---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith701801-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 09/18/10: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:38 AM - Re: A lighter 701 (kmccune) 2. 05:01 AM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (fritz) 3. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (Ken Arnold) 4. 10:26 AM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (fritz) 5. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (Larry McFarland) 6. 12:24 PM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (fritz) 7. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (Larry McFarland) 8. 02:35 PM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (Larry McFarland) 9. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (Larry McFarland) 10. 09:20 PM - Re: A lighter 701 (Benjamin Q) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:38:21 AM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 From: "kmccune" How about 460 lbs But you need a set of early plans and a 2 stroke engine, well maybe a Jab 2200. Click it http://web.archive.org/web/20010422100422/www.zenair.com/stolch701/7-perf.html Kevin -------- Always do what you are afraid to do. R.W. Emerson (1803-1882) "Real freedom is the sustained act of being an individual." WW - 2009 "Life is a good deal...it's worth it" Dorothy McCune Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312825#312825 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:18 AM PST US From: "fritz" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 I think you'll find Chris' "first" model of the 701 was about 480 lbs. To do this was with the "light weight" 2 cycle Rotax engines ie 582. Much lighter landing gear and lighter contstruction. This 701 was "beefed up" for the heavier and more hp engines. Just build the damn thing and have fun flying it. Fritz ---- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Q" Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of > the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct > plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think its > exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be able > to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to > bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:56:27 AM PST US From: "Ken Arnold" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to reduce. Following are suggestions: - no radios - minimum instruments - 50 lb engine - smaller wheels and tires - no lights - no starter - no alternator - no doors That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. Regards, Ken do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Q" Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of > the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct > plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think its > exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be able > to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to > bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:26:48 AM PST US From: "fritz" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 if you reduce the hp to weigh less. what is the point? Fritz--- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Arnold" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > > This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to > reduce. Following are suggestions: > - no radios > - minimum instruments > - 50 lb engine > - smaller wheels and tires > - no lights > - no starter > - no alternator > - no doors > > That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. > Regards, > Ken > > do not archive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Benjamin Q" > To: > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM > Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > >> >> >> I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of >> the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct >> plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think its >> exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be able >> to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to >> bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:25:11 AM PST US From: "Larry McFarland" Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 Hi Fritz, You'd find that a lighter aircraft actually performs better, even with the smaller engine. There's a much higher proportionate penalty for using the larger engine. Fuel usage isn't much the problem as actual flying performance for landing, takeoff and handling in the air. Larry McFarland 601HDS at macsmachine.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:20 PM Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 if you reduce the hp to weigh less. what is the point? Fritz--- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Arnold" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > > This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to > reduce. Following are suggestions: > - no radios > - minimum instruments > - 50 lb engine > - smaller wheels and tires > - no lights > - no starter > - no alternator > - no doors > > That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. > Regards, > Ken > > do not archive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Benjamin Q" > To: > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM > Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > >> >> >> I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of >> the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct >> plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think its >> exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be able >> to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to >> bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:24:12 PM PST US From: "fritz" Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 Larry --- I disagree--- not that straight forward of an answer. you can't take a new 701, put the Rotax 582 and expect good performance. You would need the old, lighter 701 for it to balance out. No more than you can put a 65 hp in the 750 and expect good performance. Don't want to start a major discussion on this, as I think we are all in the same church, but maybe different pews. Fritz ---- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry McFarland" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > Hi Fritz, > You'd find that a lighter aircraft actually performs better, even with the > smaller engine. There's a much higher proportionate penalty for using > the larger engine. Fuel usage isn't much the problem as actual flying > performance for landing, takeoff and handling in the air. > > Larry McFarland 601HDS at macsmachine.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:20 PM > To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > if you reduce the hp to weigh less. > what is the point? > Fritz--- do not archive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Arnold" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > >> >> >> >> This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to >> reduce. Following are suggestions: >> - no radios >> - minimum instruments >> - 50 lb engine >> - smaller wheels and tires >> - no lights >> - no starter >> - no alternator >> - no doors >> >> That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. >> Regards, >> Ken >> >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Benjamin Q" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM >> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 >> >> >>> >>> >>> I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of >>> the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct >>> plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think >>> its > >>> exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be >>> able > >>> to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to >>> bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:24:33 PM PST US From: "Larry McFarland" Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 You're right of course, but I should have said not 2-cycle engines, but the 2200 Rotax is a great light engine for the 701 as compared to the 912. It's light and offers great flying in a 701. I've seen a lot of other heavy engines like Corvair and Subaru which make the 701 a virtual led sled for climb and landing. Larry, -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 Larry --- I disagree--- not that straight forward of an answer. you can't take a new 701, put the Rotax 582 and expect good performance. You would need the old, lighter 701 for it to balance out. No more than you can put a 65 hp in the 750 and expect good performance. Don't want to start a major discussion on this, as I think we are all in the same church, but maybe different pews. Fritz ---- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry McFarland" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > Hi Fritz, > You'd find that a lighter aircraft actually performs better, even with the > smaller engine. There's a much higher proportionate penalty for using > the larger engine. Fuel usage isn't much the problem as actual flying > performance for landing, takeoff and handling in the air. > > Larry McFarland 601HDS at macsmachine.