Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:47 AM - Re: N73EX First Flight (kmccune)
2. 08:16 AM - Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (flicka750)
3. 08:32 AM - Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (flicka750)
4. 09:34 AM - Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (John Lenhardt)
5. 09:34 AM - =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9p=2E_=3A_Zenith701801-List=3A_Re=3A_Ch-750_versus_Ch-7?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?01? (Jean-Paul Roy)
6. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (Roy Szarafinski)
7. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (John Bolding)
8. 10:07 AM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (LarryMcFarland)
9. 01:07 PM - Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (ProWash)
10. 02:41 PM - Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (kmccune)
11. 02:50 PM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (Ken Ryan)
12. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (John Marzulli)
13. 03:05 PM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (John Marzulli)
14. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (Ken Ryan)
15. 04:17 PM - Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (kmccune)
16. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (John Marzulli)
17. 07:02 PM - =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Zenith701801-List=3A_R=E9p=2E_=3A_Zenith701801-List?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3A_701/914? (Gary Gower)
18. 07:39 PM - Re: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 (Jon Croke)
19. 08:03 PM - Re: Elevator Authority (kmccune)
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: N73EX First Flight |
Congrats!
I'm sooo jealous!
[Wink]
Kevin
--------
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=199791#199791
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
The entire 'kit build' biz is ran by 'Quick-Build' consultants and Suppliers. The
gatekeepers of all conversation shutdown any real discussion every time. None
the questions I have addressed have been answered. There is no real engineering
desire to understand. Just trust the 'force' and leap. Roll the craps, and
land on one of three wonderful planes that Zenith has to offer. That's not science
its witchcraft.
Regarding the 912 issue and real-planes. It's interesting that Van's is now selling
the RV-12 that will only use the 912. Thus the argument that the 750 is for
'real-engines' while Vans with the their 'real-planes' is going in the opposite
direction. I find that interesting.
To date we have learned.
1.) That the 701 is not a x-country plane or isn't, I have seen a lot of people
x-country in 701's. In the true since none of Zen's STOL class aircraft are x-country,
thus that subject should not even have been introduced?
2.) It took a month to learn the 750/701 had the same rudder, to date that's about
all we know. I guess the way things are done is we wait for Santa ( Uncle
Heintz ) to deliver our xmas plans, and keep our mouth shut until then? [ I have
had my 750 plans on order for over a month, my estimate of deliver is around
xmas, my rudder is done. ]. I'm skeptical to hand over $10k or more in cash
( Zen wants 1/2 down to order in cash ), for a kit that has no back-order log
time available. I'm assuming right now to just purchase the components as they
come available?
3.) The purpose of the 750 was to offer an LSA with a 'real engine', its clear
that Zenith with their new pricing is going head-on to Vans, yet Vans is going
with the 912, and zenith is going towards the O-200. Yes, I agree its all wink/nod,
nod/wink, next year both partys will flip-flop. Only 5 years ago the Rotax
912 could be had for less than $10k. The 701 kit for the same, thus it was
concievable to fly for less than $20k, especially if you scratch built. Today
I'm seeing people put $50k into panels. It's obvious that kit-building, and build-assist
racket is a gold-mine. That said it could have all simply been east
HELOC MTG money, and those days be over.
4.) We have learned that the 750 is comfy for big guys, if your not a big guy,
you don't need a 750.
5.) I got into kit building a long time ago to keep the cost down. The cost of
say the skycatcher ( cessna lsa ), and the RV-12 class of kit is now closely converging.
The 750 is heading in the same direction. It's clear at the current
rate of price increase that in 1-2 years it will cost more to build a kit plane,
than to buy a new plane. Regarding 'scratch build' its a KNOWN FACT that the
skin/skeleton is less than 20% of the cost of a finished plane. The 'kit' price
is not where the bulk of the money goes. 4X or more is a good rule of thumb,
and 6-8X is most realistic.
6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its not grandfathered
like the 701.
I haven't heard any logical arguments for the 750. We know that going back to 2005
in the early Uncle-Heintz announcements it was a 'marketing' project. Like
the Alarus it was going to be a certified AMD-750. Then it became a kit, I like
the Alarus it feels like a very solid ch-601.
