Just dreaming lately. Starting to wonder if I should sell the 172, save up, and get something in the experimental realm. Building my own really isn't possible at this time so I'd have to find a pre-owned one.

I keep coming back to two options. Of course, there's the stated Specs and then there's the real world. And it also comes down to what can I carry? My 172 will actually carry a fair amount so that part I would miss. But I can live with a two place if I can still take my lady camping and, hopefully, throw in a couple of folding bikes. I know there's a lot more variation in the experimentals depending on the builder so I'm looking for reasonable expectations not gospel truths here.

1. The Just Aircraft Highlander. This is really my top choice. Seem to be harder to find and for good reason, I'm sure. The cruise speed is comparable to the 172, maybe a little slower but not by much if the claims are correct. I know it has a fairly large baggage area and I hear it can hold 150lbs... but is that reasonable and still be in balance?
Of course the tailwheel is nice though I'd need to learn how to fly one.

2. The Zenith CH750. Easier to build from what I understand, not that I'm planning on building one anytime soon, if ever. Slower, 80-85 seems to be the norm. Don't know anything about the baggage capacity (both size and weight expectations) other than it's larger than the 701 which is way too small and limited.
It's also a trike.

Both have rediculously slow stall speeds and short field capability aka FUN!

So... what do you think? Real world expectations? Baggage capacity? And just Compare the apple to the orange for fun.

GroundLooper,

My son-in-law and I built a Highlander and here are some quick numbers: We are 750 # dry with a Jab 3300 120HP engine, add 156# for 26 gals fuel and 185# for this pilot. That leaves approx. 229#'s for a passenger and gear to reach our 1320# max. I definitely prefer camping with my 105# girl friend than a 200# buddy.

We're at 6K5 in Sisters Or. if you ever want to look.

Jim

I don't think either of those aircraft types are going to stow two folding bikes plus ANY camping gear. Very little cargo space in both. Weight carrying may not be the issue.

The 172 is going to be hard to beat if that's your average load.

MTV

Get some time in each aircraft. Both are very small (opinion) and if you are my size, it's going to be interesting fitting yourself and gear.

I like the Highlander better. The Zentih is too lightly built for my mission.

Another vote for tube and fabric for the backcountry environment.

We are toying with the idea of a second smaller aircraft for playing around, and the Highlander is high up our list of machines we want to test out. It looks very capable and on paper it looks impressive. I know some guys locally are having great success with them.

But as Mike rightly points out, the ever-present issue with the LSA-style aircraft is the limited load carrying capability. One of the big things we found with these light aircraft, by the numbers they are only good to play around in when they are lightly loaded. Once you load them up to the gunwales, their STOL performance is closer to your typical underpowered 150 trainer than their unloaded state. I have no real world experience of this situation in those two particular aircraft, but it seems to be almost a rule of thumb when you double the weight of an 80-100hp aircraft.
So camping with your buddy sounds great at first, until you realise you need to leave him and the gear behind to land at those tricky backcountry places you really want to go...

I don't have a solution to this problem yet either, other than add cash or subtract expectations.... Our plan is to explore the new spots solo with a LSA-style aircraft, then bring in the camping gear by Bearhawk once the place has been walked and proven "doable".

Shuttling gear is sometimes an alternative to overloading and taking risks. From Vancouver, WA are you close to landing strips which could be accessed with light loads and then returned to with more gear? Or is it all or nothing?

Are you at Pearson (VUO)?

You got it about right Battson. I'll go anywhere and do anything with a passenger/ no gear, OR full camp gear inc. The bike but just me. 2 people, camp gear and two bikes? Basic physics I guess ( the only kind I know) another person is a much greater percent weight gain on a 750 lb plane as compared to a 1500 lber. Only so much available energy in 4 GPH!

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..

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?

Tough to beat both, though the limiting factor is the useful load over 170, etc. Regarding cruise, for the 750, plan on 95mph with a Rotax 912. I flew the Highlander several times before I built my 750, and it is a remarkable craft, but there were some specifics that I wanted in my STOL aircraft, and the Zenith 750 was better suited for me. 1. Visibility 2. Interior room 3. Visibility.

I'm 6-2, enjoy my meals, and the 750 will hold two guys like me without touching shoulders, etc., far, more comfort than a 170, etc. for room, especially with the bubble doors.

As far as visibility, though I've never sat in a Wilga, I'd say that it appears the only one to match, except for my ultralight and and Bell 47 I flew in.

You are not going to be carrying four burner stoves, six person tables, 8 man tents, but I can pack enough gear following the same criteria I do for backpacking, lightness, lightness, lightness. Good enough for me. I can carry 30 gallons of fuel with a 4 GPH burn, so there's some play room with that.

Keep in mind the 750, with the leading edge slats, inverted airfoil tail, and the UPS truck shape it is mainly designed for STOL, and not cruise, though it does ok in cruise. Also, if you do build it, you can greatly influence your useful load. I've seen 750s come in empty at 725 lbs to 825 lbs, quite a difference, a lot of times dictated by the engine choice. Mine’s at about 745 lbs, without paint. And that’s with AP.

