Zenithguy wrote:

LMAO!!! Ouch! ouch! ouch! ouch! ouch!

Truth hurts.

What is it you are hoping to accomplish? You are talking about going from a 4-place airplane that meets your needs, although maybe not in a very STOL fashion, to a slower 2-place that "you can live with", which also might not be very STOLy when loaded up to meet your needs-- and which might cost you more money to boot. Do you anticipate a lot of flying solo / at light weight when the STOL qualities of a Zenith or Highlander will shine?

What I would like to accomplish is to get real world specifications and info from people who actually fly the beasts so I (or someone else) can ultimately decide if going Experimental/LSA makes sense. And trying to keep flying fun or, perhaps, just different. A newer and smaller experimental does cost more up front but there's some tradeoff in lower maintenance costs, flexibilty, reliability, and fuel savings.
Does the 172 really meet my needs? Jury is still out on that for me.

Things I consider.. I could fly the 172 and find a spot 10 miles away from where I really want to go. I'd need a bike or something to get me to my destination or... I could carry less and fly closer to where I want to go. I can get the 172 into some pretty short places when I'm by myself right now... or I can scare myself a lot less with something more capable.

I went flying with a friend and his Savannah a while back. Had a great time. With the both of us in his airplane, we were able to land in places I would have hesitated to go by myself in the 172.

I flew a 150 for a few years, had fun but wouldn't want to go back to it. It was definitely too limited in what it could carry and, my assumption because it was a fair amount heavier, that the power to weight ratio would limit the performance to a much greater degree than even a fully loaded LSA with a 100hp engine. Maybe that assumption is wrong.

Tom (C-Guy).. Looked at the Rans's S20 but they state the baggage is limited to 80#'s. That took it out of consideration for me right there.

Zenithguy wrote:When I get back into town I'll send you some dimensions and more pictures. You can put a bike in the back with the wheels off, I actually have a Honda 50 I will be putting in the passenger seat area.

That would be fantastic. It's bigger than I thought if you can get a Honda 50 back there.

.
Aktahoe1 wrote:
At some point that nose wheel is going to hinder you.
Amen
I hear that landing a trike on soft ground where the front wheel can begin to catch softer dirt and gravel can be an adventure Similar fun can be experienced with the collapse of the nose wheel which in many Kits, LSAs, and Experimentals is not as robust as it might need to be for more demanding off airport activities. Weight vs. robustness. I've always admired the robustness of the nose gear on a Bonanza retractable; you could do carrier landings with that gear I think.

Yes, that is something to look at, I'm not going to be landing over 12" rocks, nor skiing. That was another concern when I was looking at all my options, and after all is said and done, I'm comfortable with the design of the Zenith nose gear with what I want to do. On the plus side, I have a much rate of ascent and descent than most, and only need 75-100 for departure and slightly more for landing. Depends on what you want to do.

But, speaking of photographs, thank God we've never seen this happen on a taildragger



Or this

I know of plenty of TW aircraft breaking off MLG gear...

Scouts (very high time, glider towing)
Cubcrafters (Australia)
Just (California)

Seems like all the Zenith STOL vids take place on pavement, grass, or smooth dirt, a few on smooth gravel bars. Its the unexpected that is the problem, few plan to land on 12" rocks, many have because they didn't see them! STOL performance without gear that can go off airport, with all its potential "surprises", seems a compromise. But that's OK, always fun taking off short, even at airports!
Regarding the stated baggage capacity of the S-20, Rans is very conservative in all their claims, more so then other more optimistic companies. Its called marketing and Rans isn't that good at it.

Seems like all the Zenith STOL vids take place on pavement, grass, or smooth dirt, a few on smooth gravel bars. Its the unexpected that is the problem, few plan to land on 12" rocks, many have because they didn't see them! STOL performance without gear that can go off airport, with all its potential "surprises", seems a compromise. But that's OK, always fun taking off short, even at airports!

