Morgans wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote:
"Adam Aulick" wrote

Apparently the Savannah is a direct copy of the 701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html#Ultraflight

Yep, and the 701 folks raise a lot of questions about the safety of said
copy. Go to Zenith.com and Poke around, before you make up your mind.

Try http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html

Zenith seems to want to have it both ways: claims it's an exact copy, yet
raises questions about its safety. If it were "just" a copy, Zenith would
be in the position of questioning the safety of its own design.

Granted, there is a lot of reading there, but not so, according to them.

There was one incident that I remember off the top of my head, but Z
increased it's gross, by re-engineering the spar, or something, a bit
beefier, and within a few days, S said their gross weight was up to match
it, with no noticeable change in the affected parts. There were more
examples, I think.


Near the bottom of this page:

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7...ml#Ultraflight

(In 2001, the design gross weight of the STOL CH 701 was increased
to 1,100 lbs. from 950 lbs. by redesigning the wing spar and numerous
other structural components. Nearly overnight, copies were subsequently

marketed with a gross weight increase to 1,100 lbs. - with no apparent
design or structural changes to justify the gross weight increase).

Do you really think Z would be stupid enough to say S was unsafe, if there
were no differences to point at?

And higher up on that page:

In flight testing the Savannah, Gratton notes that the take-off and
landing performance of the aircraft is 500 ft. and 460 ft.
respectively,
with climb at 600 fpm and cruise at 80 mph. These performance
figures are notably inferior than those for the STOL CH 701 - an
indication that the Savannah's modifications adversely affect
performance, not to mention flight characteristics.

--

FF