Origin of 701 and Savannah designs

[JG3]

The Origins of both the 701 and the Savannah aircraft designs

 

We keep hearing the accusation that the ICP Savannah is a rip-off copy of the CH701.

 

Well, that’s not true at all.

 

This is the true story of how it all happened.

 

At Sun’nFun 1983, Chris Heintz and Max Tedesco, who had first met in 1980, started considering the possibility of designing an all-metal ultralight using conventional aircraft construction. At that time most ultralights were very basic tube and fabric construction.

 

First sketches started on scraps of paper and napkins right then, at a Lakeland café, one evening from 6 pm to midnight, with Max’s younger daughter sleeping on a chair… This was followed by six trips from Columbia to Canada by Tedesco, to work on the design with Heintz, and to check the flying characteristics of the plane, Max being a very experienced pilot, and a good test pilot. Several modifications were incorporated to the design following these test flights. That’s a considerable involvement on his part! Max is a very modest man, so when he emphasizes to me that he contributed a lot to that process, I take that to mean a whole lot.

 

So the 701 itself wasn’t designed only by Chris Heitz, it was already very much a joint venture.

 

Now that’s a surprise to all of you, eh!!!

 

But as Max says, “An aircraft design needs only one ‘father’, so Chris took on that roll and Max stayed in the background.

 

At this point we need to introduce Max Tedesco. Born in Colombia, he went to a Technical High School in Italy, studied Mechanical Engineering at MIT, then Aeronautical Engineering at McGill University, specializing in monocoque and semi-monocoque construction. He set up an aircraft factory in Colombia and built a variety of aircraft under license, often modified for agricultural spraying. These are ideal qualifications and experience to work on the design of an aircraft such as the 701. To learn more about Max have a look at http://aeroandina.com/eng/maximo.htm

 

http://www.aeroandina.com/eng/historia.htm

 

When the prototype 701 was flying, Heintz began selling plans and kits from Canada, while Tedesco returned to Colombia and commenced manufacturing ready-to-fly 701s. By 1990, when I first met him at Sun’nFun, Tedesco had built 112 701s for the South American market, and had introduced in 1989, the first 80% ready kit as a world exclusive.

 

In those days, Zenair used to assemble a 701 during the week of Sun’nFun and fly it at the end of the air show. I noticed that the quick-build kit that we assembled at Sun’nFun in 1990 was one of those made in Colombia, not Canada....

 

Max is an innovative and experimental engineer, and couldn’t help seeking improvements to the 701. Any designer will know that a first prototype can almost always be improved, and evolution leads to better and better results. The 701 prototype had lots of aspects that could be improved (and it still does....) Max was never satisfied with the cutaway over the cabin and the inverted airfoil horizontal stabilizer. So Max redesigned the 701 to become the first MXP 740 in October 1992, with a longer wing, and a different cockpit construction to accommodate the carry-through centre wing section instead of the cut-away. Also, a different tail section, with a symmetrical horizontal stabilizer instead of the inverted airfoil of the 701, larger elevator, and conventional rudder on a fixed vertical stabilizer.

 

In Kitplanes Magazine December 1997 there’s a photograph of Chris and Max in Colombia looking over an MXP 640, Max’s derivation of the 601 which was completed in November 92. This was a month after the first 740, so Chris saw and experienced the 740 at that time. Chris had a chance to incorporate those mods, but chose to stay with the original 701, while Max went on to produce the much improved 740’s.

 

Max was exporting 740’s to an agent in Italy for the European market, and had shipped 142 ready-made aircraft there. Little did he realize that the agent had set up a factory nearby, which became ICP, and who then disassembled a 740 and copied it into a CNC machine, pretty much rivet hole by rivet hole!

 

It was this rip-off copy that became the Savannah.

 

SO THAT’S THE TRUE STORY OF HOW THE SAVANNAH CAME TO BE!

 

Credit where credit is due, eh........

 

Full credit must go to Max Tedesco!

 

He designed a great aircraft, for which others are now reaping the benefit......

