Jump to content

Zenith CH-701 thread


eightyknots

Recommended Posts

Dont fret its a common issue.

Yeah don't worry at all guys, front wheels falling off, phhhhtttt, when we were young we couldn't afford front wheels, lucky bastards ...

 

Are you serious??

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 607
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi derek

 

Here is a couple of links the last one gives explanations and at the bottom a video of what nearly happened to me at the 7 hr of first flying the Sav. This may be similar to what happened to you. marty this may be good for you to look at as well. Main issue is do not land htese types too fast as they maybe on the ground but still flying by a long way and can wheelbarrow very easily

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/another-new-savannah-xl-on-its-way.10493/page-35

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/savannah-incident-at-caboolture.67974/

 

Mark

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi derekHere is a couple of links the last one gives explanations and at the bottom a video of what nearly happened to me at the 7 hr of first flying the Sav. This may be similar to what happened to you. marty this may be good for you to look at as well. Main issue is do not land htese types too fast as they maybe on the ground but still flying by a long way and can wheelbarrow very easily

 

Mark

Thanks for that Mark.

 

when we were young we couldn't afford front wheels, lucky bastards ...

Taildraggers - explained!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Thanks 80kts.

 

Slats and flaperons next I think... should be a bit simpler than the wings, in the instructions there's only 39 pages combined for them (as opposed to 178 pages for the wings).

 

Mind you then comes the fuselage which is half the bloody book.... but as my wife said to cheer me up, "You had to build 2 wings, you only have to build 1 fuselage!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... I am NOT looking forward to all the fiddly bits with instruments, engine and controls.

It gets a bit daunting about then. Been there for about six months. Just takes a couple of little set backs at this stage to really put you off. Even RAA pissing you off is enough to do it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be the most optimistic comment on building an aeroplane i have read. Awesome...

Haha, that's awesome! 014_spot_on.gif.1f3bdf64e5eb969e67a583c9d350cd1f.gif A medal for her fantastic positive outlook on life!!

Thanks guys, I've forwarded your comments to her!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Second wing done!!! That leaves... er... (counting on fingers)... zero wings still to build![ATTACH=full]37930[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]37931[/ATTACH]

Just wondering, Marty, is your SavZenith CH 701 going to have slats? ...or are you planning to fit JG3's vortex generators? see: stolspeed.com

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering, Marty, is your SavZenith CH 701 going to have slats? ...or are you planning to fit JG3's vortex generators? see: stolspeed.com

I've read JG's stuff, but I just can't get it thru my head that a wing designed to have slats (which substantially changes the airfoil at normal speeds) should fly the same or better, at all speeds and AOA's, without them - VG's or not. So yes, I'm going to stick with the original plans. Chris Heintz worked on the Concorde for dog's sake, I reckon he knew what he was doing.

 

One bloke in the States built his wing without slats but with the equivalent airfoil if you included them (much like the 750 Cruzer, and well before it was released). That seems more logical to me than having a very blunt nose section with vg's - but then again, if you were going that route, you're not really after a STOL aircraft at all so why not build something pretty?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read JG's stuff, but I just can't get it thru my head that a wing designed to have slats (which substantially changes the airfoil at normal speeds) should fly the same or better, at all speeds and AOA's, without them - VG's or not. So yes, I'm going to stick with the original plans. Chris Heintz worked on the Concorde for dog's sake, I reckon he knew what he was doing.One bloke in the States built his wing without slats but with the equivalent airfoil if you included them (much like the 750 Cruzer, and well before it was released). That seems more logical to me than having a very blunt nose section with vg's - but then again, if you were going that route, you're not really after a STOL aircraft at all so why not build something pretty?

JG3's Savannah "Classic" plane had a NACA wing profile near identical to the CH-701's profile. He removed the slats and installed vortex generators and it seemed to improve performance in almost everything except that the stall speed rose by a couple of knots. The trade-off was that he got better fuel economy and a higher cruise speed. JG3 never changed the profile on his wing. I have been for a flight in his plane and, as far as I could tell, it flew very well. Not changing the profile seems to be of no concern.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if you explored this thread but that has some different points of view with respect to VGs, mainly from Down Under: http://www.zenith.aero/forum/topics/fly-ch701-without-slats?id=2606393:Topic:112453&page=1#comments

I did. I'm not in the least doubting JG's results, and good on him for being innovative. My only point is that Chris Heintz designed the plane to have slats and I'm not confident enough to remove them, and removing them may have unexpected consequences under some conditions.

 

Regarding the thread you refer to, did you see the last comment?

 

" I flew mine for the first few months with no slats,not sure about the legal aspects,but be wary of your stall characteristics.Mine became very violent."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. I'm not in the least doubting JG's results, and good on him for being innovative. My only point is that Chris Heintz designed the plane to have slats and I'm not confident enough to remove them, and removing them may have unexpected consequences under some conditions.Regarding the thread you refer to, did you see the last comment?

