---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith701801-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 08/21/08: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:47:47 AM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: N73EX First Flight From: "kmccune" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:16:03 AM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 From: "flicka750" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:34 AM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 From: "flicka750" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:34:41 AM PST US From: "John Lenhardt" Subject: Zenith701801-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:34:41 AM PST US From: Jean-Paul Roy Subject: Zenith701801-List: =?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 a =E9crit -: De: flicka750 Objet: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 =C0: zenith701801-list@matronics.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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:48 AM PST US From: Roy Szarafinski Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:59:18 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:07:34 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:07:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 From: "ProWash" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:50 PM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 From: "kmccune" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:50:31 PM PST US From: "Ken Ryan" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:04:00 PM PST US From: "John Marzulli" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:05:55 PM PST US From: "John Marzulli" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:18:16 PM PST US From: "Ken Ryan" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:22 PM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701 From: "kmccune" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:27:14 PM PST US From: "John Marzulli" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:02:39 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Zenith701801-List: =?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 wrote: From: Keith Ashcraft 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:13 PM PST US From: "Jon Croke" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:42 PM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Elevator Authority From: "kmccune" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith701801-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith701801-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith701801-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith701801-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.