Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:33 AM - Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 08/10/08 (Brett Hanley)
2. 06:27 AM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Larry)
3. 07:34 AM - Re: questions on weights (flicka750)
4. 09:46 AM - Chat Room Reminder (George Race)
5. 10:06 AM - What is your propeller warranty? (George Race)
6. 10:28 AM - Re: questions on weights (gburdett)
7. 11:58 AM - Re: Strut Fairings (Craig Payne)
8. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: Strut Fairings (ZodieRocket)
9. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Bob Collins)
10. 01:31 PM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Bob Collins)
11. 07:24 PM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Larry)
12. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Ces701@aol.com)
13. 08:09 PM - Re: Re: questions on weights (Craig Payne)
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: Zenith701801-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 08/10/08 |
The finnished weight of the 750 is about 755 pounds.- That weight is with
a Continental engine and no paint.- Allowing 20 pounds for-paint that
leaves you with 545 pounds of useful load even with a heavier automotive en
gine.- So if you are like me and do not have 18k for a 912 installation i
ts pretty exciting!
-
Brett
-
My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no modificat
ions
except the addition of the small dynon---came in at 585 pounds, givin
g useful
load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!
Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound heavier gro
ss,
which- doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to move around on the grou
nd, the
wings are longer, it would burn more fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engin
e,
and still carries the same useful load.
Fred Sanford- N9701- (Flew Sept 2005)
-
-
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 |
If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as
they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3"
frame. My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.
Larry N1345L
Bob Collins wrote:
> <bobcollins42@gmail.com>
>
> 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:
>> <sonar1@cox.net>
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM
>
>
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: | Re: questions on weights |
bobcollins42(at)gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
It's interesting how this debate is evolving. The entire premise for the 750 is
getting a real aircraft engine, and now folks are talking about putting a Rotax
in a 750. Which to me asks the question, why the 750, Deja-Vu.
I'm 5'10" 170LB. I have been wanting to build a zen-701 for years. I started a
RV-9, but its real hard doing it by yourself, and tends to take 5+ years. Because
I want to fly sooner in my own home-built I decided to fall back to the zen.
I went ahead and ordered the rudder a few weeks ago knowing they were the same.
I got the rudder this past monday, and had it finished the next day. I simply
can't believe how easy it was, compared to the RV. I have the metal-101 dvd,
and 1/2 the stuff from that video is now simplified with all the pre-punch
#40 pilots on the rudder-kit. So know I'm ready to order my next step.
The decision 750 or 701? It's about the engine, the weight advantage is NIL, the
0.016" vs 0.020"? Now that I have worked with 0.016" ( same rudder for both
is 0.016 ), it was very rigid and I had no problem, it wasn't as flimsy as I had
assumed.
So the decision.
1.) The 701 is still the same price as last year $12k, the 750 is priced at the
price of the 801 for last year, over $20k
2.) The 750 is on a oct back order just for the build-book, perhaps the wings will
be avail in nov? The engine kits are still not priced, but its the 601 so
you can guess.
3.) The 701 is a $35k airplane, the 750 is a $60k airplane,
4.) The Mat o-200 is $20k, the rotax 912uls is $20k
5.) The 750 is 50% extra across the board, for X% improvement where X is an unknown.
To date I have only seen one person here say the advantage, and that was
that the 750 is/was a x-country plane, but is it? Tell that to the people at
Arlington or Osh that fly 701's there.
6.) I do like the fact that the 750 has a higher structural airspeed, but dislike
the loss of low speed stall, the 750 is getting very close to a C150, the whole
point of the 701 is the low stall, .e.g. helicopter like performance.
I did order the 750 build-book, but its not going to get shipped for 2-3 months,
there really is no idea on 750 delivery for complete kit, or partial, on partial
I think they ship parts at a time which would kill me at $200/shipment in
common-carrier charges. It would be preferable to have one package sent once
for $450. The back-order TODAY for the 701 is late october/november. The back-order
for the 750 is a black-hole.
In summary the 750 is 50% MORE, for 1% inc in weight, and now people are talking
about putting rotax's in it, which elminates the whole reason for its existance,
which was to support an engine over #180LB.
I'll say this the zen kit is a breeze to work with, after working with the RV kit,
and having all the tools. It took me minutes with my air-rivet gun to rivet
the rudder, and all the rivets came out perfect. I was impressed.
The zenith plans are well written, with pic's, and clear with all the caveats.
The RV plans are the same, .e.g. cad-draw plus english, but the english is un-intelliglbe
gibberish with no pics, and no caveats. I found with the RV that I
had study the plans, there was no way to follow the procedure with their english
they would have one paragraph for a 1/2 day procedure. While the zen plans
have every step pictured and described in detail. Somebody at ZEN worked very
hard.
I hope the 750 plans are every bit as good as the current 701, my suspicion is
that it will take years to get the bugs out of the 750, given they have only worked
for two years on the kit, and the 701 has been what 20 years in evolution?
