the kind words.
This has been tempting me for a few days now.
A bit pricey, but looks like it's all there.
Right up the street from Ted..
Do they make a 750 in the TD option? I thought it was only the 701, as I was looking into the same thing.
I vote for the Just Highlander as well. True quick-fold wings, and while I've never flown one, I've seen them up close and the build quality is quite nice. I'd go for the normal version, as the Super STOL isn't really necessary for most. The regular Highlander is still very impressive and will save a bunch of money. You can also go with UL power on those, as I prefer a more traditional engine as well over the Rotax.
Or go with a Kitfox and put the radial on it
Sure seemed like Kitfox was the darling of this segment back when I didn't have grey hair. Their marketing went awfully quiet in the last decade compared to the newcomers.
The Kitfox S7 is a really nice airplane and the kit and instuctions are excellent. Great performance and useful load. I like it a lot better than the Zenith and even though it is fabric the build time would be about the same. Several engine choices. Don
I've seen a 750 with a radial on it...the guys at the shop said the radial quit at about 8 hours which resulted in landing out. Also said the engine was replaced for free...
I was kinda leary about the whole thing being blind rivet together (who wouldn't?) but I remembered that basically the whole windshield pillar on the Cessna Cardinal Series is. These box shaped beams are made from 4 or more formed very thick aluminum pieces then blind riveted together with what appears to be the same rivets used in the Zenith. They also cut 2 large access holes in each one with a super heavy >0.060 plates that cover them, fastened with 6 #10 structural screws in each, due to wiring bundles and aileron cables that go through them.
Very good point. I used to put sheet metal hobby stuff together with pop rivets, and never got a very good feel with them. Part of it was seeing how great a driven rivet worked, and part of it was how crappy the rivets I was using expanded and didn't hold right.
Then, I went to a demo at OSH a few years back and saw the equipment they use, and the practice you get, and the way it works with a air riveter. It was soooooo much better than what I was doing back in the day by hand. It'll never get to the level of a driven rivet done right, but still they are way better.
One of the features I liked about the Sonex build was the option of flush rivets. Double the work(or more) but I like flush riveting. Another reason I own a Bonanza.
Its quite surprising how many blind fasteners and others like hi-loks are used on part 25 stuff.
There is nothing wrong with aircraft grade blind rivets. They are just as strong as regular rivets. they are not anything like "POP" rivets. Don
Well, they are both blind, and they both pop when applied, and they come in exactly the same size, and they rivet two pieces of sheet metal, and they leave a crowned finish. So - I'm going with they are somewhat alike.
The material really is the key factor. Those aluminum blind rivets sold at the hardware store, or that come with the hand riveter are by far weaker than the stainless steel rivets used in kits like the Sonex. There really is no comparison.
Sigh.... I just don't have the energy.
Dimples make a golf ball fly further and everyone buys vortex generators anyway on slow aircraft and tries to disrupt laminar flow on purpose.
But.... You speak the truth......
If you don't want to use the Rotax, but still want a 701, Jabiru has a firewall forward kit for their four cylinder engine for that plane. Problem is that the kit, engine instruments, and engine will cost you $20,000, and that would put your final cost north of $40,000, I would think.
Just for curiosity's sake what would a realistic budget for a 750 be? If you're getting all new pieces, I'd have to think it would be between $50,000 and $60,000.
Zenith has the package kit for $20k, getting you everything but engine prop and instruments for the basic deal. I figure another $3k for the rest of the junk you need, and then it's down to engine and prop. Go low buck used O200 and a used prop you might get done for ~$30k or a bit over. More likely closer to $40k, figure a decent plane ready to fly for $36k with no fancy stuff.
For about $45,000 the other option is a Savannah T kit that is a metal tailwheel with a Rotax 912 UL engine. Build time is claimed to be about 350 hours, though if you add another $10,000 the build time is allegedly reduced to about 110 hours. (Actually the numbers I used are for the Savannah S, which is the trike version but I assume the T version would be comparable cost.) http://fly-buylsa.com/Savannah.html
75 Grand for a 701 knock off............
Russians love cherry rivets and they even have enormous machines that take the whole wing and rivet skins on it according to a program (used to be on paper tape). They also paint them or do other treatments to prevent galvanic corrosion from a dissimilar cherry. That said, everything they make has airframe lifetime.
The Savannah S is not a 701 knockoff. The specs aren't remotely alike. The Savannah S (and presumably T) is more comparable in specs to a CH-750. And a RTF Savannah at $75K is quite the bargain when compared to a RTF CH-750 that costs $140k (http://newplane.com/750/price.html) - though you can't even buy the latter in the US.
Besides, since 2010 ICP and Zenair have been collaborating in other matters, so any animosity over the "knock off" issue seems quite dated.
"Zenair Europe is very pleased to announce that the latest version of the Zodiac CH 650E will be unveiled at Aero-Friedrichshafen this April. The Italian-built aircraft will be manufactured as the CH 650Ei by ICP and sold by regional Zenair distributors throughout Europe as a ready-to-fly ULM (MTOM 450 kg + 5%) .
ICP was a Zenair dealer in Italy in the early 1990s before it began manufacturing its own high-wing aircraft; the two companies are now collaborating again to bring a top-quality, high-performance all-metal low-wing design to market." http://www.zenairulm.com/news-recent.html
More details here: http://www.zenairulm.com/rtf---ch-650ei.html
Savannah started as a complete knock off of the 701 and as a offshore company Chris Heinz could not stop them... Maybe over the years they "refined" their 701 copy but I personally have NO respect for them..
