Zenith CH650 disadvantages

Will Kumley

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
698
Location
Pacific Southwest
Display Name

Display name:
Will
What are they? Considering a couple options that are in the homebuilt LSA category. I've read they require a gentle touch when flying but seat time should fix that if I own the thing. I imagine they get tossed around more in turbulent air, is that true? Is insurance crazy expensive? I was looking at a dragonfly recently and the insurance company quoted me at over $5k a year for a $20k hull value. In that scenario, I'd opt out of the insurance and just fly the thing as four years of insurance would cover the cost of the plane I was looking at. Anything else I should consider?

Right now I'm still debating a dragonfly or something like a Zenith CH650. Dragonfly could be a much cheaper project but has zero support left. Zenith looks good on paper and the company is still in business. There are a few others I'm adding to my spreadsheet of homebuilts to compare them without jumping between websites but as I type this the Zenith is winning of the currently available kits.
 
Your subject line talks about E-LSA. E-LSA is experimental light sport aircraft. It is starts out as an exact copy of an S-LSA special light sport aircraft. (You can change it later.) Not to be confused with a wide range of aircraft that fit light sport aircraft criteria per FAA 1.1, which can include standard certificated airplanes like a Piper Cub or an E-AB experimental amateur built aircraft, among others

I suspect you mean an E-AB that meets LSA criteria, but your headline or subject line can create some confusion. Perhaps you mean simply LSA.
 
Last edited:
Your subject line talks about E-LSA. E-LSA is experimental light sport aircraft. It is an exact copy of an S-LSA special light sport aircraft. Not to be confused with a wide range of aircraft that fit light sport aircraft criteria per FAA 1.1, which can include standard certificated airplanes like a Piper Cub or an E-AB experimental amateur built aircraft, among others

I suspect you mean an E-AB that meets LSA criteria, but your headline or subject line can create some confusion.
Maybe I'm thinking wrong but I was under the impression a homebuilt like the Zenith CH650 is classified as an E-LSA. I know there are many homebuilt kits that would fit into the E-AB as they can get faster speeds and heavier weights.
 
LSA covers a lot of ground, from almost-ultralight flying lawn chairs all the way to heavier and faster airplanes, as long as they're no more than 2 seat and meet the weight, stall speed, and some other limitations. The clasic lightplanes like the Cub, T-Craft, etc., are in the middle if the range. The lighter end will get tossed around, yes (so will a Cub!), as it's all about wing loading.

The CH650 complies with the LSA limits so it can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but it's not E-LSA; it will still be registered as E-AB. E-LSA registration is limited to approved E-LSA kits, paperwork conversion of a factory built SLSA, or "fat ultralights" converted during the transition period.

$5K for $20K hull seems excessive unless you're a very low time pilot. 1/4 of that is more reasonable.
 
LSA covers a lot of ground, from almost-ultralight flying lawn chairs all the way to heavier and faster airplanes, as long as they're no more than 2 seat and meet the weight, stall speed, and some other limitations. The clasic lightplanes like the Cub, T-Craft, etc., are in the middle if the range. The lighter end will get tossed around, yes (so will a Cub!), as it's all about wing loading.

The CH650 complies with the LSA limits so it can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but it's not E-LSA; it will still be registered as E-AB. E-LSA registration is limited to approved E-LSA kits, paperwork conversion of a factory built SLSA, or "fat ultralights" converted during the transition period.

$5K for $20K hull seems excessive unless you're a very low time pilot. 1/4 of that is more reasonable.
Thanks for the clarification. I am a low time pilot with less than 200 hours. It was a shock to me though as I was quoted around $1000/year when I was looking at purchasing a Cessna 172, and Beechcraft musketeer. Both those deals fell through though and the wife recently said we should build a plane. I'm still hemming and hawing in my brain over it but trying to educate myself on things that I'm sure will become questions if we truly go down the homebuilt path.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I am a low time pilot with less than 200 hours. It was a shock to me though as I was quoted around $1000/year when I was looking at purchasing a Cessna 172, and Beechcraft musketeer. Both those deals fell through though and the wife recently said we should build a plane. I'm still hemming and hawing in my brain over it but trying to educate myself on things that I'm sure will become questions if we truly go down the homebuilt path.