 

Max couldn’t find any protection from patent law, and so his company ended up in bankruptcy and he lost his house as well........

 

Then, how about the twisted irony that, when BRM in Portugal copied the Savannah, ICP tried to sue them! I’m told that lawsuit failed, and so it should have.....

 

....................................................................................................................

 

But the sad story doesn’t end there at all........

 

It’s way too long for a forum posting so read it at

 

http://www.stolspeed.com/origins-701-savannah

 

-There’s a whole lot more about how Max’s other designs have been ripped off in Eastern Europe, and at home....

 

-Remember the “Patriot” that was going to be Zenith’s LSA entry?? That was designed and built by Max and company.

 

-To see what one of Max’s other designs can do, have a look at

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_DGNKlzXs

 

-Find out about the ‘Guardian’ aircraft that Max has been asked to supply for US law enforcement.

 

-See the new designs Max has coming out in the spring.

 

- The story’s not over for this man, who’s a brilliant designer, but who doesn’t do much for self-promotion.....

 

His work sure deserves to be better known and recognized!

 

More at http://www.stolspeed.com/origins-701-savannah

 

John Gilpin

 

 

[winsor68]

How interesting... I am going to try out my school's new Savanah S tomorrow morning (weather permitting)... and interestingly we will most probably be seeing an Ibis Magic available some of the time... Ironically both aircraft according to the link in the article originally designed by the same gentleman.

 

So I guess I owe him a big THANKYOU...

 

 

[eightyknots]

We keep hearing the accusation that the ICP Savannah is a rip-off copy of the CH701. Well, that’s not true at all.

John, Thanks for this different angle on the oft-discussed issue of CH-701 versus ICP Savannah.

 

On the one hand, there is the official line from Zenith's website (to read the whole lot, go to this link and scroll down past all the photos of the many Zenith CH-701 copies at www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html). It reads, in part:

 

In flight testing the Savannah, Gratton notes that the take-off and landing performance of the aircraft is 500 ft. and 460 ft. respectively, with climb at 600 fpm and cruise at 80 mph. These performance figures are notably inferior than those for the STOL CH 701 - an indication that the Savannah's modifications adversely affect performance, not to mention flight characteristics.

 

 

 

While imitation may be a form of flattery, outright copies of a proprietary design is a form of theft, and they are typically misrepresented to buyers. We're concerned that such copies do not meet original design specifications (quality of raw materials and hardware, manufacturing standards, etc.) and that modifications may not, and often appear not, to be properly engineered (usually you decide to copy when you don't have the engineering ability to create your own design). Potential buyers need to be aware of this, and should be concerned about the level of technical support and spare parts available from these foreign manufacturers, and whether the imported kit will be eligible for registration in the "amateur-built" category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Designers and manufactures get ideas and "inspiration" from the competition in the ongoing quest to design and build better aircraft (in fact, Chris Heintz, an aeronautical engineer by training, often consults to competitors), but I think you'll agree that copying someone else's work outright (and then marketing it as an "improved original design") is not acceptable business practice and does not serve the aviation community. Openly promoting a known copy of an original design, as this article does, is a disservice to the aviation community, and penalizes the engineers and companies that keep this industry vibrant by developing, manufacturing and supporting unique light aircraft designs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are a number of Savannah builders and/or owners who feel/have felt a tad guilty about building a rip-off design taken from Chris Heintz, a dedicated engineer who put the CH-701 together with blood, sweat and tears with singular dedication, relying on his expertise and experience gained while working on the Concorde and at Robin.

 

I don't like dishonest practices and "rip-offs" and I admit it has been one factor holding me back. The other is the GFC but that is another story.

 

John, thanks once again for giving us an completely different perspective on the CH-701 vs MXP-740 issue!

 

 

[winsor68]

"I'm sure there are a number of Savannah builders and/or owners who feel/have felt a tad guilty about building a rip-off design taken from Chris Heintz, a dedicated engineer who put the CH-701 together with blood, sweat and tears with singular dedication, relying on his expertise and experience gained while working on the Concorde and at Robin"

 

I wouldn't feel any guilt and don't see any problem... I can't tell the difference between Airbus and Boeing unless real close and I work with them... Form follows function... its as simple as that.

