I should mention that the 750 will take a O-200, 912 or the Jabiru 3300 (my favorite). Zenith has, or is, switching to individual control sticks instead of the single "Y" shaped stick in the middle. A good decision in my opinion.

These are good kits. We never had to call the factory for any support other than a couple really minor things. Zenith tech was polite, knew what they were talking about, and always did what they said they were going do. The couple of times we ordered extra parts was because we screwed something up (our fault), they were in stock and shipped to us promptly without being expensive.

They got my vote as a good company.

I liked the ability to get the head of the company in Missouri on the phone. In 2002 I had concerns about putting the 92hp Simonini on the same engine mount as the 65hp Rotax that came in the 701 when I bought it. When I explained what I wanted to do Sebastian Heinz ran it by his father Chris who designed the plane and I received an email back from him stating the original mount would be more than strong enough to hold the extra power. They were willing to do the engineering legwork and only asked that in return I post my modifications on their website. I thought they were very accomodating and provided good service when I needed parts.

The Savannah is a pretty complete kit, and it took me less than 300 hours to build. This includes everything required to get the airworthiness certificate and fly it. Seven years ago, Zenith did not pre-drill holes, but now they do. I don't think the build time between the two would amount to much, now.

tom

mr scout wrote: I am thinking of building something just to putt around here.

I got the chance to speak to Christopher Desmond, the guy offering the neat off-airport video "STOL Adventures " featuring the green lizard 701.

He has flown all three of the airplanes, 701, 750, 801. Although his opinion is not totally independent (close friend of Michael Heintz I believe), he said clearly that the 701 is the hotrod performer out of the three. The power loading, smaller size, etc. make it the sportscar of the bunch. He said clearly that if the STOL performance was the main factor, the 701 is the way to go. Assuming you are not 6 foot 6 and/or 300 pounds.

The biggest problem with the 701 IMHO is converting it to a tailwheel setup (assuming you want a taildragger for off-road work). The airplane's basic layout just makes that kind of difficult to do properly. This was discussed in another thread so I won't repeat it here. There are several aftermarket upgrades to the 701 that are probably worthwhile, such as adding one extra rib bay (span) to each wing (approved by the designer with one or two extra pieces in the spar here and there). The Savannah offers a couple of good ideas such as the corrugated fuselage skins to combat oil-canning. Pegazair offers an upgraded wing kit with retractable slats for Helio and F-86 wannabees.

EZFlap wrote:There are several aftermarket upgrades to the 701 that are probably worthwhile, such as adding one extra rib bay (span) to each wing (approved by the designer with one or two extra pieces in the spar here and there).

That is why the Savannah has about an extra two feet of wing span.

tom

Savannah-Tom wrote:

EZFlap wrote:There are several aftermarket upgrades to the 701 that are probably worthwhile, such as adding one extra rib bay (span) to each wing (approved by the designer with one or two extra pieces in the spar here and there).

That is why the Savannah has about an extra two feet of wing span.

tom

Is that right? I didn't know the Savannah is two foot wider.

Hey Tom,
Maybe you know the answer to this. Do the Savannah and the 701 have the same airfoil in the wing, I know they do not use the same elevator or rudder system.

It looks like a very similar airfoil. The latest tapered wing Savannah version may have a different wing airfoil.

The all-flying tail of the Savannah is an interesting idea. It will reduce the drag at low speeds compared to the CH701's inverted airfoil and elevator. With the nose way up for landing or takeoff, that inverted airfoil is flying at a really ridiculous "nose-down" angle (from the airfoil's point of view).

Perhaps using an all-flying version of the original inverted airfoil tail could tield some sort of extra authority down at those deflections. Then again, the pitching moment of thata airfoil might create some unpleasant stick forces and/or puliing it out of your hand.

EZFlap wrote:It looks like a very similar airfoil. The latest tapered wing Savannah version may have a different wing airfoil.

The all-flying tail of the Savannah is an interesting idea. It will reduce the drag at low speeds compared to the CH701's inverted airfoil and elevator. With the nose way up for landing or takeoff, that inverted airfoil is flying at a really ridiculous "nose-down" angle (from the airfoil's point of view).

Perhaps using an all-flying version of the original inverted airfoil tail could tield some sort of extra authority down at those deflections. Then again, the pitching moment of thata airfoil might create some unpleasant stick forces and/or puliing it out of your hand.

The all flying rudder is used in the 701 through the 801 series. The Savannahs I have seen use a standard vertical stabilizer and rudder. Maybe that was a typo above. The full deflection rudder/stabilizer gives great cross wind performance but if my 701 was pushed to the high end of the speed range I would notice a little wander in the nose which I blamed on there being no standard vertical stabilizer. I will have to look at the tapered wing if its on the Savannah site. I haven't seen that.

i was talking about the horizontal tail. I seem to remember it is all-flying on the Savannah... have I got it wrong?

EZFlap wrote:i was talking about the horizontal tail. I seem to remember it is all-flying on the Savannah... have I got it wrong?

