Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:55 AM - Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/18/10 (Go Flying)
2. 12:55 AM - Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/18/10 (Go Flying)
3. 04:31 AM - (mksoucy@yahoo.com)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 (Larry McFarland)
5. 04:53 PM - Re: Re: A lighter 701 to prime or not to prime (MacDonald Doug)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Zenith701801-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/18/10 |
I have decided to unsubscribe to the Matronics lists, there is nearly no
traffic and no content to red.
Chris Norman, CEO
www.digitalrealitycorp.com
owner www.goflying.co
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Zenith701801-List Digest Server
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 1:59 AM
Subject: Zenith701801-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/18/10
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Zenith701801-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Zenith701801-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter
10-09-18&Archive=Zenith701801
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter
2010-09-18&Archive=Zenith701801
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
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" <kmccune@somtel.net>
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.ht
ml
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" <klondike@megalink.net>
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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>
> 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" <klondike@megalink.net>
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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>
>
> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>
>
> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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" <klondike@megalink.net>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
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
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: Zenith701801-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/18/10 |
I have decided to unsubscribe to the Matronics lists, there is nearly no
traffic and no content to red.
Chris Norman, CEO
www.digitalrealitycorp.com
owner www.goflying.co
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Zenith701801-List Digest Server
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 1:59 AM
Subject: Zenith701801-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/18/10
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Zenith701801-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Zenith701801-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter
10-09-18&Archive=Zenith701801
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter
2010-09-18&Archive=Zenith701801
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
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" <kmccune@somtel.net>
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.ht
ml
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" <klondike@megalink.net>
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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>
> 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" <klondike@megalink.net>
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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>
>
> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>
>
> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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" <klondike@megalink.net>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
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" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> 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" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>
>
>> <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>> To: <zenith701801-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
>>
>>
>>> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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" <ben.queener@gmail.com>
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
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 |
|
I have taking off many times behind fritz's 701 with a 582 carrying 2 people and
it was off the ground in the length off the runway ID numbers. I also had to
wait to land once because fritz in the same configuration waited for gusts to
subside to taxi. Point, unless you are trying to win competions, or just for
the heck of it build close to plans with a reasonable engine all should be well.
Fifty less on takeoff won't do much when your planes on it back from a 20kt
gust. I am going to try the A65 from my pietenpol in my 701. I know it will probably
be doggy but compared to the piet it will be an appollo rocket
Sent from my iPod
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: A lighter 701 |
An estimate of 15 lbs would be closer to the mark for the 701.
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 Benjamin
Q
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:17 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
--> <ben.queener@gmail.com>
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
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: | Re: A lighter 701 to prime or not to prime |
I don't know that it is carved in stone (in the CARs) that all interior surfaces
must be primed. Rather there is a check item on the MD-RA (DAR) forms that
says something like "have in interior surfaces of all box sections been protected
from environmental deterioration?"
Rather than argue with the inspector, it is just easier to prime and be done with
it. At least from my point of view.
Doug MacDonald
Do Not Archive
--- On Fri, 9/17/10, kmccune <kmccune@somtel.net> wrote:
> From: kmccune <kmccune@somtel.net>
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: A lighter 701
> To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
> Received: Friday, September 17, 2010, 4:00 PM
> --> Zenith701801-List message
> posted by: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
>
> I had wondered about that. Not it it was required, but why
> you guys did it.
>
> Kevin
> do not archive
>
>
> dougsnash wrote:
> >
> > The interior of all aluminum surfaces were
> primed. This is required in Canada.
> >
> > Doug MacDonald
> > CH-701 Scratch builder
> > NW Ontario, Canada
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! --
|