Like was pointed out, fly in both, and if you're in the LA area contact me.

The rear baggage area of my 750. You can see the front seat pan in the foreground



Zenith 750 interior, 50 inches wide, good for room and comfort, at a sacrifice of cruise

Camping for 2 takes a 206 in my world. Never learned how to pack right.

Good info folks. Keep it coming.

Forget the folding bikes. I kinda figured that was hallucinating anyway. I think I'm more interested in the cargo area dimensions and how much weight can practically be put in the baggage area and still be in balance.

Taking Jim's example.
750# empty
156# fuel
275# Me and my partner

That leaves... carry the two... 319# of useful load. More than enough. Now, I'm sure I saw somewhere baggage area capacity was 150#, Not bad if that's is true. Could I actually shove in 150# of gear in a Highlander and still have a good chance of being in balance? What about a 750?

Just is good about posting the cubic cargo space of the Highlander, 32cu feet if I recall. I haven't found anything from Zenith regarding the 750

One of the things I did when I was looking around was I got the dimensions of the back seat and cargo area of a pacer, then I drew a chalk line on the ground so i could get a feel for how much space it really was.

If anyone wants to post the interior dimensions of the cargo area, that could be helpful.

I know the above are going to be smaller.. Too small? Don't know yet but I also know the fun factor would be greater sooo....

Regardless, just dreaming. I might decide it's just better to continue adding upgrades to the 172 instead, like a sportsman kit or something. For sea level flying it has advantages too like taking 3 people, tents and sleeping bags to Orcas for a weekend. Had to rely on buying food and beverage on that trip. Most of the time I'm either with my partner or alone so then I think about which offers more fun potential.

I'm actually based out of Scappoose (SPB). Pearson was out of my price range.

And, Gbflyer, I hear you about about packing right. I've gotten lazy with the 172 and tend to pack heavier than I should. But I can backpack for a week on 50lb's/person or less so I should be able to be adjust if need be.

Tail wheel or trike? That's your question. Personally (and it's just my opinion) the 750 is about a ugly as they come. It looks like it was built in a high school metal shop with no real plan.

At some point that nose wheel is going to hinder you.

Maybe I just have a bad taste in my mouth for the 750.

Get a Just.

Akt

aktahoe1 wrote:Tail wheel or trike? That's your question. Personally (and it's just my opinion) the 750 is about a ugly as they come. It looks like it was built in a high school metal shop with no real plan.

At some point that nose wheel is going to hinder you.

Maybe I just have a bad taste in my mouth for the 750.

Get a Just.

Akt

Lol. I like to think of the 750 as a poor man's Wilga. It has it's own character.

I definitely do not want this to turn into into a trike vs tailwheel discussion. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Don't worry Craig, your Maule friends will bring the generator, bike, water, beer, and ice.

But really, the Zenith grows on you, lots of room like Walt said.

I hear the landing gear can let go on the Highlander if you beat on it to much.

Everything is a compromise.

Cheers...Rob

The S20 by Rans is all baggage behind the seats, is much prettier then the 750… and will have better low speed handling and capability then the Highlander as the wing is much bigger. All 3 however have the seats in the wrong place. You won't find one on the used market though I'm guessing.

GroundLooper wrote: Just dreaming lately. Starting to wonder if I should sell the 172, save up, and get something in the experimental realm. .... My 172 will actually carry a fair amount so that part I would miss. But I can live with a two place if I can still take my lady camping and, hopefully, throw in a couple of folding bikes. ....

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?

Tail wheel or trike? That's your question. Personally (and it's just my opinion) the 750 is about a ugly as they come.

Yep, if you're looking at the Zenith 750, you may have to let it grow on you. It was way down on my list when I started looking, it just did not have the classic look of the big tire taildraggers that were out there. But, because function drove my choice, I couldn't help myself, I actually started liking it's quirky flying box look, leading edge slats and all, and my first flight in one sold me. Again, keep in mind, because of what I was used to flying most of the time, visibility was very important to me, which may not be a critical factor for some.

It's called a Flying Jeep, and rightly so, you won't see jeeps entered in car shows, it's just a functional look that becomes it's badge almost. You will have to put up with postings like below that will be sent to you, however…..



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.

.
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.

Short Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0fcKC04Dk










I am sure tail draggers have issues as well, but probably to a far lesser degree. As always, pilot skills and judgement probably count for way more than the plane. For years now I have been looking in the Sporty's catalog for " pilot skills and judgement " , but I still can't find it listed. I'll take two please.

I am a sucker for looks, hence the 170.

The Zenith sure seems to offer great performance for the $$ though. And the build looks straightforward.

I really love the SQ2 and co, but I simply do not have that kind of budget.

I think a stretched Pacer will be my next plane.