You've got it wrong. The horizontal stabilizer is fixed, with a moving elevator. The fixed portion is about 40% of the total, and the elevator makes up the remaining 60%, so there is a lot of elevator authority. The overall shape is a symmetrical air foil.

I don't know what the air foils are on the Sav and the 701 main wing, but they are quite similar, with a very thick camber.

tom

Sorry... brain fart

Here is the proposed scheme for wrapping the 701.



Should be done mid-June.

Wrapping any Zenith plane that has raised/pulled rivets will be a major pain in the ass..... It took me hours with my heat gun just to get my N number decals to look halfway decent..... IMHO.

Gee, I don't know. We tried a section on the wing with lots of rivets and it went on surprisingly smooth! Covered the rivets real nice. No heat gun was necessary. We are using a new 3M film. Maybe you had something different?

The wrap process is just finishing up. It is coming out better than even I thought. I am really pleased with process. Here are a few photos.

Skystrider wrote:The wrap process is just finishing up.

If the wrap can be made to look good and doesn't weigh too much, there may be significant benefits. Seems to me that an un-broken plastic film would keep water outside the structure... especially keep water from getting in to the alum/steel rivet mandrel holes or under any unsealed rivet heads, etc. Looks like it would save a lot of time masking and sanding and striping and priming, etc. Considering the cost of paint these days, it might be a lot cheaper too.

Rod, can you tell me whether the EAA chapter building process caused any internal disagreements or friction between members within your chapter? Our EAA chapter is considering a building project, it's being debated right now. We have a few new enthusiastic members who are strongly wanting to do it to re-invigorate the chapter, and make our EAA chapter more about building and flying than sitting around talking about it. But our president did some research and apprently found that either building, owning or flying a chapter airplane has caused many many problems. In fact, he said "I heard that every chapter that built an airplane, it wrecked the chapter... arguments about who did more work, who should fly or not fly, who makes the decisions about everything, who hogged more flight time than the nexy guy, etc. etc. etc. until the chapter was sorry they ever did a group project."

We'd be interested to know if any of that happened on your project and if/how it was solved.

the wrap looks great! Can you tell us who made it? Any info on how it will wear over time? Approx cost?

EZFlap wrote:

Skystrider wrote:The wrap process is just finishing up.

If the wrap can be made to look good and doesn't weigh too much, there may be significant benefits. Seems to me that an un-broken plastic film would keep water outside the structure... especially keep water from getting in to the alum/steel rivet mandrel holes or under any unsealed rivet heads, etc. Looks like it would save a lot of time masking and sanding and striping and priming, etc. Considering the cost of paint these days, it might be a lot cheaper too.

Rod, can you tell me whether the EAA chapter building process caused any internal disagreements or friction between members within your chapter? Our EAA chapter is considering a building project, it's being debated right now. We have a few new enthusiastic members who are strongly wanting to do it to re-invigorate the chapter, and make our EAA chapter more about building and flying than sitting around talking about it. But our president did some research and apprently found that either building, owning or flying a chapter airplane has caused many many problems. In fact, he said "I heard that every chapter that built an airplane, it wrecked the chapter... arguments about who did more work, who should fly or not fly, who makes the decisions about everything, who hogged more flight time than the nexy guy, etc. etc. etc. until the chapter was sorry they ever did a group project."

We'd be interested to know if any of that happened on your project and if/how it was solved.

Bill,

We had a great time with this project. I don't recall one single arguement or disagreement. Of course, we put together a project agreement right at the start between my brother (who financed it) and the group of builders to guide us. It can't be an EAA Chapter project because the EAA wants to avoid any implied responsibility. Rightly of course.

I think there are two reasons it went so well. It was fully financed with a budget so there were no money issues. Always the number one source of problems. Two, the 701 was deliberately chosen because it did not require people to have previous building experience and multiple people could work on it at one time. We also treated it as partly a social event so there wasn't any "it has to get done now" pressure. DO NOT underestimate the value of pull rivets vs pounding rivets!

In fact, this project has done wonders for our chapter. We have gone on to a group rebuiding an engine under the guidance of an A&P, a couple fellows took on restoring a rare Piper, and yet a third group is rebuilding an Aeronca. The chapter hangar now has wings hanging from the ceiling, fusealages on dollies, and engine guts on work benches! It is glorious!

Recap, two key drivers: no money issues and no deadlines!

SkySteve wrote:the wrap looks great! Can you tell us who made it? Any info on how it will wear over time? Approx cost?

SkySteve,

The wrap is made by 3M. It has a warrantee of eight years. As long as it is kept clean and in a hangar I would expect it to last as long as paint. Of course if we ding it up you just have to print out a replacement section and reapply.

We got an estimate from a paint shop for one color. It was $8,000. To paint it like our design was $10 to $12,000 and multiple months. It took one week to wrap and cost $4,700. Not bad. Not bad at all!

The company we used is http://idwrap.com/. It was a first for them and they did a great job!