Zenith 701

Discussion in 'Home Builders and Sport Pilots' started by Ted DuPuis, Oct 13, 2015.

  1. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Good for you. I still don't like them. Don't like engines that sound like chainsaws in an airplane. I never said they weren't good engines, I said I don't like them. Did I mention I don't like them? I also don't like Hondas or Toyotas. They're good cars, I just don't like them. I, too, know a few things about engines.

    Please work on your reading comprehension.
     
  2. FormerHangie

    FormerHangie Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,192
    Location:
    Roswell, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FormerHangie
    If you're planning on building a 750, and have a mind to tinker with engines, I do believe the Corvair could be made to work. Personally, I'd like to see someone put the Lycoming IO-233 in one, I bet that it would get off the ground with gusto with that mill under the cowl.
     
  3. docmirror

    docmirror Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    12,008
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cowboy - yeehah!
    The Corvair is a hot little engine for being built by GM. With the right internals and the 5th bearing for prop loads, I would seriously consider one. I had several Corvairs in HS, and the engines were rock solid. According to some Corvair history, because it was the first air cooled car from GM, they overbuilt a lot of the internals. forged rods, cranks, extra bearing area, and good valves and guides. Just needs a prop support out front.
     
  4. N801BH

    N801BH Touchdown! Greaser! Gone West

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,188
    Location:
    Jackson Hole Wy
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FBH
    Agreed...

    Personally, I am amazed someone /company has not created a clone for aircraft use.....:dunno:
     
  5. docmirror

    docmirror Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    12,008
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cowboy - yeehah!
  6. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    I wouldn't put in a 233 for personal reasons. While I'm not against auto derivative engines at all (as Ben well knows), I would only do it for a 300+ HP application, like my idea to rebuild a 340/414/421.
     
  7. James331

    James331 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    17,372
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    Doesn't South Africa make a good amount of VW stuff
     
  8. James331

    James331 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    17,372
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331

    Just the mans preference :dunno:


    Also is your 777 is powered by a rotax?

    I really don't see the relevance, I mean you cant get further apart while staying in aviation, to think your time in a 777 relates one iota to a tiny stick and rudder style zenith.

    But hey, why do I know, you fly a 777 :rofl:
     
  9. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,558
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    I've got five fatal CH-701 accidents in my 16-year database:

    DEN08LA040 (12/15/2007)
    ANC09FA062 (7/14/2009)
    CEN11FA310 (4/29/2011)
    WPR11FA333 (7/17/2011)
    ANC13FA095 (9/9/2013)

    All Rotax-powered, none was attributed to engine failure.

    The fatality rate for the design is pretty good; 11% of accidents result in fatalities compared to ~25% for homebuilts as a whole.

    A total of 45 CH-701 accidents in my 1998-2013 database. A Fleet Accident Rate (accidents vs. number of registered examples) a bit higher than average, but a bit better than the Avid and Kitfox.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
  10. jhausch

    jhausch Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,411
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jhausch
    This made me smile a bit since it was directed at Ted.

    Kudos to Ted for the Zen-like reply.

    Ted - if you want a tail-dragger, check out the Groppo Trail
    http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/10/28/the-groppo-trail-the-lsa-worlds-best-kept-secret/
    http://www.flemingaviation.com/tiki-index.php?page=Groppo+Trail

    Posted this vid without watching it. Just watched it. Not good.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn6HjuuWbJ8

    Better video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fprF8hH6s
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
  11. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Thanks :)

    I appreciate the links and videos, I'll check them out. Right now we're going to finish up the house projects before we decide to buy a kit plane. Our kitchen is getting close to finished...
     
  12. bflynn

    bflynn En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    4,269
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    These are the fatal 701 accidents I see in the NTSB database. My general take is that there are a lot of stalls/spin accidents. I attribute two of these as Experimental accidents, two as "stupid pilot tricks" and the rest as pilots not keeping the airplane flying. Possibly a trait of the 701 that it stalls quickly?

    CEN15FA211 - low level stall
    CEN15LA026 - hit power lines (Is this a Zenith?)
    ANC13FA095 - low level stall
    CEN11FA310 - first flight stall/crash, pilot rusty
    CEN10LA401 - low level stall
    WPR11FA333 - fuel starvation leading to stall. Mechanical or aircraft configuration
    ANC09FA062 - overweight

    And maybe these two, they aren't "Zenith", but are identified as STOL 701. Modified?