701 vs 750 - There is about 3-6% increase in dimensions, no noticeable increase
in carrying weight, yet there is a 40% increase in cost. ( 750 kit is over $20k,
and 701 kit can be had for $13k ). Same rudder, but 750 is said to use .020"
skin, rather than 0.016". The 750 is all about using an engine over 180LB's,
but at the same time the leader in 'PLANE KITS' (Van's) is moving towards the
Rotax.
What I have seen so far in the 701 vs 750 debate is 100% emotion, and perhaps that
is all this group is capable of, perhaps there are no engineers or scientists
in this group?
Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share information.
Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public zenith data-sheets,
and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption that a debate
and/or exchange of information could take place was asking too much??
gburdett wrote:
> Re: How about a real debate, and some real information??
>
> How about not. [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199800#199800
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
The implicit message here is if you ask tough questions then your not a determined
builder. I don't want to even go there.
The second message is that serious people use their real names, I have a different
view of the internet. I feel its essential to not post your real-name & physical
address so that common criminals knows where they can find of thousands
of dollars of aircraft tools.
All I asked was an informed discussion about the 701 versus 750. When people mumble
platitudes about trusting the 'force' and randomly picking one of the three
great planes. It tells me they know nothing about the subject matter.
Like in this instance, rather than going on what a 'serious builder' you are and
how 'strong and determined' you are, why don't you tell us what you know about
the 701 versus the 750?
rvickski(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> flicka750
> Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will....I
would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders
use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.
> Roy Szarafinski
> 701 Corvair
>
>
> ---
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199801#199801
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: | Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
Van's didn't "go" to the 912. It was the only already "approved" LSA engine
available at the time of design. He still wasn't happy about it. I'm
hoping the Lycoming IO-233 will be an alternative since he is an OEM for
them, but only time will tell.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "flicka750" <flicka401@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701
>
> Regarding the 912 issue and real-planes. It's interesting that Van's is
> now selling the RV-12 that will only use the 912. Thus the argument that
> the 750 is for 'real-engines' while Vans with the their 'real-planes' is
> going in the opposite direction. I find that interesting.
>
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: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9p=2E_=3A_Zenith701801-List=3A_Re=3A_Ch-750_versus_Ch-7?= |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?01?
Perhaps,,,,,,,,,you've said it all
Jean-Paul Roy
--- En date de-: Jeu, 21.8.08, flicka750 <flicka401@gmail.com> a =E9crit
-:
De: flicka750 <flicka401@gmail.com>
Objet: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701
=C0: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
<flicka401@gmail.com>
The entire 'kit build' biz is ran by 'Quick-Build' consultants
and Suppliers. The gatekeepers of all conversation shutdown any real discus
sion
every time. None the questions I have addressed have been answered. There i
s no
real engineering desire to understand. Just trust the 'force' and leap.
Roll the craps, and land on one of three wonderful planes that Zenith has t
o
offer. That's not science its witchcraft.
Regarding the 912 issue and real-planes. It's interesting that Van's is
now selling the RV-12 that will only use the 912. Thus the argument that th
e 750
is for 'real-engines' while Vans with the their 'real-planes' is
going in the opposite direction. I find that interesting.
To date we have learned.
1.) That the 701 is not a x-country plane or isn't, I have seen a lot of
people x-country in 701's. In the true since none of Zen's STOL class
aircraft are x-country, thus that subject should not even have been introdu
ced?
2.) It took a month to learn the 750/701 had the same rudder, to date
that's about all we know. I guess the way things are done is we wait for
Santa ( Uncle Heintz ) to deliver our xmas plans, and keep our mouth shut u
ntil
then? [ I have had my 750 plans on order for over a month, my estimate of
deliver is around xmas, my rudder is done. ]. I'm skeptical to hand over
$10k or more in cash ( Zen wants 1/2 down to order in cash ), for a kit tha
t has
no back-order log time available. I'm assuming right now to just purchase
the components as they come available?
3.) The purpose of the 750 was to offer an LSA with a 'real engine',
its clear that Zenith with their new pricing is going head-on to Vans, yet
Vans
is going with the 912, and zenith is going towards the O-200. Yes, I agree
its
all wink/nod, nod/wink, next year both partys will flip-flop. Only 5 years
ago
the Rotax 912 could be had for less than $10k. The 701 kit for the same, th
us it
was concievable to fly for less than $20k, especially if you scratch built.
