Having flown open cockpit ultralights, I may have a slightly different idea of what constitutes good cockpit viz, but this is pretty damned good.

Zenith CH750

the only problem with a 701, 750 or 801 is that they dont actually fly. The are so friggin ugly the earth repels them!

I would think a Breezy would have the best view..would like to fly one some day.

How's this for visibility score? Hard to beat in a full cockpit fixed wing.
(Rans S-12)

Need to reshoot this view with a wide angle I guess.



But yeah, no cockpit. That S-12 is hard to beat for visibility. The CH series is neat but the little wheel is in a weird spot.

I don't think you could go wrong with a 750 either. May be ugly, but not as bad as a 701 and it's a capable airplane.

Don't leave out the AirCam for exceptional visibility...and STOL performance as well.

Zane,

I have decided to build a CH750.(about 1/3 of the way through the build) I currently have a pusher ultralight and it was the 750 that won out in my own what-should-I-build-next contest. The closest competitors for me was the Just Highlander and the Rans S7. Both of those aircraft (and several others) are excellent aircraft and come vary close to being my next airplane. I could go on and on about my criteria and comparison but that would be pointless for anyone else. Everyone has to decide their own criteria and make their own comparison. For me the two points that put it over the top was the fact that I could scratch build it (who cares if the manufacturer closes it doors) and that the visibility was the best in class.

Regards,
Joe

I don't know about the 750 but I know my Highlander has better visibility than a 701. I am extremely happy with my taildraggin' Highlander. I really do let it down occasionally. If you would like to see just how much fun a Highlander can be check out my stuff on YouTube. http://deadsticktakeoff.com/

Steve

Zane wrote:
The CH series is neat but the little wheel is in a weird spot.

Easy enough to fix. The 701 and Savannah both have had several tailwheel versions built. The 750 can have that too, you just need to do it a little more cleverly than the Zenair factory did (by wrongly using the stock main gear moved forward).

The problem is that the CH STOL airplanes are designed to get hauled off the ground at an extremely high AOA and deck angle. Far more than a Super Cub or Maule or 180. That's the reason the rear fuselage slopes upward so harshly. So to get the same STOL capability out of a taildragger CH conversion, you would have to be able to match thae nosewheel version's huge nose-up deck angle with the taildragger version in the 3 point attitude.

Which in short means you need a very tall main landing gear, because the front fuselage slopes up fast too. Look at the CH 701 website and you will see their drawings and the difference between nosegear and tailgear versions. Take their sketch of the tailgear version and raise the nose so it is at the same place as the nosewheel version on takeoff. It is very enlightening.

I've looked at this a lot, and came up with a few possibilities. You can use a steel rod gear like the RV airplanes, mounted on the engine mount. These would be simple and elegant, but you would have very very long steel rods due to the shape of the fuselage. You could use a leaf spring flat gear like the stock CH, but made out of carbon and literally three times taller than the stock one. Or you could build a welded tube long-stroke gear like the Fieseler Storch or the Pilatus Porter.

The flat carbon spring will be easiest to do because you can use the CH mounting bracket system. The RV style will be the lowest drag and zero maintenance as well, but it is a system tied in to the engine mount. The Fieseler/Pilatus system will allow you to have the very best rough field and "Navy Arrival" STOL performance and be the lightest, but it will require more design and fabrication.

This is the rare scenario where an aircraft looks better as a tricycle than a tailwheel. I know there are some tailwheel CH's out there, but the pot belly effect is extreme.

750 view:

Great visibility but I can't help wondering about the instrument panel. Looks like maybe they could remove the throttle, fuel valve and control stick to make room for more electronics.

I was sitting at the top of my takeoff ramp the other day, and noticed the viz sucked, but it got back to normal once sliding down it. I took a video of this, my first ski ramp takeoff since I HDPE'd the ramp, but forgot to remove the lense cap. Can't the camera manufacturers do something about this? Like some kind of auto take the damn lense cap off thingie?