 

 

[winsor68]

Actually just from a quick perusal of the site from Heintz would cause me not to by a product from them... sounds like an angry man playing sour grapes with a massive ego. He even claims the Australian Hornet was stolen from him!!!

 

 

[eightyknots]

Actually just from a quick perusal of the site from Heintz would cause me not to by a product from them... sounds like an angry man playing sour grapes with a massive ego. He even claims the Australian Hornet was stolen from him!!!

Yes, winsor68, I was pretty stunned with that "revelation" on the website too. Such things immediately cause it to lose credibility. This is what was said about the Australian Hornet:

 

"The [Australian] Hornet STOL looks quite different compared to the 701 at a first glance but when I compare details it’s definitely based on the 701. The fuselage has a different shape but the construction method is nearly identical. Isn't it illegal to copy and use your wing?"

 

 

[Ultralights]

Just dont ask Mr Heintz/ Zenithair about what they did to the Cri Cri! or Cricket. from what i have heard, they bought a set of plans from Micheal Colomban, the original cri cri designer, (you can only buy plans from him direct), Zenithair modified the plans, and sold a few Kits, a few of those kit built Crickets suffered a catastrophic failure in flight, and america being the litigious society it is, decided to sue Zenithair, who the quickly pointed the finger at Mr Colomban, who sadly was bankrupted clearing his name. it was Zenithair modifications that resulted in the failures. but this is only what i have read on the internets, so who knows..

 

Now this i find hilarious,

 

"The [Australian] Hornet STOL looks quite different compared to the 701..... The fuselage has a different shape but the construction method is nearly identical. Isn't it illegal to copy and use your wing?"

Well, if its a NACA aerofoil profile, anyone can use it. an as for construction methods? hasnt every metal aircraft ever built been built using the same methods? rivets? stringers? ribs? formers? if not all, then certainly Most! Take the paint off any Boeing or airbus fuselage, an look at it from the interior, im sure almost no one could tell which was which.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Ooh this has been very interesting reading, thanks Guys

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

If you go to Johns website http://www.stolspeed.com he has a wealth of information and articles there and some fantastic testing he has done with prop comparisons and the one I found extremely interesting is filling in that honky gap between the wings on the 701 and how much better it flys. But I must say I am glad I settled on a Savannah...no matter how it ended up in kit supply etc....the original design albeit copied or stolen or whatever has been kept basically to the original parameters and the proof of the pudding is in the eating (flying) ... :)

 

 

[eightyknots]

....................................................................................................................But the sad story doesn’t end there at all........

 

It’s way too long for a forum posting so read it at

 

http://www.stolspeed.com/origins-701-savannah

I took the trouble to read the entire (hi)story and you can only feel sorry for Max Tedesco and anyone would have to conclude that he has been badly treated by plagiarising, greedy opportunists, prepared to rip off the designs of good-natured, talented aeronautical engineers.

 

 

[eightyknots]

This is the latest information about honouring Chris Heintz for designing the CH701. Wouldn't it be lovely if Max Tedesco also got a mention:

 

Zenith Aircraft Enthusiasts to Honor Chris Heintz at AirVenture

 

Likely the largest gathering of Zenith aircraft owners and builders ever assembled will convene on Oshkosh at AirVenture 2011 to celebrate company's various models of airplanes and the man who created them. Over the years, Chris Heintz has introduced more than a dozen successful kit aircraft designs, including the STOL CH 701, Zodiac CH 601, CH 650 LS and LSi, STOL CH 801, Zodiac XL, STOL CH 750 light-sport utility kit airplane, and CH 2000.

 

"Zeniths to Oshkosh" is a grassroots effort created through various Internet groups involving owners and enthusiasts from around the world. Zeniths to Oshkosh organizers have reserved an entire floor of dorm rooms at UW-Oshkosh's Gruenhagen Conference Center - there's already a waiting list established for those - and they're also arranging private housing for other participants. Attendees are coming from as far away as Australia and New Zealand, said Joe Scheibinger, 601 builder/owner from Oshkosh. "An Army Major serving his country in Afghanistan is even planning to come to Oshkosh on his leave," he said.