Today I'm seeing people put $50k into panels. It's obvious that
kit-building, and build-assist racket is a gold-mine. That said it could ha
ve
all simply been east HELOC MTG money, and those days be over.
4.) We have learned that the 750 is comfy for big guys, if your not a big g
uy,
you don't need a 750.
5.) I got into kit building a long time ago to keep the cost down. The cost
of
say the skycatcher ( cessna lsa ), and the RV-12 class of kit is now closel
y
converging. The 750 is heading in the same direction. It's clear at the
current rate of price increase that in 1-2 years it will cost more to build
a
kit plane, than to buy a new plane. Regarding 'scratch build' its a
KNOWN FACT that the skin/skeleton is less than 20% of the cost of a finishe
d
plane. The 'kit' price is not where the bulk of the money goes. 4X or
more is a good rule of thumb, and 6-8X is most realistic.
6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its not
grandfathered like the 701.
I haven't heard any logical arguments for the 750. We know that going back
to 2005 in the early Uncle-Heintz announcements it was a 'marketing'
project. Like the Alarus it was going to be a certified AMD-750. Then it be
came
a kit, I like the Alarus it feels like a very solid ch-601.
701 vs 750 - There is about 3-6% increase in dimensions, no noticeable incr
ease
in carrying weight, yet there is a 40% increase in cost. ( 750 kit is over
$20k,
and 701 kit can be had for $13k ). Same rudder, but 750 is said to use
..020" skin, rather than 0.016". The 750 is all about using an engine
over 180LB's, but at the same time the leader in 'PLANE KITS'
(Van's) is moving towards the Rotax.
What I have seen so far in the 701 vs 750 debate is 100% emotion, and perha
ps
that is all this group is capable of, perhaps there are no engineers or
scientists in this group?
Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share
information. Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public z
enith
data-sheets, and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption that a d
ebate
and/or exchange of information could take place was asking too much??
gburdett wrote:
> Re: How about a real debate, and some real information??
>
> How about not. [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199800#199800
=0A=0A=0A D=E9couvrez les photos les plus int=E9ressantes du jour.=0Ah
ttp://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
Nothing at all, I am not second guessing my choice, I just keep building.
Like in this instance, rather than going on what a 'serious builder' you are and
how 'strong and determined' you are, why don't you tell us what you know about
the 701 versus the 750?
rvickski(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> flicka750
> Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will....I
would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders
use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.
> Roy Szarafinski
> 701 Corvair
>
>
> ---
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199801#199801
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
Flicka or whoever,
With all of your drivel you finally hit on the magic paragraph. It's a NEW
airplane. Info will unfold slowly if past experience with Zenith is any
indication. You expected different just because it's a new airplane? Do
you expect/want Zenith to provide engineering data? Doubtful, (and horribly
stupid) .
What SPECIFICALLY are you looking for that you haven't already answered
yourself? Post a list if you wish , you might get surprised, some pretty
sharp dudes here.
As far a pricing goes it's THEIR product and they can price it wherever in
the hell THEY want to, it's called capitalism. If it's too high for you then
you can buy a set of plans and get busy, you can build all of the "kit" in
30 days of spare time if you stay off the computer. I'm tickled pink that
plans will be available as they first said a yr ago that they wouldn't be.
Probably the only one in this group that KNOWS anything other than 3rd hand
info is Mark and he's close enough to the source he ISN'T saying anything
that is not yet ready for retail consumption.
My guess is you've never started/run a company (using gobs of your OWN
money) or designed anything from scratch, let alone tooled up for a new
product.
I HAVE been known to make the occasional error however, if so, my apologies
for any aspersions cast.
pot is now well stirred,
John
> Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share
> >information. Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public
> >zenith data-sheets, and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption
> that >a debate and/or exchange of information could take place was asking
> too >much??
>
>
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
Hi Roy,
I was perhaps a little harsh with the post on quick-built aircraft, but
I feel they are going to be the death of experimental aircraft
construction because of
implications of the 51% rule, current politics and the radical
environmental lobby etc. We're making it way too easy for the regulators.
The Van's RV-12 is decidedly a 912 build because it's been constructed
in a way that nearly prohibits any other engine, the space is integrated
with that engine. Cannot imagine other engines fitting the space
without real redesign in the firewall and floor. Van's is a completely
different approach to kit-building.
No variation. Just do it their way.
