Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:53 AM - Throttle cables/Rotax 912 (Joe Spencer)
2. 11:18 AM - Wing Inspection Openings (George Race)
3. 06:03 PM - Re: CH701 or Kitfox for newbie? (BokKat)
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: | Throttle cables/Rotax 912 |
>KIS.- Add only lightness and simplicity to any airplane
Amen. In fact KISS is the 2nd reason(spring fight is first) I would like
to get away from the ZAC throttle design...if I can make 2 Cessna type
push/pull cables from a common throw work then I can get away from the
springs and torque tube, and all those bicycle type cables. That may not
work either but will give it a try. When mine was rigged without springs
it was so much nicer to fly...just like a normal airplane. But the carbs
wouldn't stay synched.Some of all this I think depends on your
expectations, as some are perfectly happy with the plans rig. Others
not.
As to why 2 carbs on the 912...mainly I think it is for high
power/weight. But it does add a lot of complexity, as does the water
cooling and the external oil tank and all those oil lines and the
gearbox. Complicated and fussy...it's kinda like automatic that when you
decide to go with a Rotax you are giving up simplicity. I would have
much rather had a Continental or Lycoming but they are too heavy and
won't perform...that is if you are interested in radical, optimal STOL,
anyway. So I reluctantly bought the Rotax cause, for me anyway, radical
STOL is about the only reason for this plane's existence. There are
better choices if good all around performance and nice flying qualities
are what one wants...but man will it ever come out of the hole!!
Joe
the green one on utube
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: | Wing Inspection Openings |
When I built my CH-701 I installed 3 inspection openings in each wing.
Building the parts necessary was very time consuming and I would venture
that I probably spent at least 12 hours in the process of building and
fitting them into the wings. Those of you who have my "Building N73EX" DVD
can check out the many pictures of the process.
Thinking there had to be a better way, I have developed an Inspection
Opening Kit that will make it a lot easier and quicker to install those
inspection openings. Very nicely machined, with a flush fitting cover, they
will really look great when installed under you wings.
You can find a link to the Inspection Opening Kit on my web site:
http://www.mykitairplane.com
George
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: CH701 or Kitfox for newbie? |
I have a Kitfox model 4 and have put about 350 hours on it. I also built
the 701 because I knew nothing about working with aluminum and wanted to
learn. I had built a Starduster too a few years before that, a combo of
wood and steel tube and fabric. A fun hot rod!
For STOL, the 701 is better, but not a whole lot. I have VG's on the Kitfox
and an 80 hp Rotax 912, and take off runs are only a small bit longer than
the 701. The 701 has a 100 hp Rotax and mine is about 15 mph slower than
the Kitfox. My Kitfox has faired struts but I put on large tires, similar
to the 701 which adds drag. Neither one is overly fast, but neither one is
designed to be fast, either! They are both fairly high drag STOL fun
aircraft. The 701 cruises at about 95 at 5200 rpm and the Kitfox about
110-112 at the same rpm.
The 701 I think is easier to land, simply being a nosewheel airplane and
the Kitfox is easy enough as long as you remember that it is a tailwheel
plane and keep your head in gear and feet moving. Both are straightforward
with no surprises. Land heading down the runway straight with no drift and
you won't have problems with either. Both seem to handle gusty crosswinds
equally, and surprisingly well!
My Kitfox weighs 598 pounds empty and the 701 around 640 if I remember
correctly. The useful weights for all practical purposes are about the
same. CG's and baggage compartments sizes are about the same.
With an engine out the Kitfox will glide far further than the 701, which is
to be expected with less drag and longer wings. Stall speeds for PRACTICAL
PURPOSES are pretty close. Yes, the 701 stalls slower than my Kitfox with
VG's, but only if you hang it on the prop with the nose high. But it gets
tricky doing this and I wouldn't advise it till you get used to the plane.
When you first fly it, pretend it's a slow 150 for a while. The Kitfox,
pretend its a Chief or some side by side light taildragger like that till
you get the hang of it.
Neither is very difficult to fly. Both are different, but that's what makes
them interesting. The Kitfox floats more on landing after the round out. I
put Grove Gear on mine which probably is much sturdier than the original
Kitfox gear and easier to land and it has VG's. I don't use the flapperons
much on either one as they slip so well, especially the Kitfox, and the 701
comes down so fast when you pull off the power and point the nose down! No
question though, that I could land over a 50 foot obstacle a bit shorter
with the 701, though really working at it, it would be closer than you
think. Both can and shorter than necessary 99.999% of the time. A football
field is plenty! The Kitfox really slips well! So does the 701.
Probably a toss up.
I plan to fly and rerecord all my V speeds,etc. on the first forcasted
steady weather all day in the morning, then remove the slats, fly it again,
then put on VG's and fly it again and compare. I also plan to clean up the
high drag tail and maybe put on streamlined fairings on the struts. I have
VG's on the tail. Both the elevator and rudder are powerful on both
airplanes. Never run out of authority.
I'm planning to sell my Kitfox, only because I don't need two Sport Pilot
planes and I would like to put the 701 on Amphibs if I can find some with
gear heavy enough for my grass field. But I really do love both of them.
No bad habits or nasty surprises with either of them. I put a BRS in the
701. Hope to never have to use it! And I have the Dynon glass panel which
I love, and a radio/CD/Mp3 player into a stereo intercom. I don't go
anywhere fast, but I do go in comfort! Hah! Rados, transponders and
intercoms in them both, of course.
Headroom I think is pretty close, and plenty for my 5 10 altitude!
The 80 hp 912 burns reg gas and the 100 hp requires 91 octane or AVGAS. I
only burn 91 in both. Both fuel burn rates are close, though the 701 is a
bit higher.
Tube and Fabric vs. aluminum. Theoretical pros and cons for both. Your
personal choice, I guess.
I really do like the folding wing on the Kitfox. Much better than the
folding setup on the 701! Takes on a couple minutes and away you go. If I
need to work on it in my heated shop, which is 1/4 mile from my unheated
hangar, I fold the wings back, then taxi it down the paved road over to my
shop and push it in the 16 foot door. To put the 701 in my shop it is
easier just to take one wing off after scaring u a couple of buddies and a
set of wing holders..
Interior may be a bit bigger in the 701. I have the bubble doors. I like
being able to fly the Kitfox with the doors open against the wings on hot
days or for photography, (it costs you about 7 - 8 mph) but visibility is
excellent with the bubble doors on the 701. Both are equally cold in the
winter, but fine down to 15 or so above zero.
Can't think of mch more to compare them. The 701 is "form follows function
ugly" compared to the Kitfox which inspires the question at every fly in
"did you get your Cessna 195 wet and it shrunk?!?"
Both are great planes!
----- Original Message -----
From: "motoadve" <motoadve@racsa.co.cr>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 8:42 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: CH701 or Kitfox for newbie?
>
> I also posted this at the Kitfox forum.
> Im thinking of buying a plane , want something durable, easy to fly,
> reliable, good glider in case of engine quit, and slow stall speeds
>
> Im looking into the Zenith CH 701 or maybe a kitfox, for my needs what do
> you guys think is best?
> I want a Rotax 912 in the nose on either plane.
>
> If you guys think kitfox is for me which model?
>
> Which will be safer in case of a power off emergency?
>
> The CH701 stalls at 30mph where the kitfox 4 at 37mph and the S7 at 41mph
> Althought from what i read the glide ratio of the kitfoxes is about 10:1
> where the CH 701 is 7:1
>
> Im not expert so dont be shy to flame.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241160#241160
>
>
>
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! --
|