So you need to think long and hard about whether building, be it E-LSA or E-AB, is right for you. It’s not a path to be taken lightly. The oft quoted mantra is, “if you want to build, build, but if you want to just fly, buy.” IOW if you aren’t really into building and the time and effort building entails, look to buy an already flying aircraft regardless of its certification category that meets your mission requirements.
 
If it’s the cost of insurance you might want to look at training type aircraft like Cherokee,Cessna and Beechcraft. Prices are running high right now. You can usually get reasonable insurance rates until you build more hours.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I am a low time pilot with less than 200 hours. It was a shock to me though as I was quoted around $1000/year when I was looking at purchasing a Cessna 172, and Beechcraft musketeer. Both those deals fell through though and the wife recently said we should build a plane. I'm still hemming and hawing in my brain over it but trying to educate myself on things that I'm sure will become questions if we truly go down the homebuilt path.

I have a two place Sonex with a 120hp Corvair conversion on it. Been flying it a bit over 10 years. It it E-AB and is legal for a sport pilot to fly. Cruise is ~120 knots and the handling is crisp but quite enjoyable. It's a tailwheel version but a Sonex is a pretty tame tailwheel airplane. Insurance with hull & liability for this year just went slightly over 1K. There are a lot of good choices for what you are wanting to do, even more if you have a PPL ...
 
The answer is always RV-12. :)

As previously noted, "LSA" covers a LOT of ground and the terminology can get really, really confusing. An E-LSA is a kit built airplane that exactly duplicates a factory example. A kit built RV-12 is an example. S-LSA is a factory built LSA. Some planes are available in both flavors. To make it even more confusing, an E-LSA can be professionally built in a factor since there's no "51% rule" like there is for E-AB. Then there are all of the E-AB and type certificated factory planes that can be flown with Sport Pilot privileges. Dozens. Hundreds.

All will have fairly low wing loading and therefore, yes, get tossed around some in turbulence. Some are docile, some fly like little bitty fighters, some are aerobatic, some... well, you get the picture. Mine is an absolute joy to fly, makes a 172 or Cherokee feel like a pickup truck from 1975.

As for insurance, shop around. We've been with Gallagher since day 1. We were paying $1400 annually for three pilots (none over 400 hours) in an RV-12 with $75K hull coverage. We've just added a fourth guy with less than 50 hours total, and we'll pay $2K/year until he's over 150 hours - probably 2024. I think Gallagher specializes in Experimental planes, I know they're pretty popular with RV builders.

As for the build/buy thing... you'll probably be able to buy something for less than the cost of building, even if you don't put a value on your time. That said, if you do build (budget 2x the money and 3x the time you think it will take) you'll learn a ton. Join an EAA chapter and you'll likely make some good friends as well.
 
Will, it might be worth your time to talk to USAA about insurance. I was talking to an insurance surveyor about a customers plane, and asked about his company covering E/AB, he recommended USAA as he got a better deal with them than even his own company would give.
 
So you need to think long and hard about whether building, be it E-LSA or E-AB, is right for you. It’s not a path to be taken lightly. The oft quoted mantra is, “if you want to build, build, but if you want to just fly, buy.” IOW if you aren’t really into building and the time and effort building entails, look to buy an already flying aircraft regardless of its certification category that meets your mission requirements.
I like to build stuff but admittedly, would rather fly the plane. Which is why we looked at a completed dragonfly a few weeks ago. It turned out to not be the right plane for me. I'm sure its the right plane for someone, just not me. My biggest concern with building is that I'm still active duty and in 2 1/2 years will be moving again. While I could likely transport a plane in pieces I'd rather not plan for that. But, building gives me the option to get the repairmans cert for it and I',, know every detail about the plane.
 