The 750 is one I'm seriously looking at from a plans build perspective
and the reason is that it will fit any configuration of 100 hp without
major problems. Open architecture is the term, I believe, used in
computers. Zenith is just tooling up and it's likely their facility
will be a while incorporating everything for the 750. The 701 is a
great light plane and it fits the best definition of that category, but
there are a lot of people putting Subaru, 0-200s and Corvair on the 701
and not getting the kind of intended STOL performance with these
engines. The 750 is lighter than a type-certified, but is a decided
match for any of the heavy 100-hp and still provides great STOL performance.
Cross country use is decidedly a variable inside one's head.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
flicka750 wrote:
>
> The implicit message here is if you ask tough questions then your not a determined
builder. I don't want to even go there.
>
> The second message is that serious people use their real names, I have a different
view of the internet. I feel its essential to not post your real-name &
physical address so that common criminals knows where they can find of thousands
of dollars of aircraft tools.
>
> All I asked was an informed discussion about the 701 versus 750. When people
mumble platitudes about trusting the 'force' and randomly picking one of the three
great planes. It tells me they know nothing about the subject matter.
>
> Like in this instance, rather than going on what a 'serious builder' you are
and how 'strong and determined' you are, why don't you tell us what you know about
the 701 versus the 750?
>
>
> rvickski(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> flicka750
>> Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will....I
would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders
use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.
>> Roy Szarafinski
>> 701 Corvair
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199801#199801
>
>
>
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
Geezz, Flicka750,
Who pissed in your Cheerios. I'm a complete beginner at building and I was able
to gather the information available at the time and make a decision about which
airplane to build. I bought a 701 kit and within a year have nearly completed
it without even talking to the "Quick Build" industry.
If I can do it, anyone can. You do have to take responsibility for for your thoughts
and actions though.
If you can't do that, wait a few months and Obama will tell you which airplane
to build. If "you're" lucky.
No Fear, I only needed $150 worth of tools.
--------
R Craig
North Central Arkansas
701 SP Nearly Done
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199829#199829
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
see replies underlined below
do not archive
flicka750 wrote:
>
> To date we have learned.
>
> 1.) That the 701 is not a x-country plane or isn't, I have seen a lot of people
x-country in 701's. In the true since none of Zen's STOL class aircraft are
x-country, thus that subject should not even have been introduced?
>
>
>
> KM If you fly it cross country it is a cross country airplane.
>
>
>
> 2.) It took a month to learn the 750/701 had the same rudder, to date that's
about all we know. I guess the way things are done is we wait for Santa ( Uncle
Heintz ) to deliver our xmas plans, and keep our mouth shut until then? [ I
have had my 750 plans on order for over a month, my estimate of deliver is around
xmas, my rudder is done. ]. I'm skeptical to hand over $10k or more in cash
( Zen wants 1/2 down to order in cash ), for a kit that has no back-order log
time available. I'm assuming right now to just purchase the components as they
come available?
>
>
> KM After the release it took me one email to find out
>
>
>
>
> 3.) The purpose of the 750 was to offer an LSA with a 'real engine', its clear
that Zenith with their new pricing is going head-on to Vans, yet Vans is going
with the 912, and zenith is going towards the O-200. Yes, I agree its all wink/nod,
nod/wink, next year both partys will flip-flop. Only 5 years ago the
Rotax 912 could be had for less than $10k. The 701 kit for the same, thus it was
concievable to fly for less than $20k, especially if you scratch built. Today
I'm seeing people put $50k into panels. It's obvious that kit-building, and
build-assist racket is a gold-mine. That said it could have all simply been east
HELOC MTG money, and those days be over.
>
>
> KM actually the guys at the Oshkosh Zenith booth recommended the Rotax.
>
>
>
> 4.) We have learned that the 750 is comfy for big guys, if your not a big guy,
you don't need a 750.
>
>
>
>
> KM personal opinion, buy what you want.
>
>
>
> 5.) I got into kit building a long time ago to keep the cost down. The cost of
say the skycatcher ( cessna lsa ), and the RV-12 class of kit is now closely
converging. The 750 is heading in the same direction. It's clear at the current
rate of price increase that in 1-2 years it will cost more to build a kit plane,
than to buy a new plane. Regarding 'scratch build' its a KNOWN FACT that
the skin/skeleton is less than 20% of the cost of a finished plane. The 'kit'
price is not where the bulk of the money goes. 4X or more is a good rule of thumb,
and 6-8X is most realistic.