 

Fifty aircraft parking spaces have been reserved in the Homebuilts area, and they're expected to be filled, with about 25 owners already reserving a spot. "It looks like getting 50 Zeniths to Oshkosh will be a lot easier than I thought," Scheibinger said, adding that Zenith owners who bring their airplanes to Oshkosh will receive a commemorative presentation plaque.

 

Monday will be designated Chris Heintz Day and will include a special recognition event on ConocoPhillips Plaza with examples of Heintz-designed aircraft followed by showcase flights. Other events during the week will include forum presentations on the various Zenith models, an address by Chris Heintz at the Homebuilders Hangar, and a banquet. Planning for these events is ongoing and will be announced when finalized.

 

Source: http://www.airventure.org/news/2011/110323_zeniths.html

 

 

[JG3]

[ Wouldn't it be lovely if Max Tedesco also got a mention:

 

Actually Max Tedesco will be at OSH this year.

 

After I published that article, Eric Giles, USA agent for Savannah, got in touch with Max and expressed that he didn't feel right about profiting from work that Max had done but was stolen from him. Then Eric went to Colombia to meet Max, and they hit it off right away, and now have formed a strong partnership. Max will be displaying his latest design named 'Spirit', which Eric will market in the USA. Max isn't one for self-promotion, but I know of several fliers from Aus and USA who are looking forward to shaking his hand and congratulating him. I'm off to OSH this year as well, and really looking forward to meeting up with them.

 

JG

 

 



 

 

[eightyknots]

[ Wouldn't it be lovely if Max Tedesco also got a mention:Actually Max Tedesco will be at OSH this year.

After I published that article, Eric Giles, USA agent for Savannah, got in touch with Max and expressed that he didn't feel right about profiting from work that Max had done but was stolen from him. Then Eric went to Colombia to meet Max, and they hit it off right away, and now have formed a strong partnership. Max will be displaying his latest design named 'Spirit', which Eric will market in the USA. Max isn't one for self-promotion, but I know of several fliers from Aus and USA who are looking forward to shaking his hand and congratulating him. I'm off to OSH this year as well, and really looking forward to meeting up with them.

 

JG

 



In any field of endevour, credit must be given where credit is due including the field of aviation. I'm not talking of small, incremental increases in applied science where it is impossible to cite every 'borrowed' concept incorporated in a new design. But, where an individual has had a substantial design input, it is right and honest to acknowledge that person.

We should be grateful, JG3, that you have put the record straight on the genesis of the CH-701 and the ICP Savannah.

 

I am so pleased that Max Tedesco will now get some recognition in the USA. I wish I could be there to shake his hand as well.

 

 

[eightyknots]

We keep hearing the accusation that the ICP Savannah is a rip-off copy of the CH701.

Well, that’s not true at all.

RE: ch701.c0m

 

I happen to 'bump into' another wild-claim site claiming that the Savannah is a sub-standard rip-off of the Zenith Ch 701 design. I wonder how many of these claims have been placed on this website by members of the unthinking Heintz fan club? I am sure that Chris Heintz did a lot of good for the homebuilt light aircraft industry but giving him an almost infallible status is never any good for a human being.

 

Among other things these things are claimed (I quote each instance with colours and fonts left in place as per that website)

 

http://www.ch701.com/savanna/Savanna.pdf

 

1. The Savannah has been on the market for years without ever having undergone spin testing: Companies that copy an existing design typically do so because they lack engineering skills, and to profit from an original product's hard-won reputation. Modifications are marketed as "improvements" over the original design, but often these modifications are not properly engineered and tested, as the above link demonstrates.

 

2. During the recent show at Oshkosh, Chris Heintz was asked about the incident involving the Savanna having an in-flight structural failure. Chris reported that the CH701 is different in the strut attachments and owners and builders can be assured that it is one of the few "Improvements" ICP incorporated in the Savanna that is in question.