I'm still open, and the above writing is to share another NEWBIE's experience with
this process, I just want to fly in/out a STOL from my farm, before I die,
and I fell back to the ZEN because I knew the RV wouldn't be finished until I
was dead.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197879#197879
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 |
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: | What is your propeller warranty? |
As many of you already know, N73EX was completed and certified a couple of
weeks ago. After doing some taxi tests and static run up's I discovered a
split in one end of the propeller. It is a wood Sensenich 62 inch.
I just heard back from the factory: "that more than likely a crack was
induced prior to running the engine up, which then became much worse once
the propeller was loaded. Possibly from handling."
They were very gracious in that I am getting a replacement at their cost,
even thou it is way out of warranty.
There may be a lesson here to be learned. I have had the prop, stored in
it's shipping box on the shelf for over 2 years. The warranty on the prop
was 6 months or 50 hours from date of sale, whichever comes first. I would
have been better served if I had waited to have the prop shipped in just
before I needed it. That way at least there would have been a factory
warranty in case of any problem situations.
The prop came along with my Firewall Forward Kit and it never even occurred
to me that it would be out of factory warranty long before I ever took it
out of the box.
Thank goodness, Jabiur USA allows you to notify them at the first engine
startup, and then officially starts the warranty, or I would have had a 2
year out of warranty engine as well. Thanks to Pete for providing that
provision with the sale of the FWF kit.
Hopefully this will prevent someone else from going thru this kind of a
situation.
George
N73EX
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: questions on weights |
Just to compare apples to pommes-The three similarly equipped kit airframes only
from the website are:( All with bubble doors, elec trim, fairings)
701 $16065
750 $19380
801 $25760
You pays your money and takes your choice.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197923#197923
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 |
|
Since no one has chimed in with a real answer I'll offer some hearsay: I
have read (on these lists) that a 3/1 length/width ratio in the cross
section's profile is the ideal.
The usual disclaimers: your millage may vary, offer null where void,
contents under pressure, keep away from children or politicians, rotate your
tires, don't stare into the sun, look both ways when crossing the freeway,
use in a well ventilated space, may contain peanuts or have been processed
on a planet that contains peanuts, this work is protected by international
copyright conventions.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tommy
Walker
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Strut Fairings
<twalker@cableone.net>
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 |
3:1 ratio for best performance.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
[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
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8/11/2008 5:50 AM
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 |
Hi Larry,
I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close
(and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will not
fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.
I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be
threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the 701,
I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is a major
improvement.
As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and
the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build
may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.
Cheers,
Bob Collins
Sunnyvale CA USA
Larry wrote:
>
> If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as
> they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3"
> frame. My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.
> Larry N1345L
>
> Bob Collins wrote:
>> <bobcollins42@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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:
>>> <sonar1@cox.net>
>>>
>>> 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 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 Larry,
I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close
(and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will not
fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.
I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be
threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the 701,
I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is a major
improvement.
As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and
the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build
may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.
Cheers,
Bob Collins
Sunnyvale CA USA
Larry wrote:
>
> If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as
> they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3"
> frame. My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.
> Larry N1345L
>
> Bob Collins wrote:
>> <bobcollins42@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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:
>>> <sonar1@cox.net>
>>>
>>> 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: | Re: questions on weights |
Maybe you got too much cushion, mine is only an inch thick. I'm 6'1",
185 no problem. Don't know what else to tell you, Larry
Bob Collins wrote:
> <bobcollins42@gmail.com>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close
> (and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will
> not fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.
>
> I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be
> threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the
> 701, I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is
> a major improvement.
>
> As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and
> the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build
> may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob Collins
> Sunnyvale CA USA
>
> Larry wrote:
>>
>> If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as
>> they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3"
>> frame. My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my
>> 701. Larry N1345L
>>
>> Bob Collins wrote:
>>> <bobcollins42@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>> <sonar1@cox.net>
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> 270.6.0/1604 - Release Date: 8/11/2008 5:50 AM
>
>
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: | Re: questions on weights |
Hello Listers
Just a comment on cockpit room; I'm 6'4.5. I dropped the seat pan when I
built the plane.
I don't remember how much I picked up probably about 1-1.5 inches. I talked
to Chris before I made the
change. I have 285 flying hours.
Charlie S
In a message dated 8/11/2008 4:31:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bobcollins42@gmail.com writes:
--> Zenith701801-List message posted by: Bob Collins
<bobcollins42@gmail.com>
Hi Larry,
I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close
(and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will not
fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.
I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be
threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the 701,
I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is a major
improvement.
As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and
the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build
may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.
Cheers,
Bob Collins
Sunnyvale CA USA
Larry wrote:
>
> If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as
> they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3"
> frame. My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.
> Larry N1345L
>
> Bob Collins wrote:
>> --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: Bob Collins
>> <bobcollins42@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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:
>>> --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "sonar1@cox.net"
>>> <sonar1@cox.net>
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
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: questions on weights |
One of the 701s at Quality Sport Planes has an electric flap motor. When I
asked why they said it was so they could lower the seat for a tall pilot.
-- Craig
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! --
|