I like to build stuff but admittedly, would rather fly the plane. Which is why we looked at a completed dragonfly a few weeks ago. It turned out to not be the right plane for me. I'm sure its the right plane for someone, just not me. My biggest concern with building is that I'm still active duty and in 2 1/2 years will be moving again. While I could likely transport a plane in pieces I'd rather not plan for that. But, building gives me the option to get the repairmans cert for it and I',, know every detail about the plane.

I hear ya. I started building my RV-10 while I was active duty. 3 months after I purchased the first kit I got orders to deploy to Iraq. Just one of the reasons my project took 9 years from first order to first flight.

One of the benefits of going E-LSA is you can take the course and apply for the repairman’s cert even if you didn’t build your plane, unlike the cert for an E-AB aircraft where you have to be the builder. Just food for thought
 
But, building gives me the option to get the repairmans cert for it
If it is an E-AB the repairman certificate lets you do the condition inspections. It is not required for repair. You do have to be a builder.
For E-LSA you can take a class get a certificate to do the inspections on any E-LSA you own, you do not have to be a builder. It is not required for repair
For S-LSA you can get a repairman certificate for maintenance via a class as well.
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac 65-32a.pdf
 
I hear ya. I started building my RV-10 while I was active duty. 3 months after I purchased the first kit I got orders to deploy to Iraq. Just one of the reasons my project took 9 years from first order to first flight.

One of the benefits of going E-LSA is you can take the course and apply for the repairman’s cert even if you didn’t build your plane, unlike the cert for an E-AB aircraft where you have to be the builder. Just food for thought
Man, an RV-10 would be awesome. It fits our mission 100% of the time with a little extra to spare.
 
In sailing the advice to would-be, first-time boat builders is: first build a deck box. Then you’ll know if you have the aptitude & patience to build a boat. Don’t know what the equivalent is for airplanes is, though.
 
You might find it worthwhile to talk to an insurance broker to learn more about price ranges for various aircraft. You might check in with a local EAA chapter to see if they can offer advice on building. It is helpful if you can define the amount you are willing to spend (be sure to include tools, etc.) and define your mission, which is usually harder than one thinks initially. If you find a model you like, it can be helpful to frequent the web site of it's type club.
 
In sailing the advice to would-be, first-time boat builders is: first build a deck box. Then you’ll know if you have the aptitude & patience to build a boat. Don’t know what the equivalent is for airplanes is, though.

Vans (and maybe other kit manufacturers) make practice kits for new builders to get a taste of the processes and techniques involved. There’s also builders workshops (Sportair, AirVenture, and Sun’n Fun) and of course hands-on training provided by EAA Chapters and/or other builders.
 
The answer is always RV-12. :)

An E-LSA is a kit built airplane that exactly duplicates a factory example…To make it even more confusing, an E-LSA can be professionally built in a factor since there's no "51% rule" like there is for E-AB.

Just to clarify, many E-LSA’s are paperwork conversions from factory-built S-LSA’s. Mine is.

To the best of my knowledge, once it’s Experimental, anyone can legally work on it with no rating or specific training required. The Light Sport Repairman - Inspection is just required to do Annual Condition Inspections on a specific owned E-LSA.

And yes, it can be confusing.
 
Just to clarify, many E-LSA’s are paperwork conversions from factory-built S-LSA’s. Mine is.

To the best of my knowledge, once it’s Experimental, anyone can legally work on it with no rating or specific training required. The Light Sport Repairman - Inspection is just required to do Annual Condition Inspections on a specific owned E-LSA.

And yes, it can be confusing.
You are correct on each and every point, including the last one.
 
I hear ya. I started building my RV-10 while I was active duty. 3 months after I purchased the first kit I got orders to deploy to Iraq. Just one of the reasons my project took 9 years from first order to first flight.