As for the partnership between Savannah and ZAC.. My guess is since the multiple fatalities in the 601XL wing shedding events, ZAC needed a "fresh" marketing tool, and Savannah turned out to be that fool...
I flew my friend's Savannah with the tapered wing and electric slats. I can't remember the model number but it had great performance. The slats would come out as you put down the flaps and would retract with the flaps up giving a cruise speed of 125 mph. His was a factory built airplane and it was very nice with nice fit and finish. Don
Tapered wing? I don't see that on the Savannah site. Also, the specs say max speed is 123MPH. Got any further info?
I found a picture of one. Had regular ailerons and flaps also not the Junkers style like on the Zenith. Had a docile stall power off but would drop a wing pretty fast on a departure stall.
Here is another showing the flaps and slats extended. Unfortunately he was flying around his cabin in the hills and stalled it at low level and spun in. Did the classic moose stall.
I like reading NTSB reports, so I looked up the various STOL Zeniths. I found 5 or 6, only 1 fatal.
The fatal was a departure stall on a 701 with floats from a lake while over gross. The rest were engine failures. One Mazda rotary, and the rest either were or appeared to be Rotaxes (one 2-stroke). They all walked away.
So, the safety seems pretty good.
Here is just one fatal in a 801,
Ps... Don't smoke dope and pull alot of G's//
National Transportation Safety Board
Most Critical Injury:
State Zip Code Local Time Time Zone
Aircraft Manufacturer Model/Series
Aircraft Information Summary
Revenue Sightseeing Flight: Air Medical Transport Flight:
Brief narrative statement of facts, conditions and circumstances pertinent to the accident/incident:
FACTUAL REPORT - AVIATION Page 1
Airport Proximity: Distance From Landing Facility:
Type of Aircraft
Aircraft Registration Number:
This space for binding
Nicholas CA 95659 1130 PST
Mitchell CH-801 Airplane
*** Note: NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a
significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various
sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. ***
On February 28, 2003, about 1130 Pacific standard time, an experimental Mitchell CH-801, N235RJ, broke
apart in flight near Nicholas, California. The owner was operating the airplane under the provisions
of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot and one passenger sustained fatal injuries; the airplane was
destroyed. The personal local flight departed Rio Linda Airport (Q94), Rio Linda, California, about
1000. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.
A farm worker heard a thud and noticed debris in the air about 1130. Several hours later he informed
the farm owner of his observations. They went to investigate and discovered the wreckage.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) accident coordinator examined the debris field. He
estimated that the debris path was 2 miles long. The debris path was along a magnetic bearing of 340
degrees. The top surface of the right wing was the first item in the debris path. The next pieces
were the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. They were approximately 400 feet away from the right
wing top, and 50 feet apart from each other. The remainder of the right wing was 800 feet past the
stabilizers. The left wing was an additional 300 feet away. The fuselage was near the end of the
A Safety Board investigator examined the wreckage at Plain Parts in Pleasant Grove, California.
Rivet holes at separation points were elongated and/or deformed. Fracture surfaces were angular and
The top 7-foot portion of the right wing separated. The inboard spar/rib structure bent aft and
twisted outward. The inboard 5 feet of the main spar bent aft about 80 degrees. The right wing strut
displayed 45-degree fracture angles at the midpoint and root locations.
The left wing remained nearly intact. The main strut pulled out of the wing, and the fitting rolled
180 degrees. The strut remained connected at the root attach point.
The fore and aft attach fittings on the left side of the empennage displayed smooth, 45-degree edges
at the failure points. The right fittings pulled out of the fuselage. The elevator had been modified
with 11-inch tip extensions. Rivets sheared through the rudder's bottom hinge.
A black rubber mark was on the leading edge slat.
This space for binding
National Transportation Safety Board
FACTUAL REPORT - AVIATION Page
One engine mount, secured by an AN-5 bolt, had a 3/16-inch gap on the engine side of the firewall.
The FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, conducted toxicological
testing. They tested the pilot and passenger for carbon monoxide, cyanide, ethanol, and drugs.
The pilot's test had the following results:
tetrahydrocannobinol (marihuana) detected in Blood
0.013 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Urine
0.0124 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Blood
0.0332 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Liver
The passenger's test had the following results:
0.0055 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Blood
0.0309 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Liver
0.0214 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Blood
1.0212 (ug/ml, ug/g) tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid (marihuana) detected in Liver
fluoxetine detected in Blood
fluoxetine detected in Blood
0.475 (ug/ml,ug/g) norfluoxetine detected in Blood
norfuoxetine detected in liver
According to FAA Advisory Circular AC 20-27F, Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft,
"Amateur builders are free to develop their own designs or build from existing designs. We do not
approve these designs and it would be impractical to develop design standards for the wide variety of
design configurations, created by designers, kit manufacturers, and amateur builders."
National Transportation Safety Board
Stupid pilot tricks will kill you every time.
There was another fatal 801 crash in Miss a few years back, killed two, crashed on airport property, undetermined but probably pilot error..
I believe the only 701 fatal was in Arizona a couple of years back, Pilot buzzed his house and ran out of flying talent... It was a big deal in the Zenith community as the 701 had been out for 20 years or so and considered a VERY safe plane... Which the STOL series really is.. IMHO.
Wow ! That's a really stupid comment ! I guess you're from stock that thought it was better to stick with horse and buggies than cars as well. "We don't like them thar automobiles - no sir".
Well if you want 1940s technology that weighs a good 60lbs more than yeah - you go with that O-200. I fly a B-777 in my other job I have NO problem with the Rotax 9 series engines. That's probably because I know a thing or two about engines and can recognize a good modern design.