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

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Denny wrote:
The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
break there will be a fresh market...

Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm

But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
know of at US $65k:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
(Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )


I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.

You're right - except for the different wings (the Savannah has 3
variations available and the wing is longer than the 701), different
fuselage (the Savannah cabin is slightly larger, skins are corrugated, and
the two planes have different lengths and heights), and different empennage
(Savannah has a conventional horizontal stabilizer and conventional 2-piece
vertical tail while the 701 has an inverted horizontal stabilizer and a
single piece full-flying vertical tail/rudder), they are EXACTLY THE SAME!

Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-wing
STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy shape?

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Denny wrote:
The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
break there will be a fresh market...

Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm

But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
know of at US $65k:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
(Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )


I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.

You're right - except for the different wings (the Savannah has 3
variations available and the wing is longer than the 701), different
fuselage (the Savannah cabin is slightly larger, skins are
corrugated, and the two planes have different lengths and heights),
and different empennage (Savannah has a conventional horizontal
stabilizer and conventional 2-piece vertical tail while the 701 has
an inverted horizontal stabilizer and a single piece full-flying
vertical tail/rudder), they are EXACTLY THE SAME!

Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
shape?

Sure they modified it somewhat. But come on, for all intents the same damn
plane.



Following is the translation of an editorial from the French magazine
EXPERIMENTAL/FOX ECHOS, May/June 2000 issue. It addresses the issue of R&D*
we are experiencing more and more.

NON-CONFORMING COPIES
By Gabriel Gavard

"Chris Heintz and sons, designers and manufacturers of the Zodiac CH 601 and
STOL CH701 series of aircraft (built from plans only, from partial or from
complete kits by homebuilders), are getting less tolerant of supposedly
"improved" pirated copies of their designs. Zenith Aircraft’s internet
homepage recently added a new link identifying rebel copies of their
aircrafts originating from Brazil, Poland and Italy. The company has been
sending updates and cautionary notices to the aviation press on a regular
basis regarding these "new" machines, clearly derived from the CH 701 or CH
601, clearly unauthorized.

"The principle cause spurring the spread of these copies on the new
light-plane market is not just the undeniable success of these two designs –
now commonly registered as ultralights in many countries. A prime
contributing factor has been the availability of complete blue-prints and
assembly manuals for all components aircraft in question from Zenith
Aircraft. This intentional move by Chris Heintz has allowed hundreds of
aviation enthusiasts around the world to build and fly their own aircraft,
on a budget.

"Making these construction plans available, while not profitable, was a
generous move by Heintz in "the spirit of homebuilding". It is also having
dire commercial repercussions: The designer’s gesture has now been
dishonored and misused by a number of unscrupulous manufacturers who, by
their very actions, attest to their own inability to conceive and engineer
their original aircraft. Naturally, each of these nevertheless had the
expertise to then "improve" on the original design.

"The motivation for the modifications has been varied: Changes to avoid
"copyright" infringements; advanced or complete assemblies to meet market
demands (ready-to-fly, custom modifications, etc.); and "improved"
performances, often sadly based on strokes of ingenious intuition by novice
builders not yet fully aware that every airplane is a sum of compromises…

"Chris Heintz engineers his airplanes to well-known stringent standards.
Every component and flight characteristic is conceived to work in harmony
with the whole from the outset. The wings, fuselage and tail; the controls,
the cabin and the rest form that whole which can be appreciated in its
entirety. Modify just one, let alone several, of these elements without
reviewing the whole and clearly, the machine as a unit will have been
tainted…"

* R & D: Research and Development, but also sometimes known as ‘Rip-off
and Duplicate’.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
shape?

Oh, and one other thing. 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

"Phil" wrote

It is pretty clear that composite construction is
the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

Not necessarily. You can build just as light with aluminum, steel tube, or
wood. Just look at the 601 and 701, or Kitfox. There are examples in wood,
also.

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

On Jul 25, 5:58 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Phil" wrote

It is pretty clear that composite construction is
the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

Not necessarily. You can build just as light with aluminum, steel tube, or
wood. Just look at the 601 and 701, or Kitfox. There are examples in wood,
also.

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!

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
shape?

Sure they modified it somewhat. But come on, for all intents the same
damn plane.

If they are both the same plane, then they should fly the same way. Yet
both manufacturers explicitly claim otherwise in their specs. I don't see
how they can both be the same "for all intents" and yet different at the
same time.

There appears to be no question (in my mind) that the fuselage shape (and
its internal structure?) and design of the landing gear appear to be have
been taken/stolen from the 701.

On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not a
CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business decisions on the
Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little to improve the 701 kit
for years - until the Savannah came out.

This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably priced
(he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD) comes close to
that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can find to matching his
requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes
in at $80k.

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
shape?

Sure they modified it somewhat. But come on, for all intents the same
damn plane.

If they are both the same plane, then they should fly the same way.
Yet both manufacturers explicitly claim otherwise in their specs. I
don't see how they can both be the same "for all intents" and yet
different at the same time.

ICP made some changes to the wing. Many will say they improved the aircraft
and I'm not going to argue that because they may have. That doesn't disprove
that it looks like they made their modifications while they had a copy of
the 701 plans sitting there in front of them.



There appears to be no question (in my mind) that the fuselage shape
(and its internal structure?) and design of the landing gear appear
to be have been taken/stolen from the 701.


That's good otherwise I would have been concerned about the outcome of the
vision portion of your next medical.

On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not a
CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business decisions
on the Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little to improve
the 701 kit for years - until the Savannah came out.