Courierguy, that's a very good point, and absolutely true re. the vids. etc. Because the 750 is a kit, there seems to be a lag between the kit being offered, being built, being flown in "normal" conditions, and then being wrung out by backcountry pilots and pictures and videos being posted. I'm going to bet there will be surge of pictures shortly as the 750 kits are being finished and real backcountry pilots see what they can do. At my airport, there are four separate ones being built, and three will be flying by the end of the year.

I'll be vigilant and post pictures, even if I bend my nose gear

I fly a 763lb JA Highlander. With Rotax 912, 26 gallon fuel tanks, extreme gear, Roberts Bush Gear (airshocks), 29" Airstreaks, double tail springs, aluminum leading edges, ~10lbs of belly patches and a very spartan interior and paint. I can go camping with my wife for a couple of nights, but it's tricky, the baggage area is full.

Another thing to consider is the ride. If flying a C172 feels like driving a small car, flying the Highlander feels more like riding a motorcycle. It's drafty, bumpy and cramped if you're a bigger guy, especially with a passenger. You are always flying it, no hands off like in the C172. If your girlfriend is not a pilot she will not be as comfortable. My Highlander is very noisy inside, too.

But if you're interested in stretching your off airport skills and flying like you would drive a dirt bike, a Highlander or Rans Courier is perfect. The CH750 is great off airport too, only concern with it is in the soft terrain, like sand dunes and water. If you were going on rough strips and hard packed landing areas, any of the three would do the job.

As Tom said, the Highlander doesn't fly as slowly as the Rans. The Rans also has very sweet controls, if you get the chance, move the stick around, it feels very nice. The Highlander is more like the average tube and fabric plane, not quite as smooth. I don't know about the feel of the CH750. I like the way they look, very utility. They look good with simple paint or bare aluminum.

I don't have any experience in a Highlander, but I put some hours in a ch750 before buying my S6S.

This particular 750 had an 0-200D. It was an absolute dog up here at high elevation. (It's home field was 6200, mine is 6650 etc.). It flew ok with just me, but even with low fuel, it wouldn't climb out of ground effect with a passenger on a warm (not hot) day.

I really liked the airplane itself. It flew nice, very easy to fly. Steep approaches... high AOA stuff is fun, could land it very short! Controls were nice, I liked the center stick personally... but it needed more power. It would have flown a lot better with a 912, but was heavy enough it could use something in the 115hp area. If you are at/near sea level it would be much better of course. But something to think about if you do any high altitude ops.

My rans has the smaller "speed wing" (with vortex generators though) and with the zipper kit I installed, it will get off the ground as short if not shorter than the ch750 when both are running light (tested on my home strip... lower elevation may have different results)... add weight and mine will destroy it on take off roll. And mine climbs literally 3 times as fast.. plus a 35ish mph faster cruise, way better fuel economy etc. This isn't a my plane is so awesome and everything else sucks post, mine has things I wish were different/better!, the zenith is a great airplane, I like metal planes better personally, and if you stuck my ~114hp 912 in that 750 it would turn that thing into an animal I'm sure.

Seems a fair amount of people have issues with the Jabiru 3300?, but I have seen quite a few 750's with that engine as well.. kind of on the heavy side but the extra power has got to be nice.. so there are definitely engine options out there in these. I saw one for sale a while back with a (turbo) 914... I bet that thing was a serious performer! A lot of guys take the slats off and go to VG's too... slightly longer take off/landing roll vs. the slats but not much worse and much better cruise and economy. Just some thoughts from my experiences...

I wish Tyler were here to weigh in, and I know his plane was a Savannah and not a Zenair, but from the videos I saw he landed that plane in a lot of rough places without issue.

scottf wrote:I wish Tyler were here to weigh in

x2.

They are both good planes, I have spent a little time flying my superstol (basically a high lander but slower) with a friend in his 701.