One of the benefits of going E-LSA is you can take the course and apply for the repairman’s cert even if you didn’t build your plane, unlike the cert for an E-AB aircraft where you have to be the builder. Just food for thought
I might be overthinking this, but how and where did you store your partially completed plane while gone to prevent corrosion?
 
I might be overthinking this, but how and where did you store your partially completed plane while gone to prevent corrosion?

At my house--basement and garage. Generally speaking, unless you're planning on storing components on a boat sitting in salt water, corrosion isn't really an issue near term, IMO. Unscarred ALCLAD aluminum has significant corrosion protection by itself -- that's what the ALCLAD layer does. For Van's kits that come wrapped in blue plastic, I would, for added insurance, remove the protective film as there has been cases of moisture getting trapped under the plastic. (Side note the adhesive on that plastic gets stronger with age and can make removal a pain in the butt if left on for long periods of time). I'd also unwrap anything in paper. Finally, if I did scratch something and was concerned, I'd hit the area with some rattle can primer.
 
... the wife recently said we should build a plane..

Wow, sounds like your wife is awesome. Usually it sounds more like "I want to build a plane, but my wife won't let me".
 
You can buy a half decent 601/650 (very similar versions) in the $30k range. You can do all the mx yourself, and any upgrades. They are well supported. If you break it you, or with some help, can fix it cheaply, so just carry liability insurance.

I built a 601. Wouldn't do it again as I hated the experience. I could have bought one with a better engine for $10k less than it cost me to build mine.
 
You can buy a half decent 601/650 (very similar versions) in the $30k range. You can do all the mx yourself, and any upgrades. They are well supported. If you break it you, or with some help, can fix it cheaply, so just carry liability insurance.

I built a 601. Wouldn't do it again as I hated the experience. I could have bought one with a better engine for $10k less than it cost me to build mine.
Buying one already built is an option. Just gotta find one that's for sale and doesn't look like it requires a ton of work to get it to a flyable status. If it does, I feel like building would have an advantage.

Side note, was your final empty weight close to the advertised empty weight? What about the build experience was it that you hated?
 
FYI- just discovered how to update the thread title. Figured I'd keep it Zenith CH650 centered as that is what I'm leaning toward.
 
Buying one already built is an option. Just gotta find one that's for sale and doesn't look like it requires a ton of work to get it to a flyable status. If it does, I feel like building would have an advantage.

Side note, was your final empty weight close to the advertised empty weight? What about the build experience was it that you hated?

Empty weight with my engine, and overall build plan, came in where I expected it.

First off, when builders quote "build hours" they are generally referring to time in the shop actually building the plane - the hours some of them like to log. What is generally not mentioned (and never by kit manufacturers) is the many hundreds of hours you will spend ordering parts, doing research, asking questions, re-ordering parts you ordered wrong, reading internet forums for answers, etc.. In most cases, certainly for new builders, you can easily double the number of build hours for this process. This is a massive amount of time that takes you away from your family, friends, and other life joys and responsibilities.

Again, for new builders, there is a massive amount of frustration that comes with this process. It comes from part manufacturer screw-ups and delays that delay your work by months. It comes from incomplete, or lack of, clear instructions from the manufacturers - and it comes from the panel forward.

What most newbies don't understand (I didn't) was that everything from the panel forward is up to you to figure out on your own.

This is true for pretty much every kit manufacturer (though Vans does a pretty good job if you follow their prop and engine combo's). This is also where you realize you know nothing about aircraft wiring and are expected to design a complete, safe, redundant electrical system. Then you have learn how to put this very complex system together.

Oh, but first you have to learn how to draw it on a very large piece of paper or on a computer program! Then you have to learn to install it with the skill of a professional (your experience with automotive wiring is useless here). And once you've got it installed you will spend a couple of months tracking down all the minor errors you made during the install, which in the end, aren't minor.