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:20 PM > To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > if you reduce the hp to weigh less. > what is the point? > Fritz--- do not archive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Arnold" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > >> >> >> >> This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to >> reduce. Following are suggestions: >> - no radios >> - minimum instruments >> - 50 lb engine >> - smaller wheels and tires >> - no lights >> - no starter >> - no alternator >> - no doors >> >> That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. >> Regards, >> Ken >> >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Benjamin Q" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM >> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 >> >> >>> >>> >>> I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of >>> the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct >>> plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think >>> its > >>> exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be >>> able > >>> to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to >>> bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 02:35:30 PM PST US From: "Larry McFarland" Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 You're right of course, but I should have said not 2-cycle engines, but the 2200 Rotax is a great light engine for the 701 as compared to the 912. It's light and offers great flying in a 701. I've seen a lot of other heavy engines like Corvair and Subaru which make the 701 a virtual led sled for climb and landing. Larry, -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 Larry --- I disagree--- not that straight forward of an answer. you can't take a new 701, put the Rotax 582 and expect good performance. You would need the old, lighter 701 for it to balance out. No more than you can put a 65 hp in the 750 and expect good performance. Don't want to start a major discussion on this, as I think we are all in the same church, but maybe different pews. Fritz ---- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry McFarland" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > Hi Fritz, > You'd find that a lighter aircraft actually performs better, even with the > smaller engine. There's a much higher proportionate penalty for using > the larger engine. Fuel usage isn't much the problem as actual flying > performance for landing, takeoff and handling in the air. > > Larry McFarland 601HDS at macsmachine.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:20 PM > To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > if you reduce the hp to weigh less. > what is the point? > Fritz--- do not archive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Arnold" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > >> >> >> >> This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to >> reduce. Following are suggestions: >> - no radios >> - minimum instruments >> - 50 lb engine >> - smaller wheels and tires >> - no lights >> - no starter >> - no alternator >> - no doors >> >> That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. >> Regards, >> Ken >> >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Benjamin Q" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM >> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 >> >> >>> >>> >>> I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of >>> the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct >>> plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think >>> its > >>> exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be >>> able > >>> to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to >>> bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 03:04:19 PM PST US From: "Larry McFarland" Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 You're right of course, but I should have said not 2-cycle engines, but the 2200 Rotax is a great light engine for the 701 as compared to the 912. It's light and offers great flying in a 701. I've seen a lot of other heavy engines like Corvair and Subaru which make the 701 a virtual led sled for climb and landing. Larry, -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 Larry --- I disagree--- not that straight forward of an answer. you can't take a new 701, put the Rotax 582 and expect good performance. You would need the old, lighter 701 for it to balance out. No more than you can put a 65 hp in the 750 and expect good performance. Don't want to start a major discussion on this, as I think we are all in the same church, but maybe different pews. Fritz ---- do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry McFarland" Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > Hi Fritz, > You'd find that a lighter aircraft actually performs better, even with the > smaller engine. There's a much higher proportionate penalty for using > the larger engine. Fuel usage isn't much the problem as actual flying > performance for landing, takeoff and handling in the air. > > Larry McFarland 601HDS at macsmachine.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:20 PM > To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > > if you reduce the hp to weigh less. > what is the point? > Fritz--- do not archive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Arnold" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 > > >> >> >> >> This should be no problem. Mine came in at 600 lbs without trying to >> reduce. Following are suggestions: >> - no radios >> - minimum instruments >> - 50 lb engine >> - smaller wheels and tires >> - no lights >> - no starter >> - no alternator >> - no doors >> >> That would bring it in at about 490 lbs. >> Regards, >> Ken >> >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Benjamin Q" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM >> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 >> >> >>> >>> >>> I love to fly and getting in the air is my first priority. But one of >>> the reasons I settled on the 701 kit was because it hold a very distinct >>> plane in the experimental aircraft world as a STOL aircraft. I think >>> its > >>> exciting to already be at the edges of STOL performance and still be >>> able > >>> to make a meaningful design contribution. I wonder if it is possible to >>> bring the 701 to under 500 lbs? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312813#312813 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:20:13 PM PST US Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701 From: "Benjamin Q" I plan on using the Jabiru 2200. I can't remember how much lighter its installed weight is then the Rotax 912, I think it was 20 to 25 pounds. I was going with minimal radios and instruments and no paint. I would need to weight some of the parts to make sure, but I think I could shave off 40 to 50 pounds by making composite parts. I also have some seat designs that will be super lightweight. If keeping the paint off subtracts another 30 pounds, then it seems to be very possible to break 500 lbs. The interesting thing about that web link is the performance numbers. They list the climb rate of the 80 HP 701 as 1600 ft, and the takeoff roll as 45 feet. I have a feeling this was optimistic, but if not, it shows an incredible performance increase by just decreasing the weight. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=312880#312880 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.