>
>
>
>
> KM The 750 is a new design and as such the engineering costs are factored in
at todays prices, This is not the case with the 701.
>
>
>
> 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its not grandfathered
like the 701.
>
>
>
>
> KM got me there.
>
>
>
>
> 701 vs 750 - There is about 3-6% increase in dimensions, no noticeable increase
in carrying weight, yet there is a 40% increase in cost. ( 750 kit is over
$20k, and 701 kit can be had for $13k ). Same rudder, but 750 is said to use .020"
skin, rather than 0.016". The 750 is all about using an engine over 180LB's,
but at the same time the leader in 'PLANE KITS' (Van's) is moving towards
the Rotax.
>
>
>
>
> KM see oatmeal comment below.
>
>
>
> What I have seen so far in the 701 vs 750 debate is 100% emotion, and perhaps
that is all this group is capable of, perhaps there are no engineers or scientists
in this group?
>
>
>
>
>
> KM seems to me that all the emotion is coming from you.
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share information.
Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public zenith
data-sheets, and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption that a debate
and/or exchange of information could take place was asking too much??
>
>
>
>
> KM back to the oatmeal comment below.
>
>
>
>
> gburdett wrote:
> > Re: How about a real debate, and some real information??
> >
> > How about not. [Wink]
>
Z
--------
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=199835#199835
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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be "approved")
Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?
What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?
I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?
Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective of someone
deciding between the 701 and the 750.
Ken Ryan
On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:
> >
> > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its
> not grandfathered like the 701.
> >
--
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: | Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
The FAA "approval" that you are asking about is concerning the new
interpretation of the 51% rule.
Previously the FAA would evaluate a kit to see if it fit within their
interpretation of the 51% rule. If it did meet the letter of the rule then
it was placed on a list of evaluated kits that let the DARs know that the
kit already met the letter of the interpretation.
The new rules that spell out the interpretation of the 51% rule are now much
more stringent. Any kit that has been previously evaluated is grandfathered
in, but there is the thought that many kits that are produced now may not
meet the new rules.
Remember the FAA never "approves" a kit, they only evaluate if it meets the
51% rule.
Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/
http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan@alaska.net> wrote:
>
> Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be
> "approved")
>
> Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?
>
> What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?
>
> I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?
>
> Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective
> of someone
> deciding between the 701 and the 750.
>
> Ken Ryan
>
>
> On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its
> > not grandfathered like the 701.
> > >
>
>
> --
> 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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
If you can't do that, wait a few months and Obama will tell you which
airplane to build. If "you're" lucky.
WTF?
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/
http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM, ProWash <rcraigcraig@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Geezz, Flicka750,
> Who pissed in your Cheerios. I'm a complete beginner at building and I was
> able to gather the information available at the time and make a decision
> about which airplane to build. I bought a 701 kit and within a year have
> nearly completed it without even talking to the "Quick Build" industry.
>
> If I can do it, anyone can. You do have to take responsibility for for
> your thoughts and actions though.
>
> If you can't do that, wait a few months and Obama will tell you which
> airplane to build. If "you're" lucky.
>
> No Fear, I only needed $150 worth of tools.
>
> --------
> R Craig
> North Central Arkansas
> 701 SP Nearly Done
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199829#199829
>
>
Message 14
| 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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Thank you John for that clear, non-emotional, non-political explanation.
When will we know if the 750 meets the 51% rule?
On 21 Aug 2008 at 15:03, John Marzulli wrote:
>
> The FAA "approval" that you are asking about is concerning the new interpretation
of the 51%
> rule.
>
> Previously the FAA would evaluate a kit to see if it fit within their interpretation
of the 51% rule. If it
> did meet the letter of the rule then it was placed on a list of evaluated kits
that let the DARs know
> that the kit already met the letter of the interpretation.
>
> The new rules that spell out the interpretation of the 51% rule are now much
more stringent. Any
> kit that has been previously evaluated is grandfathered in, but there is the
thought that many kits
> that are produced now may not meet the new rules.
>
> Remember the FAA never "approves" a kit, they only evaluate if it meets the 51%
rule.
>
>
> Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE
> John Marzulli
>
> http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
> http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/
> http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan@alaska.net> wrote:
>
> Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be
"approved")
>
> Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?