" I flew mine for the first few months with no slats,not sure about the legal aspects,but be wary of your stall characteristics.Mine became very violent."

Yes, I did read that. He seems to be the lone voice in that thread. However, I have read quite a few threads which seems to indicate the benefits of VGs the other way, i.e., that the stall characteristics for the CH-701 are better, that is, more benign with vortex generators. I also take on board your comment that you want to stick with the designer's design principles.

 

I myself looked at the CH-701 for some time as a good aircraft to build. You will recall that I actually established this thread because I was interested enough in Zeniths.

 

I also like the fact that CH-701s have the folding wing option that, say, a Savannah doesn't have. I thought they were great planes UNTIL the moment I sat in one. The practical problem for me is that I am too tall and that my hair touches the top of the cockpit which is most annoying. For this reason, I have had to rule out the CH-701 from my wish list. For anyone even a little bit shorter than me, this is a great plane. I will probably now construct a Savannah when the time (and funds) comes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I did read that. He seems to be the lone voice in that thread. However, I have read quite a few threads which seems to indicate the benefits of VGs the other way, i.e., that the stall characteristics for the CH-701 are better, that is, more benign. I also take on board your comment that you want to stick with the designer's design principles.I myself looked at the CH-701 for some time as a good aircraft to build. You will recall that I actually established this thread because I was interested enough in Zeniths.

 

I also like the fact that CH-701s have the folding wing option that, say, a Savannah doesn't have. I thought they were great planes UNTIL the moment I sat in one. The practical problem for me is that I am too tall and that my hair touches the top of the cockpit which is most annoying. For this reason, I have had to rule out the CH-701 from my wish list. For anyone even a little bit shorter than me, this is a great plane. I will probably now construct a Savannah when the time (and funds) comes.

I bought my plans before they brought out the 750, otherwise I would have gone for that. Knowing what I know now though, I'd definitely have gone for a Sav kit rather than scratch building.

 

I'm not sure what the headroom difference is between the 701 and 750, but I've been up with Allan in Bendigo and fitted in his ok. I'm 6' (3mm more with hair).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello chaps,

 

Newby chiming in here. Currently doing my RAAus pilots certificate specifically so I can fly around the farm in my own STOL aircraft! Up to hour 23 of training.

 

I am 186cm (~6'2") 105Kg and had a short test flight in Foxbat. Good shoulder and head room but knees a little close to the instrument panel.

 

Sat in Savannah XL at Narromine Air Show seemed snug but tolerable.

 

Looks like used Zenith 701 are the most economically viable option for me but are they big enough?

 

Now, the reason for this post: If I bought a registered 701 can I do the "beanie" modification (where cabin roof is raised and formed into aerofoil profile) legally and still be allowed to fly it?

 

Apologies if this topic has been covered already. I have only seen it on US websites.

 

Regards, Steve

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello chaps,Newby chiming in here. Currently doing my RAAus pilots certificate specifically so I can fly around the farm in my own STOL aircraft! Up to hour 23 of training.

I am 186cm (~6'2") 105Kg and had a short test flight in Foxbat. Good shoulder and head room but knees a little close to the instrument panel.

 

Sat in Savannah XL at Narromine Air Show seemed snug but tolerable.

 

Looks like used Zenith 701 are the most economically viable option for me but are they big enough?

 

Now, the reason for this post: If I bought a registered 701 can I do the "beanie" modification (where cabin roof is raised and formed into aerofoil profile) legally and still be allowed to fly it?

 

Apologies if this topic has been covered already. I have only seen it on US websites.

 

Regards, Steve

I can't answer that question but I could suggest that you look at an X-Air Hanuman. I have one and they have a bucket load of room. More than any of the ones you have mentioned. And in the right hands they will land and take of a short as you could want. Certainly as good as if not better than the Foxbat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello chaps,Newby chiming in here. Currently doing my RAAus pilots certificate specifically so I can fly around the farm in my own STOL aircraft! Up to hour 23 of training.

I am 186cm (~6'2") 105Kg and had a short test flight in Foxbat. Good shoulder and head room but knees a little close to the instrument panel.

 

Sat in Savannah XL at Narromine Air Show seemed snug but tolerable.

 

Looks like used Zenith 701 are the most economically viable option for me but are they big enough?

 

Now, the reason for this post: If I bought a registered 701 can I do the "beanie" modification (where cabin roof is raised and formed into aerofoil profile) legally and still be allowed to fly it?

 

Apologies if this topic has been covered already. I have only seen it on US websites.

 

Regards, Steve

Hi Steve,

 

Not sure about the beanie mod, but if you were going to buy a registered aircraft, why wouldn't you just get the Sav? As far as I know the cabin of the original Sav would be exactly the same as the 701. That negates the need for modification.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...