I think the zenith will land shorter than a highlander (about the same as the superstol) but for off airport, the Just with big wheels is far superior to the 701. Off airport in the ruts and the rocks the smaller tires, nose wheel and low prop clearance will get you sooner rather than later.

But thats off airport if you just want to land backcountry strips for camping the 701 will handle almost any strip i have seen thats actually on the sectionals.

Re: CH750 or Highlander

gt-401 wrote:
We are pretty careful with our gear, but my wife and I, "510 lbs combined" can still manage to bring enough gear to camp overnight. No cook gear, or food, but we can take two bags with sleeping pads, a tent, two folding chairs, and a change of cloths. I limit my fuel to 15 gallons, but we like to stop alot, so that isn't really a problem.

Even when loaded that heavy, it gets off suprisingly good. I limit my self to established strips, or places I have been to before and I know I can make it in and out no problem. I just know that light I can get out of any place that I can land in, but at Gross weight that is no longer true..

What plane are you flying?



I am flying an 80 horse Rans S7

This particular 750 had an 0-200D. It was an absolute dog up here at high elevation. (It's home field was 6200, mine is 6650 etc.). It flew ok with just me, but even with low fuel, it wouldn't climb out of ground effect with a passenger on a warm (not hot) day.

Unfortunately I've heard that before with the 0-200D. A few of the earlier builds with the O-200 came in heavy, and though adequate at lower elevation, suffered at elevation. For instance, one 0-235 powered 750 came in at 903 lbs, and one Rotax 912 powered 750 came in at 727 lbs. That's huge, and shows how much a builder can influence weight, and ultimately performance. Getting the proper prop seemed to be critical also, as a high drag flying box is not quite the norm for a standard prop set up.

The Rotax 912 powered Zenith 750 I flew out of Big Bear Airport (L35, altitude 6,752) several months ago with a DA of about 10,000 ft with 460 lbs passenger/pilot weight and about 16 gals of fuel did fine, as expected, no surprises. He has been very carful with his weight, and definitely has the right prop also

Bottom line, as with any light aircraft, weight can be a huge factor on performance.

It's not quite the same appearance of the big tire groupie planes, but, the 21's on my Zenith 750 are fine for what I intend to do with my plane.

scottf wrote:I wish Tyler were here to weigh in, and I know his plane was a Savannah and not a Zenair, but from the videos I saw he landed that plane in a lot of rough places without issue.

Me as well.

That savannah could climb like crazy with two people at 6000 feet. By himself he went up to 9000 and, i believe, landed on the summit of mt steen. I gave up with the 172.

Great performer, slower than all getout and couldn't haul crap but an absolute blast.

I owned a CH701 for a couple of years. Absolute gas to fly solo, but very limited in range and I was always fixing dings in the prop. Great for nipping to the nearest village for a newspaper and a pint of milk, or for dropping into mown silage fields to fix mowers and balers. Not so good on loose gravel or if the grass or rushes are more than 18 inches high.

Another point to consider is that no airplane with its centre of mass forward of the main wheels can make use of the water when landing and taking off from beaches and gravel bars.

OTOH, if all you have on board is one skinny pilot, a fly rod and a smell of gas in the tanks, a CH7xx can leave the ground in the time it takes to open the throttle... and that always made me smile!

You'll want to keep your Cessna or go up to a 180/185 for 2 people camping and bikes. Perhaps something like a Bearhawk in the experimental world would fill the bill. If your wife enjoys flying and camping, you will lose her support in a heartbeat if you go LSA and expect any level of comfort. This includes the Rans S20. My .02.

I love the photo of me on my nose [emoji41]. I was playing unicycle around cones a few years back.

Does this look like it's built to be a legit backcountry aircraft to you?


Gear legs can fail on any aircraft. We can all play the on its nose game [emoji102]




I sure like that S7. Have yet to see one that's not a performer.