>
> What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?
>
> I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?
>
> Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective
of someone
> deciding between the 701 and the 750.
>
> Ken Ryan
>
>
>
> On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its
> > not grandfathered like the 701.
> > >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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 15
| 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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
For the record, I did not right that.
do not archive.
Kevin
kenryan(at)alaska.net wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its
> > not grandfathered like the 701.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-
--------
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=199846#199846
Message 16
| 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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
NP.
I should probably add that the 701 was evaluated and met the 51% rule,
therefore it any builder who does not use significant assistance should have
no problem obtaining an airworthiness certificate.
As for the 750, the FAA has suspended kit evaluations until the new rules
are finalized.
Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE!
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/
http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan@alaska.net> wrote:
>
> Thank you John for that clear, non-emotional, non-political explanation.
>
> When will we know if the 750 meets the 51% rule?
>
>
> On 21 Aug 2008 at 15:03, John Marzulli wrote:
>
> >
> > The FAA "approval" that you are asking about is concerning the new
> interpretation of the 51%
> > rule.
> >
> > Previously the FAA would evaluate a kit to see if it fit within their
> interpretation of the 51% rule. If it
> > did meet the letter of the rule then it was placed on a list of evaluated
> kits that let the DARs know
> > that the kit already met the letter of the interpretation.
> >
> > The new rules that spell out the interpretation of the 51% rule are now
> much more stringent. Any
> > kit that has been previously evaluated is grandfathered in, but there is
> the thought that many kits
> > that are produced now may not meet the new rules.
> >
> > Remember the FAA never "approves" a kit, they only evaluate if it meets
> the 51% rule.
> >
> >
> > Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > John Marzulli
> >
> > http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/
> > http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan@alaska.net> wrote:
> kenryan@alaska.net>
> >
> > Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not
> be "approved")
> >
> > Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the
> FAA?
> >
> > What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why
> not?
> >
> > I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?
> >
> > Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the
> perspective of someone
> > deciding between the 701 and the 750.
> >
> > Ken Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA,
> as its
> > > not grandfathered like the 701.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 17
| 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: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Zenith701801-List=3A_R=E9p=2E_=3A_Zenith701801-List?= |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=3A_701/914?
Here I am...-
-
With about 200 hrs in 701 experience shared (both pilots,-my brother Larr
y and myself).- flying a "no XCountry"-:-) -airplane to great places
several flying hours, wekends-and days away.--
-
Well,- We fly normally from our 5,029 Ft ASL- strip, year round,- in
summer we get temps around the 100 =B0F.-- winter is cold...-about 40
=B0 F-in the early morning-(for us at least:-)
-
The strips and airports around here are up two almost 9,000 ft.-
-
The highest we have flown off (in the 701) with half tanks, two aboard (abo
ut 330 lbs),-20 lbs--luggage---and-the GPS- was from a 6,90
0- paved strip (Lagos de Moreno Airport)-
Take off was a liitle longer, almost like a "normal" airplane :-)- but di
d climb about 400-ft/min at 70 mph. to cruise altitude.-
-
When we go to the sea shore- (Pacific Coast) we climb over the Sierra at
around 11,000 (give or take)- to make the crossing then "glide" down to s
ea level....-- Back trip is the oposite.- Total time (average) each w
ay 1 hr and 20 minutes, depends on wind direction. Good turbulence experien
ce in this trips, and the 701 has enough controls to handle that and more..
.
-
The 100 Hp engine is plenty powerfull- and we enjoy flying the 701 at its
pace.-- At high altitude when hot and dry,- the cruise-speed- so
metimes "drops"- to about 76 to 78 mph indicated instead of 83-85- at l
ower (7,000) altitudes.-
-
There is always a hangar talk around here; -that probably a "couple of fe
et"-of span could help out 701 in altitude performance...- So probably
next year we can start to think about mating the 750 wings to our 701...-
I dont know how much a wing kit from the 750 (if-can be used in the 701)
will cost...- Builders never stop building :-)
-
As an advise,- the power at altitude suffer a little (we are used to this
with all other airplanes here),- but if you fly the plane,- think in a
dvance, -keep you ball centerd (slip cuts a lot of performance in altitud
e) and be patience with the plane, in my humble opinion, no need of the 914
T...--
-
Not that the 914T is not good, (there are at least 2 with- 914 near here)
- but I think that simple is better in aviation, and the 912 itself has i
ts own share- (two carbs, water cooled, etc).
