Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:25 AM - Re: questions on weights (Ken Arnold)
2. 05:11 AM - Re: questions on weights (Gordon)
3. 06:34 AM - Re: questions on weights (George Race)
4. 06:35 AM - Chat Room Reminder for "Digesters" (George Race)
5. 11:20 AM - Re: Automotive Conversions Vol 3 (kmccune)
6. 12:41 PM - Re: Re: Automotive Conversions Vol 3 (LarryMcFarland)
7. 02:21 PM - Strut Fairings (Tommy Walker)
8. 02:32 PM - Re: Strut Fairings (kmccune)
9. 03:20 PM - Re: questions on weights (sonar1@cox.net)
10. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Bob Collins)
11. 08:55 PM - 701 vs 750 - useful load (Ken Ryan)
12. 09:22 PM - Re: 701 vs 750 - useful load (Craig Payne)
13. 09:45 PM - Re: 701 vs 750 - useful load (billmileski)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: questions on weights |
Ken,
My 701 EW is 605# including paint. Rotax 912ULS.
Regards,
Ken Arnold
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ryan" <kenryan@alaska.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: questions on weights
>
> First time poster,
>
> I'm trying to figure out what the 701 really weighs, and looking for any
> tips on keeping things
> light. It would be great if some of you could post your empty weights
> (along with engine
> choice and anything you did that added/subtracted weight).
>
> I also have a couple of specific questions:
>
> 1. Regarding the extended fuel option, can someone tell me the complete
> weight of
> upgrading to four wing tanks versus the standard two?
>
> side issue: 701 comes with 2 X 10 gallons but how much of that is usable?
>
> 2. Did any of you weigh your plane before and then after painting? I'm
> curious as to how
> much weight is saved by not painting.
>
> Thanks for help with weights
>
> Right now I'm trying to decide between a 701 and a 750, and in order to do
> that, I really need
> to figure out what the "real world" useful load might be.
>
>
> --
> Ken Ryan
> http://kenryan.com
> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
> and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: questions on weights |
Ken,
My 701 has the extra fuel tanks (4 x 10) although if I had it to do
again I probably would not have spent the time, money and extra weight on
them. Rotax 912ULS with CZ firewall forward, bubble doors, full panel (ifr).
electric flaps and trim.
I stuck to the plans and the only modification was to add false ribs in the
outer wing bays to prevent oil canning. Below is a copy of my weight and
balance after painting. I didn't weigh it before painting.
I'm very happy with the performance!
Gordon
ITEM WEIGHT ARM MOMENT
______________________empty weight & CG________________
right main wheel 214 716
153224
left main wheel 218 716
156088
nose wheel
178 -686 -122108
computed CG empty 610 307 187204
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ryan" <kenryan@alaska.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: questions on weights
>
> First time poster,
>
> I'm trying to figure out what the 701 really weighs, and looking for any
> tips on keeping things
> light. It would be great if some of you could post your empty weights
> (along with engine
> choice and anything you did that added/subtracted weight).
>
> I also have a couple of specific questions:
>
> 1. Regarding the extended fuel option, can someone tell me the complete
> weight of
> upgrading to four wing tanks versus the standard two?
>
> side issue: 701 comes with 2 X 10 gallons but how much of that is usable?
>
> 2. Did any of you weigh your plane before and then after painting? I'm
> curious as to how
> much weight is saved by not painting.
>
> Thanks for help with weights
>
> Right now I'm trying to decide between a 701 and a 750, and in order to do
> that, I really need
> to figure out what the "real world" useful load might be.
>
>
> --
> Ken Ryan
> http://kenryan.com
> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
> and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | questions on weights |
Hi Ken:
I have recently finished a 701. My empty weight was 582 pounds. With full
fuel, 20 gals, and me on board the total weight is 882 pounds. My CG worked
out to be 14.81, which is almost perfect. I am running the Jabiur 2200a and
have the battery mounted on the firewall.
I did not do anything to try to reduce the overall weight. I do have dual
sticks and an electric flaperon control. My ELT is located in the tail. I
have a fully equipped panel, and even a small center console with the EIS
located just below the panel.
You can see pictures at www.mykitairplane.com/MyCH701
I choose not to paint the airplane at this time. I was told by my EAA
advisors that paint, depending on the type and number of coats, can add
between 25 and 50 pounds to the overall weight. That seems a bit high to
me, based on the size of the aircraft.
-----Original Message-----
I'm trying to figure out what the 701 really weighs, and looking for any
tips on keeping things light. It would be great if some of you could post
your empty weights (along with engine choice and anything you did that
added/subtracted weight).
2. Did any of you weigh your plane before and then after painting? I'm
curious as to how much weight is saved by not painting.
Thanks for help with weights
Right now I'm trying to decide between a 701 and a 750, and in order to do
that, I really need to figure out what the "real world" useful load might
be.