Akt

I totally agree with GB. I have a 172 and an S7. The RANS is a blast to 'play' with and great for solo flying and shorter cross countries. But once the winds get over 10-15 kts, or I need to carry a load, the 172 is the one I fly without question. Good old reliable and easy to fly plane. I have looked at upgrading many times and always end up just keeping the 172. There is a reason they sold so many of them, they do the mission that is needed for the majority of our needs.

.
Anything can fail of course, but boy, this Beech Bonanza retractable nose gear sure shows some robust engineering. .02

I, too, sure wish Tyler was still here. I built his plane, and put 600 hours on it before selling it to another fellow, who sold it to Tyler.

The empty weight was 630#. Max take off weight was over 1200. I forget how much. With 20 gallons of gas, 180# pilot, 120#passenger, you still have over 150# of crap that you can haul. It definitely makes a difference on performance to carry max vs pilot and a little fuel, but you are talking, at sea level, 200' vs 300' takeoff distance. Landing accuracy makes far more difference than what the plane is able to do. The 750 is probably not very different from a Savannah in that regard.

The bigger issue with the Savannah, and probably the 750 is balance. 150 pounds of useful payload in addition to full fuel and two people sounds pretty good, but it can't all go in the rear luggage area. Too tail heavy. You can fly it that way with a lot of trim, but you will be getting close to the point of instability and stall recovery and spin recovery would be a big question. For the same safety margin reason, I like tricycle gear over conventional. I wouldn't load it that way. Each pilot gets to make that decision on his own. In my case, heavy stuff, like water was always carried in the foot well of the passenger. That sucks for the passenger, and it has to be tied down to not interfere with the rudder pedals.

As far as rough ground is concerned, that is more a function of how big of tires you want to drag through the air. The spring legs of the Savannah did a reasonable job with 18" diameter tires, but it is pretty obvious that 30" would handle a lot rougher ground. Again, pilot decides how he wants to trade fuel economy, cruise speed, with big rocks. Mile High, Willamette river bars, and farmers fields were all easy with the 18s.

The speed of the Savannah, with 912 engine, with throttle wide open was 95mph. That produced a burn of 6.5 gph and 5500 rpm, which is redline for continuous operation. They say the engine can do that all day, but i usually ran it at 4.2gph and 80 mph. Take your pick. It would take me 2.5 hours to get to Lakeview, OR from Corvallis, OR. It would have been nice to have a faster cruise for the longer trips.

Best luck picking your next plane. Whatever it is, it will be fun to hear about your adventures.

tom

Does this look like it's built to be a legit backcountry aircraft to you?

(Dang, can't figure out how to post the picture that came with the quote, but it was showing the Zenith nose gear)

Nope, it doesn't look like it's built for a 3,200 lb gross backcountry aircraft with a 380 lb 260 hp engine hanging off the nose……BUT, it does look like it's built for a legit backcountry plane that grosses at 1440 lbs with a 130 lb 100 hp engine hanging of the nose. And, it's been proven to be more than adequate for what it is designed for.

Pictures are worth a thousand words, the pilots below seem to feel their aircraft is a legit backcountry aircraft, and seem to be having a great time, like the rest of us, acting like it's a backcountry aircraft. And that's what matters.

South African backcountry pilot enjoying a stop with his wife


A New Zealand pilot enjoying the backcountry of New Zealand. also the winner there the 2014 New Zealand STOL contest


A Canadian enjoying his backcountry aircraft


I believe this backcountry pilot is on a mesa in Arizona


Another New Zealand backcountry pilot enjoying a beach on the New Zealand coast. Check out the tires, he also has some good mountain side photos, also is this years 2015 New Zealand STOL contest winner


Botton line, these, and other aircraft out of the realm of "BIg Tire aircraft" do just fine in the backcountry, and more and more pilots are having a blast showing it. It all depends on your personal mission. I probably would have picked a Just STOL or Highlander or the new Rans if it wasn't for some personal criteria. Or maybe the poor mans Zenith, the Wilga…...