    DEN08LA040 - CFIT while flying over his house
    CEN11FA310 - departure stall/spin
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
  13. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Low level stall/spin accidents wouldn't inherently surprise me. When you're talking about a STOL aircraft, people are inherently building it and flying it for short fields (duh), which has a risk factor involved.

    That does, of course, pose the question of whether that's a goal we want to do. But since they're talking about 100ish ft TO/landing distance, I'd figure aim for a few hundred to be on the safe side.
     
  14. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,558
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    Builders can name their homebuilts anything they want; they don't have to use the kit manufacturer's name nor the company's designation for the aircraft. That's one of the big problems when trying to search the NTSB database; there's no standardization in the names.

    One of my favorites was listed as a "Bee Dee Five." THAT doesn't come up on a "BD-5" NTSB database search.

    When I transfer data from the NTSB database to my personal database, I assign each a "kennel name" that's the usual designation for the type of aircraft (if I can figure it out....).

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2015
  15. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Ron, I really appreciate you sharing your NTSB information.
     
  16. N801BH

    N801BH Touchdown! Greaser! Gone West

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,188
    Location:
    Jackson Hole Wy
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FBH
    I second that....

    Ron does an outstanding job of searching, compiling and arranging data in a logical and accurate result........

    Thanks Ron for all you do...:thumbsup:
     
  17. FormerHangie

    FormerHangie Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,192
    Location:
    Roswell, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FormerHangie
    It appears that if you were wanting to build a 750, and had the time and space to do so, you can find a ratty/damaged/project Cessna 150 with a decent engine for not too much money. You could probably sell a lot of the parts for not too much less than you paid for it, and have a good engine for a very reasonable price.
     
  18. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Reviving this thread. Some of Ben's old posts in here. :(

    It's close to 2 years since I started this thread, and I'm getting more serious. Like to the point of wanting to talk to the Zenith folks at Osh and potentially put some money down if there's a good deal for the show (not sure if Zenith usually does this or not).

    It seems that there have been some updates to the 701 kit. The Zenith website says that most panels are now pre-drilled on the 701, which would make assembly significantly easier than original. Does anyone have any knowledge about this? It looks like Zenith is putting some more of the 750 features into the 701.

    I also have plotted out the runway on the property. If I remove 3 trees, I can have 360 feet. If I remove 5 trees, I can have 400 feet. This has about 20 ft obstacles. I think that either the 701 or the 750 would do it, but the claims on the website indicate the 701 has a bit of an advantage. The 701 claims takeoff and landing distances in the 60-80 ft range, while the 750 is about double that. Obviously these are published numbers, but when I'm talking about a strip this short, more margin is more better.

    @yakdriver had said it took him ~400 hours to build a 750 and he's an experienced builder. I'm not an experienced builder, but I'm not the worst mechanic in the world. Time to build is definitely a factor. I also think I need to sit in both the 701 and the 750 to see how much the cabin space works. Realistically this is something that will be the family flying in primarily, and none of us are particularly large, although I am 6' so reasonably tall.
     
  19. citizen5000

    citizen5000 Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Messages:
    855
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    citizen5000
    I have flown the Zenith 650 and the 701. The 701 is called a 'sky jeep' for good reason.
     
  20. GeorgeC

    GeorgeC Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    GeorgeC
    Ted, how would you power the 701?
     
  21. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    That's a good question, and one that I don't have a full answer to at this point.

    As indicated earlier in the thread, we're leaning towards an O-200. The "excessive" in me thinks an O-300 would be better than an O-200, because 145 HP is better than 100 HP. The FAQs on the website say the airplane was designed to be able to handle up to a 300 lb installed weight of the engine, so an O-300 would still work. But an O-200 is ultimately more likely. Part of the reason for that is that we don't like the chainsaw sound produced by the Rotax options or some of the others that spin a lot faster. Something that sounds like a traditional aircraft engine is a positive for us, because part of the point of this is to have some sort of "olden days" feel, of just flying around off a short grass strip because it's fun to count cows and fly around.

