bentframe

Hello Farri, thanks for the welcome. My plane has diagonals riveted in between vertical supports top, bottom and sides. I haven't flown it enough or in any turbulence to hear any "oil canning". My flap handle is flat to the floor like yours. I have one a friend gave me that has a "T" handle welded on it but I haven't installed it yet to see how it works. I have a 3 position bracket with the last hole disabled to make it a 2 position bracket . My understanding is I have a flaps up and flaps 15' position. I guess the last hole is for 30' of flaps which is not recommended for operational use, to high of sink rates I guess! .

Yenn and Facthunter, Thank you for the welcome. My 701 is an early build airplane (960 GW.) Most of the items required for the 1100 LB. GW. have been done. I want to be as legal and safe as possible within reason, so I am doing what I need to get there. A lot of 960 GW , 701's are flown at the 1100 LB + GW. under the logic that zenith allows a 1150 LB GW for a 960 GW airplane on floats. The thinking being that the floats aerodynamically carry there own weight. I don't fully agree with that but smarter men than me say its true. I'm told at one time Zenith allowed and approved thru a letter, operations above the specified gross weight if the PIC calculated the reduced G loading due to the increased weight, stayed within the C.G. and was aware of reduced aircraft performance at the higher weight. I guess if one wants to fly at a higher GW. this would make it legal until the wings came off. The wooden prop will be more difficult to hand prop. Hopefully I will Have the sky tec starter on it by the time our weather clears and I can fly. I probably don't really need to do much to the airframe. The nose gear in all models seem to have some inherent problems. Most of them seem to be operationally induced and with my experience level with the airplane, I don't want to be part of the "been there, done that crowd" !! I am extremely fortunate to have a fellow here at the local airport that is a highly experienced aircraft builder, AI and a DAR. He's been a great help so far. I think if I was left to my own judgement the airplane would weigh 3000 LB by the time I was done !!!!

Hi Marty, Thank you for the welcome. I did not build my airplane. I bought it flying. The registered E.W. is 605 lbs. The fellow that did the build strengthened the firewall in a couple of places and Zenith provided the engine mount. The engine is bare bones, no starter and has a B&C lightweight alternator (12 amp) Slick mags (lighter than bendix) and bare bones electrical. With no starter, a motorcycle battery (approx 5 lbs)in the back suffices for all electrical needs (flight/com 760 radio/intercom). I have a metal prop 68x40 that weight about 22 lbs. I've not flown the plane that much but the C.G. is comfortable and it trims well. I'm old school and grew up with the little Continentals. I had an 8E luscombe for years and used it to commute to my job, so I am a little bias and still consider the Rotax a snowmobile engine. That probably isn't fair because I rode snowmobiles and have not flown anything but turbines for 35 years, and in my research the newer Rotax's look like a good engine. Must be a generational thing. When I retired I went back to our local community college and took a 2 year course to get my A&P ( kind of interesting, I heard " who's the old guy" quite a bit !!) thinking I would build an airplane. Good sense prevailed ( I Hope !) so I've decided to fly and maintain instead. The Continental is much easier to maintain and price wise they seem to run neck and neck with the Rotax. I would like to say apples and oranges but what I've found is as follows: My Continental is less than 200 LBs. with the prop it is over that. The all-up weight of the 912 is within 20-25 LBs. of the Continental in some cases on par. The Corvair and other auto variants are over the 200 LB. magical number but a lot of guys are flying them in 701's. I didn't even consider them because their is just something wrong with a car engine in a plane !!!! Old guy thinking !! My own opinion, A C-85 or a C-90 Continental will perform just as well as an 0-200 on a 701. (You can only push a boat hull so fast regardless of power ! ) Continental fuel burn will be greater with normal operations. Any engine that will get a 701 into the air makes for a really fun airplane. ( with in reason). What the future holds for my airplane : Wood prop, will save 10-12 LBs. will move battery forward so it is easier to maintain. Going with a sky-tec starter Strengthening a few points on the airframe and nose gear. ( Living in the helicopter world for 30 + years has shown me that there isn't ANYTHING on ANY airplane that is built strong enough !!) I hope this helps. I am really a beginner on the 701 but if I can help, please feel free to call on me.

Hello From N.E. Washington State, USA. I'm A retired Pilot. I have a Zenith 701 w/ a 0-200 . I've flown it a little bit and it now sits in my shop while I do a few " strengthening mods" while waiting for the snow to go away ! I'm looking forward to meeting you all and learning from your expertise.