 

3. (In 2001, the design gross weight of the STOL CH 701 was increased to 1,100 lbs. from 950 lbs. by redesigning the wing spar and numerous other structural components. Nearly overnight, copies were subsequently marketed with a gross weight increase to 1,100 lbs. - with no apparent design or structural changes to justify the gross weight increase).

 

4.

 

"Chris Heintz engineers his airplanes to well-known stringent standards. Every component and flight characteristic is conceived to work in harmony with the whole from the outset. The wings, fuselage and tail; the controls, the cabin and the rest form that whole which can be appreciated in its entirety. Modify just one, let alone several, of these elements without reviewing the whole and clearly, the machine as a unit will have been tainted…"

 

* R & D: Research and Development, but also sometimes known as ‘Rip-off and Duplicate’.

 

Source: http://www.ch701.com/savanna/savanna.htm

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Well if i was Chris I wouldn't be crowing too much about his fanatacic harmony....just ask all the dead pilots of CH-601's where the wings fell off

 

 

[facthunter]

He does seem to have the view that the design is perfect and needs no improvement, but to be fair wasn't a majority of the problem a maintenance issue?

 

How does one EVER really get to the bottom of matters such as this.? There will always be two sides. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

He does seem to have the view that the design is perfect and needs no improvement, but to be fair wasn't a majority of the problem a maintenance issue?How does one EVER really get to the bottom of matters such as this.? There will always be two sides. Nev

The 'improved' version of the Zenith CH701 was the much-hailed CH750. Many waited for this 'improved' design. However, when the two were flown by 701 pilots, the only real comments about the 750 were (a) the looks were better; (b) there was more cabin width; © the luggage area was larger; (d) legroom had improved; and, (e) the dash size had increased.

 

Sadly, the aeronautical performance dropped in almost all parameters. Take-off and landing rolls increased, the useful load was similar, stall speed increased but cruise speed increase was only marginal, fuel consumption went up. Many were disappointed by Chris Heintz "new and improved" design.

 

 

[terryc]

The 'improved' version of the Zenith CH701 was the much-hailed CH750. Many waited for this 'improved' design. However, when the two were flown by 701 pilots, the only real comments about the 750 were (a) the looks were better; (b) there was more cabin width; © the luggage area was larger; (d) legroom had improved; and, (e) the dash size had increased.Sadly, the aeronautical performance dropped in almost all parameters. Take-off and landing rolls increased, the useful load was similar, stall speed increased but cruise speed increase was only marginal, fuel consumption went up. Many were disappointed by Chris Heintz "new and improved" design.

It's very interesting how stories develop over time, most off which are far from the truth. I've read many comments about people being unhappy with their new 750 but nothing but praise from the pilots that fly them. It's my understanding that the 750 has many small changes from the 701 and these changes achieved there intent, if this is so then the designer has done what he set out to do. When I was looking at a savannah kit the agent spent most of our discussions bagging the zenith 701 and very little time promoting his product, needless too say I didn't buy. Most pilots in my neck of the woods love looking and touching and flying any light aircraft and talking about their differences rather than any failing they might have. The savannah and the 701 and indeed my thruster all have idiosyncrosies [ spelling] that are unique to them. As I have built hrs in my thruster I have honed my skills accordingly. I'm sure it will be the same when I'm flying my 701. soooooon I hope.

 

regards Terry

 

 

[eightyknots]

I did a comparison -using the Zenithair.com and icp.it websites to conduct a fair comparison, assuming the respective manufacturers have listed the specifications correctly. This is the "handy" comparison table that I came up with.

 

The table is being posted on a new Zenith vs Savannah comparison thread because this final product analysis is going a bit off-topic as it is no longer talking about the "origins" of the two marques.

 

 

[winsor68]

You bloody legend Eightyknots! Thanks for the comparison... Brilliant work.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/the-zenith-ch-701-ch-750-and-icp-savannah-vg-xl-and-s-comparison.36408/