Anybody here have a CH701?

I keep looking at teh web site and owner's sites. I wish the cruise was a
little higher and when you check out the full deflection maneuvering speed you
have to wonder how stron it is.

There is also the pegasthol wing with pressure actuated slats. Higher cruise
but they have some kind of argument with Zenair and it is tough to get hard
facts.

-- Charlie Springer

I keep looking at teh web site and owner's sites. I wish the cruise was a
little higher and when you check out the full deflection maneuvering speed
you
have to wonder how stron it is.


http://www.zenithair.com/bldr/7-bldrs.htm

-Jari
http://www.project-ch701.net

On Thu, 13 May 2004 06:29:55 +0000, Regnirps wrote:

I keep looking at teh web site and owner's sites. I wish the cruise was a
little higher and when you check out the full deflection maneuvering speed
you have to wonder how stron it is.


Well, the manoeuvring speed (VA) is a function of:

wing loading (low wing loading leads to lower VA),
maximum coefficient of lift of the wing (high CL max leads to lower VA),
design load factor (low design load factor leads to lower VA).

The CH701 is designed to have short take-off and landing distances, so it
needs low wing loading and a high CLmax. It isn't designed for
aerobatics, so it can get away with a lower design load factor. A higher
design load factor would require a heavier structure, which would worsen
the performance.

The Zenair web site says it is designed for +6g ultimate load. It is a
bit unusual for the manufacturer to quote ultimate loads, as that
represents the ultimate strength of the airframe - i.e. the point at which
it may fail catastrophically. Normally a 1.5 factor of safety is applied,
and the limit load (4g in this case) is quoted, as that is the value that
the pilot should use as his load factor limit.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

This doesn't really answer your question, but...

I too at one time wanted the 701. It could be plans built, easy to get
materials, easy fasteners, sport pilot eligible, etc. The downside was
the low cruise (real world was lower than factory claim, no surprise)
and lack of baggage space. I had a set of plans, materials, and tools,
but I later switched to a Bearhawk (4 place taildragger)

Plans built was one of the major factors in deciding what to build. The
problem is that a lot of these planes in this class (2 place, side by
side seating, SP eligible, etc) are offered as kits only. Kitfox, Avid
flyer, and so on. If someone could offer a plans built plane in this
same class but with decent cruise, I'd have considered it.

In the same vien, I like the ridgerunner type planes too. Two place
tandem, folding wings, decent cruise for their size (definitely a local
plane), and really fun looking plane. Too bad nobody offers these in
plans built either.

John

JohnT wrote:

In the same vien, I like the ridgerunner type planes too. Two place
tandem, folding wings, decent cruise for their size (definitely a local
plane), and really fun looking plane. Too bad nobody offers these in
plans built either.

I'm not sure what examples you're referring to here, but
a Thorpe T-18 with the folding wing mod would seem to meet all the
requirements. Plans-built, even. Are you talking about some
other type?

Dave 'beer cans down' Hyde

The bearhawk is a high wing, 4 place aircraft with a tube and fabric
fuse, and metal wing.
The ridge runner (and 2 or 3 other very similiar planes built in the
same region) series are 1 or 2 place (tandem) high wingers, taildragger
or trike, just barely out of the ultralight class (some are done as
ultralights).

The T-18 doesn't fit my "mission" at all.

John

JohnT wrote:

The T-18 doesn't fit my "mission" at all.

My mistake. I didn't realize the Ridge Runner
was a type rather than a mission. I agree,
there don't seem to be (m)any plans-built like
that out there.

Dave 'terrain masking' Hyde

Regnirps wrote:

...when you check out the full deflection maneuvering speed you
have to wonder how stron it is.

A high-lift wing is going to have a lower Va than a cruise wing
for a given g-limit. That's just physics. Working the stall
(34-38 kt) and Va (75-78) numbers I get something like a 4g
operating limit, which is in keeping with the published 6g ultimate
limit. Seems strong enough to me, if real-life matches advertising.

Dave 'corner speed' Hyde

Dave Hyde wrote:

A high-lift wing is going to have a lower Va than a cruise wing
for a given g-limit. That's just physics. Working the stall
(34-38 kt) and Va (75-78) numbers I get something like a 4g
operating limit,

I thought I read a note on the site about avoiding full deflections above about
50. I'll have to look again -- or not. maybe I'll go back and look at RV-8s
somemore ; )

-- Charlie Springer

Regnirps wrote...

I thought I read a note on the site about avoiding full
deflections above about 50.

I didn't find it in a quick scan of the Zenith site.
I found 75 in a magazine review somewhere. If it's
really 50 and stall speed is 34 I'd be curious enough
to dig deeper as to the reason, but I don't think that's
the case.

Dave 'gust buster' Hyde