Anybody here have a CH701?

John -
Sorry about that ... I think they offer counseling for that kind of
thing... Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/savannahaircraft/

Other relate sites:
http://www.rraircraft.com/x_over.htm

http://www.icp-avio.com/

I have flown in both - a 701 with a 912UL (100hp) and a Savannah with the
912 (80hp) - The savannah flies more like a GA plane to me - certainly my
personal preference. I don't think it's quite as STOL on takeoff but what's
the difference when you're talking 70 feet vs 100? My 2 real "issues" with
the 701 I flew we
1) VERY ruder intensive at all phases of flight. Some have said that can be
fixed with a tab on the rudder.
2) A simulated engine out produces a glide path similar to an ultralight.
Best way to put it to anyone who is not familiar with UL's, point the nose
down, and fly it to the ground. The Savannah advertises 12:1 and according
to a couple owner sources that is attainable. I did not try an engine out
in the Savannah but pulled the throttle all the way out on final for a dead
stick landing - it kept going, and going, and going - I put in full flaps
and - wow! Comes in steep! - DADDY LIKES!
I know I'm about to start an arguement with 701 enthusiasts that the
Savannah is a nock off - and it may be - Isn''t a Honda Accord just a copy
of Henry Ford's original with improvements? Good Luck on your quest!
Dave


"John Ammeter" wrote in message
...
I looked at the sky-rider sight and the airplane looks VERY
interesting to me.

However, when I tried to find the YAHOO newsgroup on the
Savannah.... I found Savannah groups for gays looking for a
BJ, Satanists, Savannahs for GWB, etc.... didn't go any
further...

Can you give me a hint as to where to find that newsgroup??

John



On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:42:15 -0400, "David"
wrote:

Try this link:
http://sky-rider.net/

I'm waiting for the testing of the new wing setup - And by the way -
build
time is accurate - 250 hours +-, I know of one that was built by two guys
in
a month - there is also a YAHOO newsgroup on the Savannah.

Dave

"John Ammeter" wrote in message
.. .
Tell me more...

Where can I find data on the "Savannah"?

John

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:19:17 -0400, "David"
wrote:

Check out the Savannah, Very similar and better cruise - They are
bringing
out a new wing too... 40ish stall and 130 cruise..
"Regnirps" wrote in message
...
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




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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

Looks like the Savanna is a a 701 ripoff.

John

Looks like the Savanna is a a 701 ripoff.

-------------------------------------------------

Dear John (and the Group),

Looks can be deceiving :-)

If you're familiar with the -701 you'll find more differences in the Savannah
than similarities. The real significance is that those differences result in a
lighter, stronger, less expensive airframe.

-R.S.Hoover
-(scratch-building CH-701 s/n 4100)

I dunno. According to the comparision chart on the site, the differences
aren't all that much. And I think some of the comparisions may not be
apples-to-apples.

If it looks like a duck....

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

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