Zenith CH-701 thread

[Geoff13]

Yep I gather it may be the 80 hp one. So many planes to choose from at the moment. Now that the time has come to decide which one, I Can't. I want them all :clap:I have been watching utube video's on the sky jeep. Maybe I am getting my ambitions and my capabilities mixed up?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

 

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

That was Phil's 701 then I thought the colours were familiar...the decals threw me off...he sold it and bought a secondhand but almost new Savannah S

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Geoff just depends on how much you want to spend..that will dictate what you can have :)

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Grahams Savannah its 2 hangars down from me I believe it just sold last week or so...he got the 48,000 he wanted for it...Nicely finished and well maintained aircraft as well. Thats the hangar I was talking about the other day Geoff

 

 

[Harina]

Hi all does anyone know anything about the 701 advertised on the RAAus website please?

Hi Geoff ,

Yes, I know a fair bit of that plane,what do you like to know. Hans.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Hans

 

Curious about how well it has been built and finished off. It seems many of the home builds that I have seen have the basics all right but tend to fall off in terms of quality of finish. Assuming it is the 80hp version, is that enough for it or does it need the 100hp. It looks good in the photos, but is it that tidy close up. I know either these are based on the Savannah or vice versa I was just wondering about fitting into it. I had a problem with the Savannah I sat in with my knees hitting on the panel.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The 701 was designed by Heintz and Max Tedesco. Max wanted to make some improvement and Chris said no he didn't want to change it then max designed the MX720 I think it was called and when he got ripped by ICP who made it under licence then they called it a savannah...but this original was the classic. Since then ICP have further developed the design and it became the savannah VG then now the XL and S versions...the XL and S have heaps more room in the cockpit the 701 is the same really inside as the Classic and VG

 

Mark

 

 

[Harina]

HansCurious about how well it has been built and finished off. It seems many of the home builds that I have seen have the basics all right but tend to fall off in terms of quality of finish. Assuming it is the 80hp version, is that enough for it or does it need the 100hp. It looks good in the photos, but is it that tidy close up. I know either these are based on the Savannah or vice versa I was just wondering about fitting into it. I had a problem with the Savannah I sat in with my knees hitting on the panel.

Geoff,

In my view it is well build .it is,what you expect from the plane ,it flies well .low hours and the price is right,of you fit in to it,you really have to find a 701 and try it .

 

Of you need a 100 hP not really ,but again what do you want ,when you want quick from A to B this is the wrong plane ,want you like sightseeing ,this is the one .great flying on long trips ,but i am sure that the current owner can tell you all about it ,he just came back from WA ,how good is that.

 

Ok mate success with your decision. H.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Thank you all. The owner rang me this evening in response to my email. He had someone about my size and weight look at the aircraft this weekend and felt that it was to small for him. All credit to the owner being totally honest with me and telling me that I would probably be wasting a trip to go and look at the plane because todays viewer felt it didn't give the headroom needed and he was of similar dimensions to me. Along with my earlier experience with a Savannah I certainly appreciated his straight forwardness. and wish him the best with his sale.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

You need a XL or a S model savannah if your looking at a savannah Geoff otherwise the others are too cramped for someone your size. My XL is fine for headroom....just but heaps of legroom

 

 

[Geoff13]

Yes the one that I tried on was a VG. Like I said I did struggle for leg room in it.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Derek Liston has finished his 701 in west Brisbane, not sure where he ended up finding a hangar for it but it would be within reach of Brisbane if you track him down he would give you a trial fitting, then you will know you don't fit.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Yes the one that I tried on was a VG. Like I said I did struggle for leg room in it.

I am a long legged 6'3" frame and used to do a fair few miles in Reg's White/Pink VG. It was cosy certainly but not unusable. My knees were close to the bottom edge of the panel. I don't think I would have enjoyed a rough forced landing. His XL is a lot more enjoyable to travel in, My S will be exactly the same cabin size, At Bundaberg airshow before last a 6'9" bloke got in the XL for a fitting and he fitted about as comfortably in the XL as most ordinary blokes fit in the VG.

 

 

[derekliston]

My aeroplane is currently hangared at Coominya airstrip, West of Brisbane near Wivenhoe and Atkinsons Dams but will be moving it to Warwick mid January. I am about 6'2" and have plenty of room, I just set up the rudder pedals to suit me. There is also another CH701 based there with a Suzuki engine, mine has a Jabiru 2200. 0412144489 will find me.

 

 

[saccani]

Hi MartyHave a look at the 701 zenith builders site type in Landon Goudreau see what you think of his landing gear. Would like to do the same on mine.

Cheers Phil

G'day Phil,

I was very much under the impression that the bolts holding the undercarriage leaf on also helped to hold the wing strut attach fittings on to the aircraft with positive g. Might be worth checking with Caleb as to the need for a more robust carry through structure if you follow that scheme.

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

G'day Phil,I was very much under the impression that the bolts holding the undercarriage leaf on also helped to hold the wing strut attach fittings on to the aircraft with positive g. Might be worth checking with Caleb as to the need for a more robust carry through structure if you follow that scheme.