-
Hope this helps
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico
701 912S--
Building a 601 XL- Jabiru 1300- for XCountry (?)
19/08, Keith Ashcraft <keith.ashcraft@itt.com> wrote:
From: Keith Ashcraft <keith.ashcraft@itt.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: R=E9p. : Zenith701801-List: 701/914
Ken,
Not quite there yet..but... I am going with "something" turbo'd. I have flo
wn with a guy that had a 912S from Paonia, CO (7V2). With both of us (appro
x 320lbs) and approx 1/2 fuel (10gallons) the 701 did a good job. Not exact
ually sure what our TO run was, guessing <200'.but his field elevation is s
till low in altitude approx 5,800'.
I am trying to convence myself that the 914 $28K+ price tag is worth it. Al
so, have been keeping watch on the Raptor105 Diesel engine (comparible to t
he 914). Ramengines.com has a couple of turbo'd engines also( start with a
115hp and end with 140hp)
Gary in Mexico, (I think), tells of his experience of high altitude flying
once in a while, maybe he will jump into the conversation. (maybe do a Matr
onics search on him, in the original zenith list, gary gower, gary growler
not exactly sure, I will have to go back and look at some old emails from h
im)
Keith
***************************************************************************
*****************
Ken Ryan wrote:
Keith,
Do you use the 912ULS on your 701? How does it work for you at that
altitude?
On 19 Aug 2008 at 7:42, Keith Ashcraft wrote:
Keith
CH701-scratch
N 38.9940- (hint - just West of Colorado Springs, CO)
W 105.1305
Alt. 9,100 - (notice, I am 4,000' higher than Mr. Wood)
--
*************************************
Keith Ashcraft
ITT Industries
Advanced Engineering & Sciences
5009 Centennial Blvd.
Colorado Springs , CO
--------------------- 80919
(719) 599-1787 -- work
(719) 332-4364 -- cell
keith.ashcraft@itt.com
keith.ashcraft1@us.army.mil
-
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are in
tended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addr
essed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporati
on. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the pres
ence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any viru
s transmitted by this e-mail.
=0A=0A=0A
Message 18
| 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: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 |
Hi Ken,
No reason to fear.... only ignorance of the rules will harm us...!
ALL builders of experimental aircraft must demonstrate to the FAA that they
built at least 51% of their aircraft in order to get their special airworthy
certificate. In fact, you must sign a document that states this is true AND
convince the FAA inspector/DAR of this fact via your builder log book,
photos, your good looks, and any other convincing means. If he is "sold" on
the belief that you did build at least 51%, then you are on your way to
successfully licensing your bird.
Alternatively, IF your aircraft happens to be on the "approved" FAA list of
kit aircraft (the 701,601 and many other popular kits are listed here) then
you have done the FAA inspector a favor as he does not have to evaluate your
word and builders log to be convinced of the 51% compliance rule. This list
(that the 750 is not on yet) recently received a "freeze" against any new
kit additions whilst the FAA re-evaluates the whole 51% rule thingy... but
that is a different issue.
So... the list means nothing other than the convenience of knowing that the
kit is "pre-approved"... like getting a credit card: you dont have to be
pre-approved if you have good credit.... you dont need the FAA list if you
can prove you built 51% of the kit...
So, in summary, not being on the list means almost nothing... most homebuilt
aircraft are not on that list (my guess!). It is a wonderful marketing
feature for manufacturers to get their products on this list as it makes us
"feel" good and makes registration a tad bit easier!
Now, that re-evaluation of the whole 51% rule... that's something worth
watching... but not to be fearful of, IMO.
Hope that makes some sense...
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ryan" <kenryan@alaska.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701
>
> Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be
> "approved")
>
> Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?
>
> What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?
>
> I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?
>
> Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective
> of someone
> deciding between the 701 and the 750.
>
> Ken Ryan
>
>
Message 19
| 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: Elevator Authority |
Hi John,
Glad to hear your home safe, short trip for me @200 miles. I don't think I'd ever
go around the world for an airplane get together, so hats of to you and all
those that do this every year! 8)
Now that world rounder thing and the VG fuel savings and extra fuel tanks and.....
now thats another story for after retirement!
Kevin
--------
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=199867#199867
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! --
|