58Skylane wrote:http://www.zenith.aero/

That link takes you to the generic page......

this is the 801 page. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/index1.html

And the 750 page. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/index.html

I LOVE my 801,, but if I had to do it all over again the 750 would win for sure....

Stol wrote:

58Skylane wrote:http://www.zenith.aero/

That link takes you to the generic page......

this is the 801 page. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/index1.html

And the 750 page. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/index.html

I LOVE my 801,, but if I had to do it all over again the 750 would win for sure....

I've been trying to find a picture of a TW 801 or 750.

Heres one. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo19-alps.html

Sorry, 701. But the look is there.

I have always wondered why anyone would consider this for a tailwheel airplane. This plane nose up in the takeoff landing configuration exposes the slats to any little breeze. This thing would fly just sitting there and you'd have to tie it down every time you walk away.

My opinion.

blackrock wrote:.... 20% of the single-engine GA fleet are homebuilts!

I'm curious where this statistic came from. If you go by tail numbers issued and/or reserved, or maybe even just issued & registered, maybe so. But I think that 10% figure probably includes a lot of airplanes that were never completed and/or never flown. There are a lot of homebuilts, but judging from what I see out and about, that 10% figure is a bit high.

dirtstrip wrote:Heres one. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo19-alps.html

Sorry, 701. But the look is there.

I have always wondered why anyone would consider this for a tailwheel airplane. This plane nose up in the takeoff landing configuration exposes the slats to any little breeze. This thing would fly just sitting there and you'd have to tie it down every time you walk away.

My opinion.

Yeah, Like Zane said. The pot belly look is pretty extreme.

hotrod150 wrote:

blackrock wrote:.... 20% of the single-engine GA fleet are homebuilts!

I'm curious where this statistic came from. If you go by tail numbers issued and/or reserved, or maybe even just issued & registered, maybe so. But I think that 10% figure probably includes a lot of airplanes that were never completed and/or never flown. There are a lot of homebuilts, but judging from what I see out and about, that 10% figure is a bit high.

The 20% number is from EAA and is of the ACTIVE SINGLE ENGINE GA Fleet.

http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_rule.asp

The 10% number is the total GA fleet; twins, etc. I've seen the 10% number quoted by both the FAA and EAA so I'm sure you can find references by googling it.

My point isn't to define the actual percentage number, what ever it is, the number of Experimental aircraft is significant. It is quite noticable at fly-ins and looking around most airports.

Also note, and I don't remember the source of this information (and I don't vouch for it's accuracy), but in the past few years, Vans Aircraft of Aurora Oregon may have become the largest single engine aircraft supplier (on a yearly basis, not total production), topping Cessna and Piper. Over 7,100 of their kits have been completed. Food for thought, anyway.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/

If I were building a plane I would definitely consider folding wings.

http://www.zenith.aero/video/stol-ch-750-folding-wings

Here you go Zane, buy what you want and don't worry about how much it costs...

patrol guy wrote:has this one been talked about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGIJVdw16NE

Interesting history the Savage Cub (Zlin). A Rans S-7 Short tail in Europe was essentially copied exactly, and since has gone through some cosmetic (e.g. cub lines) and structural modifications. I haven't compared the length to the long tail/S models of the S-7, but Bill actually refers to this in the video. The short tail in the Rans line was noted for its "sporty" handling, depending on your perspective. Lots of people love them, some don't. I think Zlin is committed to improving the aircraft, especially as a backcountry plane, albeit not actually their original design.

Some video of one on bushwheels and doing some river bed landings you may have seen



Video of the newest model with the extended gear and AOSS gear - pretty cool




Company website
http://www.zlinaero.com/eng/index.php

Jaerl wrote:If I were building a plane I would definitely consider folding wings.

http://www.zenith.aero/video/stol-ch-750-folding-wings

It looks like with the real time and two people involved the folding wing option is more for longer term storage and less of a hangaring alternative. I wouldn't want to go through that every time in order to fly.

I was thinking how nice it would be to pull your plane behind your Motorhome.

I was one of the Vans Aircraft that were completed in 2010!! They are averaging more than one a day right now.

Not exactly backcountry, but it will go where a normal 172/182 will go, but way faster

Jaerl wrote:I was thinking how nice it would be to pull your plane behind your Motorhome.

X2

lancef53 wrote:I was one of the Vans Aircraft that were completed in 2010!! They are averaging more than one a day right now.

Not exactly backcountry, but it will go where a normal 172/182 will go, but way faster

Wouldn't it be cool if Vans would take a crack at a high-wing STOL bush plane? Bet they would come up with something pretty good

It would be very cool if Vans would go after the high wing stol market!!! I think they could sell lots of planes!!

OK, so all you bush LSA/Exp types gotta go to Johnson Creek this year so Zane can crawl all over your bird. Rans, Highlanders, Kitfoxes, Cub Clones, Etc., etc.

Jaerl wrote:I was thinking how nice it would be to pull your plane behind your Motorhome.

Oh . . . like this??



inside, is this:



Not a bushplane, but fun nonetheless!

Ok Bumper, how about a helicopter? I was bummed the picture came out blurry, but you all get the idea.

hotrod150 wrote:

blackrock wrote:.... 20% of the single-engine GA fleet are homebuilts!

I'm curious where this statistic came from. If you go by tail numbers issued and/or reserved, or maybe even just issued & registered, maybe so. But I think that 10% figure probably includes a lot of airplanes that were never completed and/or never flown. There are a lot of homebuilts, but judging from what I see out and about, that 10% figure is a bit high.

Oops, I meant to say 20% , per blackrock's post, not 10%. But I agree, the number of homebuilts flying is considerable.