    The nice thing is that I wouldn't have to decide on the firewall forward until well into the build process.
     
  22. Mike Smith

    Mike Smith Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    Prattville, Alabama
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fresh Prince of PrattVegas
    You gotta read the whole thread, Ted would clearly power it by Rotax. :D

    Dang it, he beat me to the reply.
     
    denverpilot and Ted DuPuis like this.
  23. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Being a tinkerer (and especially now that we're without Ben) doing some kind of conversion is appealing. I even like the Harley engine conversion idea. Used O-200s and O-300s are pretty cheap, and they're dirt simple to work on. O-235s aren't hard to come by, either. But their parts aren't necessarily cheap.

    The first decision to be made is which plane to go with, and the engine would come somewhere down the line, after I got far enough into the build process to think it might have a chance of flying.
     
  24. Grum.Man

    Grum.Man Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Statesville NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Grum.Man
    Hard to beat an 0-200 for acquisition cost and overhaul cost. Being experimental there are lots of ways to up the HP on them too. An O-235 L2C with the high compression pistons would be a nice fit as well with 125HP. Overhaul cost are slightly higher however.
     
  25. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    I had a chat with a coworker who's on his 2nd build (both RVs). I think from talking to him it makes more sense for me to buy the kit in sections. Zenith does seem to be doing updates to the aircraft, and it helps to "spread out the pain" financially. Plus I'm not going to just sit down and build this, it will take a couple years most likely.

    I'm thinking that I want to aim for closer to 125 HP. Yes, the O-235 has the benefit of doing that out the door, but like you said the O-200 can get upgraded as experimental. A modified O-200 might be the way to go. I also do want to run it on MoGas, though, so that's another consideration. Want this to be a cheap operator and cheap fuel is part of it. But I want horsepower.
     
  26. GeorgeC

    GeorgeC Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    GeorgeC
    But enough about you, Ted. Why don't you build an O-200 750 cruzer and then sell me the winning raffle ticket? :)
     
    Ted DuPuis likes this.
  27. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Because whatever we build will be STOL, not a Cruzer. And after we build it, we want to fly it with the kids for a few years. When they get to be teenagers and stop thinking mom and dad are cool, then maybe we'd reconsider selling it. :)
     
  28. Grum.Man

    Grum.Man Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Statesville NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Grum.Man
    They make Corvair firewall forward kits that would get you the HP and MoGas. Just know that to properly build a Corvair for airplane duty it will cost just as much as a Cont/Lyco engine.
     
  29. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,436
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
  30. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    9,312
    Location:
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    Why wouldn't the modified 235 be able to run Mogas? Compression won't allow it?
     
  31. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    It might run MoGas. It depends on the level of modification and the grade of MoGas I want to run.
     
  32. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,436
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    The 235 mogas STC requires at least 91 octane
     
  33. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    48,653
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    I think you need the world's first turbine 701... :)
     
    Ted DuPuis likes this.
  34. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Yeah well I know a thing or two about MoGas on these things. ;)

    The thought has definitely crossed my mind. :)
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  35. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,436
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    It's been done a couple times.
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  36. zaitcev

    zaitcev En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,945
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pete Zaitcev
    {Oops, never mind. I've already made this remark upthread.}
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  37. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    48,653
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    I'm sad that he taxied to the other end in that video. Or that the camera person didn't go down there. Watching a STOL airplane take off from the departure end is always disappointing. Ha.
     
  38. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    My coworker made the point that it always amuses him to see Zeniths based at 5,000 ft, towered airports.

    Being based at a house with a 360 ft run is much better.
     
  39. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,210
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Really, the problem with the turbine 701 is the fuel burn. Reading the one built from a small (~90 HP) turbine, cruise fuel burn is ~12 GPH. Meanwhile, even an O-300 would have a (high power) cruise burn of probably ~6 GPH, depending on how I felt like running it, plus significantly more horsepower. The small turbine has cool factor but not much for practicality. Plus a lot of messing around to make it work, whereas I can just bolt up an O-whatever and have it work.
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  40. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,436
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    Yea, I bet that thing is a blast to fly
     
    denverpilot likes this.