--
Ken Ryan
http://kenryan.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Chat Room Reminder for "Digesters" |
Please join us for our Monday evening chat room starting around 8:00 PM
Eastern Time.
<blocked::blocked::http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/>
http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/
George
CH-701 - N73EX
Do Not Archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Conversions Vol 3 |
was there anything on the Raven SVS1300?
Kevin
do not archive
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197739#197739
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Conversions Vol 3 |
Not that I saw, but probably somewhere in Volumes 1 and 2. The coverage
is really extensive.
Larry McFarland
do not archive
kmccune wrote:
>
> was there anything on the Raven SVS1300?
>
> Kevin
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Builders,
I am looking for some dimensions for strut fairings for the 701. I have a little
extra .016 sheet that gremlins drilled wrong while I was asleep. I would like
to convert it into some fairings to cover the tubes.
I'm also interested in attachment points for the fairings.
Many thanks for any info.
Tommy Walker in Alabama
N8701
70.0 HRS
--------
Tommy Walker
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197772#197772
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strut Fairings |
[Shocked] :P :D
Darn, I have some of that too!
Sorry could not resist, I am interested in the answer though!
do not archive
Kevin
Tommy Walker wrote:
> that gremlins drilled wrong while I was asleep.
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197775#197775
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: questions on weights |
My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no modifications
except the addition of the small dynon came in at 585 pounds, giving useful
load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!
Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound heavier gross,
which doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to move around on the ground, the
wings are longer, it would burn more fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine,
and still carries the same useful load.
Fred Sanford N9701 (Flew Sept 2005)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197778#197778
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: questions on weights |
Hi Fred,
I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However,
useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 750
is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this changed the
equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting ready to order the
rudder kit for the 750.
After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect some others may come to
the same conclusion. Your mileage my vary. ;-)
Bob Collins
Sunnyvale CA USA
sonar1@cox.net wrote:
>
> My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no modifications
except the addition of the small dynon came in at 585 pounds, giving useful
load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!
> Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound heavier gross,
which doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to move around on the ground,
the wings are longer, it would burn more fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine,
and still carries the same useful load.
>
> Fred Sanford N9701 (Flew Sept 2005)
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 701 vs 750 - useful load |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Thanks to those who responded to my
query on empty weights for the 701.
More input would be welcome!
Zenith lists the useful load for the 750 as 545 lbs.
(as compared to 520 for the 701) . . .
BUT
Sebastian told me that using the Rotax 914 in-
stead of the 0-200 would save about 100 lbs.
I think he's a little high on that, but I do believe
you would save 75 lbs. (and gain 15 hp) so that
would bring the useful load up to 620 lbs. (More if
you figure in the reduced weight of your wallet.)
Data I've seen regarding fuel consumption at 65%
power is:
912 UL 4.2 gph
912 ULS 4.8 gph
914 UL 4.8 gph
So it looks to me like if you go 750 with the powerful
Rotax, you will gain 100 lbs. useful load with no fuel
penalty (at least at cruise).
Consumption for the 914 does jump at higher power
settings:
75% 5.7 gph
100% 9.0 gph
--
Ken Ryan
http://kenryan.com
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 701 vs 750 - useful load |
A middle ground would be to fly the 750 with a Jabiru 3300.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Ryan
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:55 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: 701 vs 750 - useful load
Thanks to those who responded to my
query on empty weights for the 701.
More input would be welcome!
Zenith lists the useful load for the 750 as 545 lbs.
(as compared to 520 for the 701) . . .
BUT
Sebastian told me that using the Rotax 914 in-
stead of the 0-200 would save about 100 lbs.
I think he's a little high on that, but I do believe
you would save 75 lbs. (and gain 15 hp) so that
would bring the useful load up to 620 lbs. (More if
you figure in the reduced weight of your wallet.)
Data I've seen regarding fuel consumption at 65%
power is:
912 UL 4.2 gph
912 ULS 4.8 gph
914 UL 4.8 gph
So it looks to me like if you go 750 with the powerful
Rotax, you will gain 100 lbs. useful load with no fuel
penalty (at least at cruise).
Consumption for the 914 does jump at higher power
settings:
75% 5.7 gph
100% 9.0 gph
--
Ken Ryan
http://kenryan.com
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 vs 750 - useful load |
Ken,
The fuel consumption figures for the 912 series seem a bit high to me; I regularly
see less than 4 gph with a 912S, with a 701 cruising at 85mph, which I assumme
must be at least 65% power.
Although I wonder.. the plane will do 110mph at full throttle, and if propellor/airframe
load varies with the square of velocity, then it's possible that 85mph
is more like 60% power..
Bill Mileski
701 912S 140 hrs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197837#197837
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|