Cirrus in LSA as of this morning. But not with a new design

Ken Finney wrote:

Here is my understanding:
A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to
use as military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of
building the planes and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a
company in that Country, but forgot to limit the terms of the
license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big time by not limiting the
terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale. The license changed
hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP. After evaluating
the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed the
Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing
the Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.

Good story and you'd think I would have heard or read it in the almost 6
years I've been a Zenith builder and talking to a bunch of Zenith builders.
DO you have a cite for it? If so it will end a lot of coversations.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Ken Finney wrote:

Here is my understanding:
A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to
use as military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of
building the planes and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a
company in that Country, but forgot to limit the terms of the
license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big time by not limiting the
terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale. The license changed
hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP. After evaluating
the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed the
Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing
the Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.

Good story and you'd think I would have heard or read it in the almost 6
years I've been a Zenith builder and talking to a bunch of Zenith
builders. DO you have a cite for it? If so it will end a lot of
coversations.


Interesting, because I've seen different pieces of it in the 4 or 5 years
that I've been subscribing to the 701 and Savannah groups on Yahoo, plus I
might have filled in some of the details from conversations I've had with
Eric, the head of Skykits. I'll search through the archives in the
Savannah Yahoo group, that is probably the best bet. As far as I know,
Zenith has never taken legal action against ICP or Skykits, which I think is
somewhat telling. In any event, having done a lot of walking between 701s
and Savannahs to compare them, while they LOOK similar, there are more
differences between them than similarities.

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Ken Finney wrote:

Here is my understanding:
A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to
use as military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of
building the planes and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a
company in that Country, but forgot to limit the terms of the
license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big time by not limiting the
terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale. The license changed
hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP. After evaluating
the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed the
Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing
the Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.

Good story and you'd think I would have heard or read it in the almost 6
years I've been a Zenith builder and talking to a bunch of Zenith
builders. DO you have a cite for it? If so it will end a lot of
coversations.


Interesting, because I've seen different pieces of it in the 4 or 5 years
that I've been subscribing to the 701 and Savannah groups on Yahoo, plus I
might have filled in some of the details from conversations I've had with
Eric, the head of Skykits. I'll search through the archives in the
Savannah Yahoo group, that is probably the best bet. As far as I know,
Zenith has never taken legal action against ICP or Skykits, which I think
is somewhat telling. In any event, having done a lot of walking between
701s and Savannahs to compare them, while they LOOK similar, there are
more differences between them than similarities.



From a post in Yahoo's Savannah group (message #2744) by a George Tamvakis:

"Just To shine a little light on the Savannah /701 deal. I talked with Chris
Hintz at Sun-N-Fun in 2003 when I took my Savannah there for display and he
came over and looked it over , he spend over an hour looking at it and
finally I asked him how my plane that was so similar to his design came
about. His response was that in the late 80's a year or so after he designed
and built the 701 he was approached by a Colombian company to built and sell
701's to the Colombian army so he gave them permission to copy and built
701's in Colombia the deal went bad a year or so later and the Colombians
continued to built and modify the 701/Savannah and because he gave them
permission there was nothing he can do now , also after a number of years a
design is not copy writer anymore."

From message #2743:
"A designer in Columbia claims to be the originator of the MXP740 and his
first flight is within a plus or minus a year of the CH701. See

http://www.airandina.com/eng/modelos.htm

you will also see the 601 called a 640. And

http://www.aeroalpina.com/mxp740.htm

for the same thing from the same folks with a different company name.
However, most interesting is this page.

http://www.airandina.com/eng/historia.htm

You will see a four place "Zenith" and a bunch of aircraft that look very
familiar but with new names. The 740 Savannah was introduced sometime
between 1985 and 1990 and is either an improved 701 or the 701 is a
simplified 740???

Anyway, ICP was the European distributor for the 740 and the site claims the
"stole" the design and caused the failure of the company in Columbia.
However, reading the number of failures and restarts, I suspect that the
company failed and ICP found themselves with the rights to manufacture the
Savannah and set up a first rate parts production facility.

There are a great number of CH701 copiers around the World and Zenith has a
brief list with pictures on the web pages. I don't think the Savannah is
mentioned and who came first, the chicken or the egg, has eluded me. If I
had to guess, I would look at all the ripped off designs the Colombian has
in his history. The point is, Zenith does a lot of complaining, but no legal
action against anybody. This is also strange for an original designer."

Ken Finney wrote:

Very good links. Thanks for the story. So while it may be legal that doesn't
make it moral.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Ken Finney wrote:

Very good links. Thanks for the story. So while it may be legal that
doesn't make it moral.

My guess is (and I have nothing to base this on), is that the contract
signed was in Spanish, and Heintz didn't have a lawyer who read Spanish
review it. Hindsight is always 20-20.

On Jul 25, 6:43 pm, Phil wrote:

I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for their LSA offering. It does not make sense. Sure, they want to make it rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
a middle ground.
--
Jim in NC

Well the Kitfox is fabric covered so I would expect it to be lighter.
But you are right about the 601 and 701. The 701 has an empty weight
of 580 pounds, although that doesn't include a safety cage or
ballistic chute. Since it has a configuration very similar to the
Cessna 162, it really makes you wonder why the Cessna comes in at 830
pounds. It must be built like a tank. Maybe they should have called
it SkyPanzer!- Hide quoted text -


Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 25, 6:43 pm, Phil wrote:

I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for
their LSA offering. It does not make sense. Sure, they want to make it
rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
a middle ground.
--
Jim in NC

Well the Kitfox is fabric covered so I would expect it to be lighter.
But you are right about the 601 and 701. The 701 has an empty weight
of 580 pounds, although that doesn't include a safety cage or
ballistic chute. Since it has a configuration very similar to the
Cessna 162, it really makes you wonder why the Cessna comes in at 830
pounds. It must be built like a tank. Maybe they should have called
it SkyPanzer!- Hide quoted text -


Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
goofy "SkyCatcher" name?


Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like "Indefagitable" too.

On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like "Indefagitable" too.- Hide quoted text -


Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already. Still not seeing how composites are any less maintainable by
flight school A&Ps - unless there's some issue with long term weather
exposure from outdoor tiedowns?

BTW, you *did* mean Indefatigable right?

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".

Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already.

Cessna 175....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175

Ron Wanttaja

Kingfish wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why
wouldn't Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they
had a reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with
the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like
"Indefagitable" too.- Hide quoted text -


Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already. Still not seeing how composites are any less maintainable by
flight school A&Ps - unless there's some issue with long term weather
exposure from outdoor tiedowns?



Buick used the name Skylark for what was a very blah car.