Check out the new AMD Patriot that was announced at OSH. It is the next
generation 701. Please note though that now kit or plans were announced for
it. That's probably because of the way the 701 plans were copied.

I don't know when the Savannah came out. But the 2001 increase in GW was a
pretty significant improvement and Zenith has continued to increase the
quality of thier kits since I've began dealing with them in 2002. Leet me
ask you this. If Piper hadn't improved the wing on the Cherokee would that
have given Cessna the right to copy it and put a better wing on it?




This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably
priced (he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD)
comes close to that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can
find to matching his requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too
pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes in at $80k.

Yes and the new Zenith Patriot LSA will be RTF at about $100K as well. That
ought to tell you something. How can one company produce an aircraft that
much cheaper than all the rest? You can't blame USA labor costs because some
of those $80K-$100K planes are coming out of places like the Czech Republic.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not
a CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business decisions
on the Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little to improve
the 701 kit for years - until the Savannah came out.

Check out the new AMD Patriot that was announced at OSH. It is the
next generation 701. Please note though that now kit or plans were
announced for it. That's probably because of the way the 701 plans
were copied.

I've Googled for info on the Patriot and gone to AMD's web site and can't
find any formal mention of it. Nor any mention on any news sites covering
OSH. Closest I could find is a news item from 2005 on Heintz working on a
"CH 750" S-LSA model, which may be AMD's Patriot:

http://www.zenithair.com/news/ch750.html

I don't know when the Savannah came out. But the 2001 increase in GW
was a pretty significant improvement and Zenith has continued to
increase the quality of thier kits since I've began dealing with them
in 2002. Leet me ask you this. If Piper hadn't improved the wing on
the Cherokee would that have given Cessna the right to copy it and put
a better wing on it?

So long as no trademarks, patents, or copyrights are violated I don't
think there is any legal protection for designs per se. So if none of the
above apply, then the answer to your question is "yes." The ethical,
moral, and marketing consequences are, no doubt, sometimes less
charitable to such actions.

This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably
priced (he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD)
comes close to that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can
find to matching his requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too
pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes in at $80k.

Yes and the new Zenith Patriot LSA will be RTF at about $100K as well.
That ought to tell you something. How can one company produce an
aircraft that much cheaper than all the rest? You can't blame USA
labor costs because some of those $80K-$100K planes are coming out of
places like the Czech Republic.

I don't see $65k as being terribly cheaper than all the rest. The Jabiru
Calypso-SP is a RTF composite plane that starts at $70k and it is built
in Australia (I think). North American Sport Aviation sells the Savage
RTF starting at $54k (built in the U.S. I believe). And I believe the
EuroFox is available RTF starting around $60k.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Denny wrote:
The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
break there will be a fresh market...

Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm

But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
know of at US $65k:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
(Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )


I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.

You're right - except for the different wings (the Savannah has 3
variations available and the wing is longer than the 701), different
fuselage (the Savannah cabin is slightly larger, skins are corrugated, and
the two planes have different lengths and heights), and different
empennage
(Savannah has a conventional horizontal stabilizer and conventional
2-piece
vertical tail while the 701 has an inverted horizontal stabilizer and a
single piece full-flying vertical tail/rudder), they are EXACTLY THE SAME!

Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-wing
STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy shape?

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.

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not
a CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business
decisions on the Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little
to improve the 701 kit for years - until the Savannah came out.

Check out the new AMD Patriot that was announced at OSH. It is the
next generation 701. Please note though that now kit or plans were
announced for it. That's probably because of the way the 701 plans
were copied.

I've Googled for info on the Patriot and gone to AMD's web site and
can't find any formal mention of it. Nor any mention on any news
sites covering OSH. Closest I could find is a news item from 2005 on
Heintz working on a "CH 750" S-LSA model, which may be AMD's Patriot:

http://www.zenithair.com/news/ch750.html



Here's a link with a photo. http://mostlyflying.blogspot.com/


I don't know when the Savannah came out. But the 2001 increase in GW
was a pretty significant improvement and Zenith has continued to
increase the quality of thier kits since I've began dealing with them
in 2002. Leet me ask you this. If Piper hadn't improved the wing on
the Cherokee would that have given Cessna the right to copy it and
put a better wing on it?

So long as no trademarks, patents, or copyrights are violated I don't
think there is any legal protection for designs per se. So if none of
the above apply, then the answer to your question is "yes." The
ethical, moral, and marketing consequences are, no doubt, sometimes
less charitable to such actions.


The plans for the 701 are copyrighted. Before a copy of those plans go out
they buyer signs an agreement that they will not copy the plans and that
only one aircraft will be built. So either ICP broke that agreement and the
copyright that was on the plans or they used a bootleg copy of the plans.




This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably
priced (he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD)
comes close to that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can
find to matching his requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too
pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes in at $80k.

Yes and the new Zenith Patriot LSA will be RTF at about $100K as
well. That ought to tell you something. How can one company produce
an aircraft that much cheaper than all the rest? You can't blame USA
labor costs because some of those $80K-$100K planes are coming out of
places like the Czech Republic.

I don't see $65k as being terribly cheaper than all the rest. The
Jabiru Calypso-SP is a RTF composite plane that starts at $70k and it
is built in Australia (I think). North American Sport Aviation sells
the Savage RTF starting at $54k (built in the U.S. I believe). And I
believe the EuroFox is available RTF starting around $60k.

The Calypso starts the but I'd bet the majority that are sold are sold with
a a lot of the extras. Plus Jabiru are using an engine that they build
themselves so there is a little more room for profit.