Zenith 750 SD w/ O-360. 1100 lbs empty, I fly frequently at gross around 1900 lbs. Trike / big(ger) tires, fixed prop, fixed slats.

Not sure how to explain what it flies "like" because I don't have a ton of experience with similar stuff. It's a whole lot more fun than a 172? It is a flaperon design if that matters.

I have found that it very much likes to be flown with power to adjust glide slope and just adjust airspeed with the stick (if required, it's quite stable trimmed up really). That works pretty well and is how I grew up flying so all is well. It is not (technically) behind the power curve at this point, and I can just pull a bit when the ground gets big - ease off the power to idle and it's very effective. Or cushion with power (flare with power if you will) if it's pretty steep glide slope (over trees) and that works great as well. We're talking low 40s here, wing seems to stall at around 37ish. Give or take, I'm not really looking at it? This leads to me coming around the corner at around 48 mph and then settling in for a 43ish mph final (stabilized with power on any glide slope).

So in my attempt to be a better pilot I've been doing power off stuff as well. In this regard it flies about like a piano out a skyscraper window. Best glide with the engine off off seems to be around 65-70 mph. That was up high. Also up high with the engine off off the descent rate at 48 mph (my power on "around the corner" airspeed) is pretty stunning for this type of plane, well over 1500 fpm and pulling it to 37 mph in a simulated "flare" with no power really doesn't do much (knocks the descent rate down to about 1200 fpm -- which I'm pretty sure this plane won't like landing at).

So I been trying to come up with what I really will do for some sort of "engine out" situation (or a precautionary type landing where the risk of losing it inspires a pattern where it's ok). What I have come up with has surprised me, and I have not done it down low with the engine off off yet, just idle -- I've adjusted my "coming around the corner" airspeed to 75-80 mph and using no-kidding about 40 mph worth of energy to flare that into what is actually a pretty reasonable landing at around 40 mph. Gotta aim a bit short, it's like a kind of longer flatter milking it sort of flare if that makes any sense? I'm pretty comfortable with this as this technique corresponds with other stuff I fly. but I've read all of what seem to be related threads in here and I haven't seen anything about having their engine off off pattern management speed be about double their actual stall speed. And I have a feeling that when I do this with the engine off off that my rates of descent will be a bit greater even than they are with the prop at idle now. But testing at altitude indicates these numbers work fine.

Planning on installing VG's on bottom leading edge of elevator this week and think I may get a bit more bite from the elevator with the prop putting out little (or really no) wind --- there is a LARGE difference in elevator authority between say 1500 rpm and 500 rpm (I'm assuming even more so with a stopped prop). I'm not keen to try it down low until I feel good I have it sorted and won't "run out of elevator". (yes, I'm doing some cg adjustment as well, the 182 thread convinced me that was smart and initial testing seems positive).

For folks that have draggy frames that don't glide so great with no engine -- what is your plan on this and even if we're talking relative numbers, do you have a glide speed that is almost double your desired touchdown speed?

Thanks for any thoughts.

I flew the CH 701 and CH 602 at the Mexico, Missouri factory and liked both aircraft but neither the Subaru in the 602 nor the Rotex in the 701. Lots of problems finding a prop and reduction that would work for my cousins 602. With any of these airplanes, like Tri-Pacer or Cherokee, the short but high lift wing needs lots more gravity energy to control sink but, as with any airplane, engine thrust will control sink better than trying to make the elevator control both airspeed (which it does well) and altitude (which it does poorly.) To put it simply, the short wing likes propeller provided relative wind over a very large % of that short wingspan in order to decelerate on short finas so as to land reasonably near the beginning of the landing surface. Vso has nothing to do with the airspeed the wing will no longer lift the weight of the aircraft in low ground effect, however. We have to be much slower than that, short field, and the short wing without power is a problem.

I can't imagine 180 hp on that airframe, perhaps heavier than the 701. Is it larger as well? Anyway, use the elevator as you have to control airspeed and to get the sink on short final and use power to control glide angle and rate of descent all the way down. Yes, you also need to practice power out emergency landing. Now, like in a Hughes 269, it is a faster than necessary approach airspeed all the way down to control sink rate and a round out and hold off (the most horrible way to land.) With short wings, like the Hughes however, it will come down quickly with the pitch of flair. The only way to get down reasonably short, using the 1.3 Vso to round out rather than deceleration on short final, is to use a down the runway mark for touchdown so as to safely practice early round out. This way in an actual emergency you will be able to get into the beginning of the LZ.

Its probably like flying my CGS Hawk. LOTS of drag and not much mass. Unless you want to point it steeply at the ground to maintain airspeed, you need some power. I carry a little extra speed to be able to arrest the massive sink rate. Power off landing, 40 degrees flaps, idle, maintaining 45mph, nose down pitch seems wrong, but it works.Dropping like a rock. In ground effect I think my stall is low to mid 30's, out of GE its about 36 or 37.

I did land it once with the prop windmilling due to a frozen throttle cable. I kept extra speed right down to 5' off the ground, I figure running long is better than coming up short!

Contact -- ok, thanks for those thoughts. It is a bit bigger than the 701, and it is a fun plane to fly. The comparison to the Tri-Pacer lead me over to read what those guys talk about and I definitely learned some stuff. They whole "carry a bunch of speed to ground effect then bleed it off before you even get to the runway" thing is essentially my answer to engine off right now. I'm more comfortable with it than I should be and you definitely have to get a feel for it. yes, you're going to need a clear path and a short strip wouldn't be ideal. it is also at odds with the idea that our whole objective (engine out) is to reduce velocity into the crash.

SL -- Thanks for your thoughts as well. Yep, my issue with it is that if a fella were out of practice you could easily run long.

Either way it does seem that the "carry a significant amount of energy the whole way around and then milk through the flare" technique is a bit more repeatable than the "massively swap ends last second and hope for the best" technique. I think I'm going to run some patterns w/ the camera on and see what I can learn from the several techniques I've got in my head. I'm also playing w/ the idea that I could move the cg back a bit (tools, oil) and see if that helps the "running out of elevator" feeling (ref: the 182 thread on the topic).