Advice, please: too old to fly?

"R.W. Behan" wrote:
There can be no better source of advice than this group for my
question: am I too old to take up flying--and building an airplane?

It seems one can never be too old to learn to fly:
"Student Pilot Solos At 91"
http://avweb.com/newswire/12_21a/briefs/192289-1.html

I find the Zenith STOL's irresistible. The 701, the 2-seater, can be
flown with a 10-hour sport license, so at my age--and limited time out
there ahead--it might make sense to focus on that airplane.

If you're looking at the 701, you might also want to take a look at the
Savannah:
http://www.skykits.com/

But I'd
really prefer the 801, the 4-place plane. It would take longer to get
the necessary private pilot's license--40 hours of flying time instead
of 10--

I believe the minimum training for the airplane sport pilot certificate is
20 hours, not 10:
http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/n..._training.html

Jim Logajan wrote:
If you're looking at the 701, you might also want to take a look at the
Savannah:
http://www.skykits.com/

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

Is it legal in the US, to sell kits built from somebody else's
(copyrighted) plans, without permission? On reflection, I can't think
of a reason why it wouldn't be, but I can see where the original
designer would be irritated.

~Adam

"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
--
Jim in NC

"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.

"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.

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

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

Adam Aulick wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
If you're looking at the 701, you might also want to take a look at the
Savannah:
http://www.skykits.com/

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

Is it legal in the US, to sell kits built from somebody else's
(copyrighted) plans, without permission? On reflection, I can't think
of a reason why it wouldn't be, but I can see where the original
designer would be irritated.


No. The kit is a copy, in a tangible medium, of the
original.

Small changes may be sufficient to eliminate infringement--
at least that is the case for furniture or cookbook recipes.

For a better discussion you can post your question to
misc.legal.moderated.

--

FF

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...
"R.W. Behan" wrote:
There can be no better source of advice than this group for my
question: am I too old to take up flying--and building an airplane?


...
I believe the minimum training for the airplane sport pilot certificate is
20 hours, not 10:
http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/n..._training.html

I would expect to take more than the minimum 20/40 hours. But, since the
objective is to go flying, why would it be a problem to fly a little more,
right?

What are you waiting for?
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.