If you want to go full glass, you will quickly learn that none of the instrument manufacturers actually provide clear interconnecting wiring diagrams and you will have to spend hours studying manuals to figure out which wire #87 on the display goes to which wire number #128 on the connector to the transponder (or does it go the encoder?). Ever wired a multi-pin connector for multiple devices without an interconnecting diagram? Well, welcome to a whole new world of frustration. Even the damn connectors themselves can be a huge PITA.

Next you have to learn how to design a safe, redundant fuel system. Again. most manufacturers provide little or no guidance on this because it varies drastically by engine choice, and personal risk tolerance. Pump configurations, check valve locations, hose/tubing types, fittings, can all drive you crazy as you try to decide what is right for you and where to locate them In your aircraft. (There are thousands of different opinions on build forums about where these components should be and how they should be piped!) Then you have to figure out how to source all of these parts that hopefully will all fit together. And yes, you will have fuel leaks. Probably a number of them...

You will build some things wrong. It will cost you money, sometimes a lot of money you didn't budget for. You will have accidents that cause you to rebuild more things.

Think you know a thing or two about tubes, hoses, and fittings (if your new to this)? Welcome to many dozens more hours of frustration as you try to figure out the correct hose, fittings, connectors, and adapters. Pretty much nothing connects together simply. Threads are different, some hoses are spec'd by inside diameter but you will order the one spec'd by outside diameter. AN or NPT? This alone can drive you crazy. How much torque? What lubricant? No lubricant? None of this stuff is in the kit manufacturers instructions either (possible exception of Vans).

I think the greatest build frustration is all of the wasted time. It grates on you after a couple of years.

But the final, and perhaps the ultimate frustration is the realization that once your done and got your AW cert., you will still spend the next two years or more troubleshooting, fixing, and re-doing things that weren't done right the first time.

I know there are people out there who enjoy building. Clearly I live in a different world, because I will never understand them.

Perhaps, I value my time too much. I have a wonderful wife, and a wonderful life. I would much rather be spending precious time with her than wasting literally thousands of hours of my life with the frustration of aircraft building. Life is too short to waste so much of it on this endeavor.

FYI - if you post further questions to me on this thread I won't see them, nor will I respond. Once I post something on this forum I never go back and read anything that follows. When you post an answer this long there will no doubt be those who attack me for my opinions, or punctuation/spelling, or whatever and I don't care to read them or engage.
 
Last edited:
FYI- just discovered how to update the thread title. Figured I'd keep it Zenith CH650 centered as that is what I'm leaning toward.

Just be careful and make sure it’s 650s you are looking at and not the 601. They look very similar but the 601 had a history of wing failures. There was a retrofit kit to fix the design issue on the 601 but my understanding is that it is not easy to do once the plane is built. It’s possible, but not easy.
 
Gary paints a pretty sobering picture of the build process and it’s definitely true, but not universal. I think in this regard Vans is the benchmark. Everything else from what I’ve seen is somewhere in between say Van’s and a plans only experimental.

Van’s kits and instructions take a huge part of the guess work out of it, even for the E-AB models. For example, you don’t have to figure out how to make a safe fuel system— Vans did that for you. Yes there are areas pretty much left to the builder, like FWF, as mentioned. But there’s a huge online community that have pretty much been there, done that. So, rarely is a builder charting new territory. There’s also a huge number of EAA how to videos online that I wished had been there when I started.

Wiring, IMO, is a mixed bag. The skills to wire aren’t difficult especially if you get good tools. Garmin does a pretty good job laying out their interconnects if you go Garmin. But it does take patience to lay it all out on paper.

Finally, I didn’t have much in the “fixing things not done right the first time”. One thing that will be different, if new to ownership not just a builder, is now you’re on the hook to fix things when the break, and they will. Seems like every time I turn around, something needs attention be it routine preventative maintenance or an actual squawk. My plane was recently down for a couple months while I troubleshot and eventually fixed a fuel leak. Such is life.