Cheers,

 

Paul

Always a design mistake when landing gear loads are combined at the same point as wing- strut loads. Certainly some bad examples around.

 

 

[Phillip King]

Hi Saccani

 

The steel bracket that the wing attachment is bolted and riveted to the air frame and the undercarriage leaf is clamped to the bracket .There is a c shaped stiffening channel that runs between the two steel brackets, so i believe that the undercarriage leaf is not a structural part.

 

Cheers Phil

 

 

[Oscar]

Always a design mistake when landing gear loads are combined at the same point as wing- strut loads. Certainly some bad examples around.

Another nail in the coffin for the C162! You'd think Cessna would know about these bad design features.:

 

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Cessna_162_Skycatcher_N5201K_1010.JPG&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher&h=194&w=259&tbnid=wzUNlXSW9BhPLM:&zoom=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=200&usg=__f0_FTspCfjAS0GMsFTgWM1SGPjg=&docid=Lq04GZ4cK7uiEM&itg=1&ved=0CIQBEMo3&ei=-NWgVKjOIOPvmAWpq4GoAQ

 

And Tecnam: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tecnam p92 echo&tbm=isch&imgil=IY_ahWk0mnAJTM%3A%3B0tkVwdkHpGi7dM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%252Ftype.php%253Fpg%25253D3%252526p%25253D1707%252526order%25253Dscreen_timestamp&source=iu&pf=m&fir=IY_ahWk0mnAJTM%3A%2C0tkVwdkHpGi7dM%2C_&usg=__Zzdhw45uWRuwzBysYdwHq1iF4j8=&biw=1536&bih=733&ved=0CDcQyjc&ei=QdegVMyJKYTTmgX7voDgCA#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=IY_ahWk0mnAJTM%3A;0tkVwdkHpGi7dM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%2Fimages%2Fuploaded-images%2F2010-5%2F9%2F88164.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%2Ftype.php%3Fpg%3D3%26p%3D1707%26order%3Dscreen_timestamp;1024;700

 

Oh, blimey - AND Brumby: http://brumbyaircraft.com.au/

 

 

[Marty_d]

Always a design mistake when landing gear loads are combined at the same point as wing- strut loads. Certainly some bad examples around.

I would have thought it makes perfect sense to have a single strong point for both gear and strut, cuts down on weight. As long as the design is right. The gear/strut welded assemblies from Zenith are a work of art - there was no way I was going to attempt welding them up myself!

 

 

[saccani]

G'day Phil,

 

Hi SaccaniThe steel bracket that the wing attachment is bolted and riveted to the air frame and the undercarriage leaf is clamped to the bracket .There is a c shaped stiffening channel that runs between the two steel brackets, so i believe that the undercarriage leaf is not a structural part.

The bracket (7-F-17-1SP is attached to the fuselage side and also to the U shaped bottom channel 7-F-10-1 with a pair of doublers, 7-F-10-2, just as you say. But the undercarriage leaf itself is hugely stronger than the doubler, and is attached by some bolts that are quite stout. It unquestionably contributes to the attachment of 7-F-17-1SP to the fuselage under positive loading - whether intended to or not. It may very well be that this contribution is completely unrequired and not considered in the stress analysis by Heintz. However, the wise move is to talk to Caleb or someone else at Zenith/Zenair and ask. Undoubtedly they already know if it is an issue, and if needed, would advise on any other modifications if needed. They did offer a tail dragger plans option with the earlier version, so they would know all the answers. All it takes is an email to get the good gen.

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

 

[saccani]

I would have thought it makes perfect sense to have a single strong point for both gear and strut, cuts down on weight. As long as the design is right. The gear/strut welded assemblies from Zenith are a work of art - there was no way I was going to attempt welding them up myself!

<smile> That's some enthusiasm. I didn't find them that hard. You should see the wing attach fittings of an F1 mirage to see welding as an art form. ;)

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

 

[rankamateur]

It is a bit different having a maingear leg bolted onto the strut attachment point than having a continuous springleaf mounted in the channel between the two attachment points.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I would have thought it makes perfect sense to have a single strong point for both gear and strut, cuts down on weight. As long as the design is right. The gear/strut welded assemblies from Zenith are a work of art - there was no way I was going to attempt welding them up myself!

I would agree that some are a work of art and certainly up to the job at hand. I wasn't singling out the Zenith for any criticism at all. However from a design point it is always nice to separate the two loads if possible. Main landing gears are designed to take a pounding and even fail if needed in a sacrificial way, therefore saving the rest of the structure.

Wing- strut attach fittings on the other hand should never be abused or jepodised in any way...far too critical and not many survive a wing strut failure.

 

 

[Marty_d]

<smile> That's some enthusiasm. I didn't find them that hard. You should see the wing attach fittings of an F1 mirage to see welding as an art form. ;)Cheers,

Paul

Yes, but I'm an extremely average welder. In fact I'm going to get the cabin frame done by a professional, I'm not trusting my life to my welding!

 

It is a bit different having a maingear leg bolted onto the strut attachment point than having a continuous springleaf mounted in the channel between the two attachment points.

True, I can imagine that a lot of the upward forces on landing are absorbed by the centre section of the leaf.