I built and fly one of the larger, more complex kits as a first time builder. Did everything pretty much solo except where I absolutely needed an extra set of hands, and learned all of the necessary skills the hard way, on my own. While I experienced some of Gary’s frustration, I had no where near the issues he described. Having said that it’s still a monumental undertaking and the mantra “if you want to build, build, if you want to fly, buy” (meaning an already flying aircraft).
 
What are they? Considering a couple options that are in the homebuilt LSA category. I've read they require a gentle touch when flying but seat time should fix that if I own the thing. I imagine they get tossed around more in turbulent air, is that true? Is insurance crazy expensive? I was looking at a dragonfly recently and the insurance company quoted me at over $5k a year for a $20k hull value. In that scenario, I'd opt out of the insurance and just fly the thing as four years of insurance would cover the cost of the plane I was looking at. Anything else I should consider?

Right now I'm still debating a dragonfly or something like a Zenith CH650. Dragonfly could be a much cheaper project but has zero support left. Zenith looks good on paper and the company is still in business. There are a few others I'm adding to my spreadsheet of homebuilts to compare them without jumping between websites but as I type this the Zenith is winning of the currently available kits.

Zenith has some great support and I expect they'll be around for a while. Considering them for a while.

A con for the 650 vs 750 is aging. Do you want to try to climb out of the 650 cockpit when your bones are creaking or (jk) just let gravity pull you out of the 750? However, the 650 is faster, it can be built as a non-lsa and exceed 120 kts.

I'm back and forth, but the 750 is where I lean right now. With some bush tires, it's a great backcountry aircraft. Or you can build it for traveling, but I don't think it will hit 120.

Maybe one of the alphabets will push to extend the lsa weight rule and we can quit compromising by choosing lighter aircraft.
 
Just be careful and make sure it’s 650s you are looking at and not the 601. They look very similar but the 601 had a history of wing failures. There was a retrofit kit to fix the design issue on the 601 but my understanding is that it is not easy to do once the plane is built. It’s possible, but not easy.
Yep, saw that and it looks like it only concerned the 601XL, the mod should be easy to see with some research on how its done. However, I'm leaning towards the 650 as its got a bigger internal cockpit area with the larger canopy and if I'm building I'm going to build the newest iteration of the model.
 
Zenith has some great support and I expect they'll be around for a while. Considering them for a while.

A con for the 650 vs 750 is aging. Do you want to try to climb out of the 650 cockpit when your bones are creaking or (jk) just let gravity pull you out of the 750? However, the 650 is faster, it can be built as a non-lsa and exceed 120 kts.

I'm back and forth, but the 750 is where I lean right now. With some bush tires, it's a great backcountry aircraft. Or you can build it for traveling, but I don't think it will hit 120.

Maybe one of the alphabets will push to extend the lsa weight rule and we can quit compromising by choosing lighter aircraft.
Trying to find a local-ish 650 so we can experience the entry/exit for ourself. While 110-120 knots isn't fast, its fast enough for us and ultimately we want to do light traveling with it.
 
Well if you haven’t pulled the trigger within the next 6 months, I suggest making the trip to Osh in July. That way you’ll get to see first hand pretty much everything that’s available.
 
You misspelled RV-15
LOL, I like the Vans lineup but have concerns about actual finished cost as it seems like every RV builder says their planes cost well above the estimated prices once they factor in all the odds and ends that are needed to complete the build. Thought about an RV-14 but from what I've read your closer to the $100K mark once completed. Granted, that gets you a fair amount more speed and some more useful load as well. Another consideration is build time. Most Zenith builders that actively worked on the build finished in a much shorter time than most Vans builders from what I've researched so far.
 
Gray's comments remind me of a software development saying "If it works the first time, you did something wrong."

There are some good books on aircraft wiring, I've read a lot of good things about Bob McKnuckolls' (sp) book.

My goal for building is to have an air worthy plane to fly while I build so I'll be less likely to get get-her-done-itis.
 
Back
Top