EZFlap wrote:Hello from Crete, Greece,

The 701 and 750 could be made to work with the same style gear as the Super STOL Highlander with moderate effort. The OEMattempt to offer tailwheel gear on the 701 was not very serious. The Savannah had a tailwheel gear option that was more legit IMHO.

The big advantage is that the basic airframe can be built cheaply without a tremendous amount of effort.

Hello from a place not at all like the island of Crete! Have a great time there.

Didnt know there was a difference in tailwheel options. Thanks for that tidbit. Wonder if the savannah option is readily adaptaple?

It occurred to me that a cargo pod might be a way to squeeze more out of the carrying capacity of any of these lsa's. One of the downsides, of course, is more drag.

There's a bomb shaped one for the kitfox that looks interesting. Hate to accidentaly bust a presidential TFR carrying that.

Greetings from Athens, stuck overnight thanks to an airline strike at Lufthansa....

If distant memory serves, the Savannah TW had a separate mount bracket for the forward main gear attach, and a trailing arm back to the original gear\strut bracket. We have actual Savannah owners on BCP who might know a lot more. There was only one picture of this on the ICP website and that was years ago. But on a bone-simple square box like the 750, these mods are really really easy to do. You could even buy an extra set of fittings from Zenair and mount them 18" or 36" forward of the strut attach... and you've got nosewheel, tailwheel, and (partial) float mount options.

I am a relatively low time pilot. I flew 152s & 172s and to be perfectly honest, I didn’t like renting and ended up getting out of flying.
About 5 years ago I bought a Kitfox SLSA, not cheep to say the least. I have flown it about 350 hours since I bought it. I had about a 14 months I didn’t fly because I had Prostrate Problems. I have probably put 250 in the last 18 months. In the last 18 or so months I have flown to Oshkosh, Idaho Backcountry, San Antonio a couple of times. Burns about 5 Gallons per Hour. It is a lot more enjoyable plane to fly, than any of the Spam Cans I have flown. I would consider buying a Highlander or a SuperSTOL. They both are extremely good performing STOL Aircrafts. I am going to look at the SuperSTOL at Sebring. I really like that plane.

I am going to look at the SuperSTOL at Sebring.

Paul, are you thinking of selling your Fox?

Not sure I have ever posted on this site before, but I found this thread interesting. I'm not a great or high time pilot (600 hours or so total, 200+ hours TW, +1000 landings total). Also a late learner. I do have some experience to share on this subject. I own a small engine ch701, and a slightly hopped up Wag J-3. My interest is primarily off-field.

I assume my 701 flies similar to a 750. My field elevation is 4200 asl, and it is common for >6000 Da. From there I generally go up and over the mountains a few thousand feet to play.

The Wag J-3 has 19.5" tires and suitable off-airport tail wheel, the 701 has 21" mains 8.00 nose.

If with a pax it'll almost always be the j-3. It simply handles the load better.

Half fuel, and me only. I can land, stop as fast as I dare, and take off shorter in the 701, probably somewhere around 100 ' total distance than I can in the Cuby. Loaded near gross (701 - 1100lb and 1320 for Wag), the j-3 would have better than a 100' advantage. I can stop faster with a passenger in the j-3, and it accelerates faster. Both have about the same stall speeds.

Most of my flying is alone. If I plan to take off with no destination in mind and want to land at some unknown spot, I take the 701. Much more maneuverable in tight spaces, it is easier for me to touch down where I want (cut the power and it drops). It's more comfortable, but really neither is very comfortable. I'm better at keeping it straight and on the "center" line on the ground on roll out for skinny two track roads. I come in steeper for sure. It's not hard to hold the nose up on the 701 until it is close to stopped and it steers with the rudder only just fine at slow speeds on the ground.

If I knew I was going to land where it is rough(er).....I'd take the J-3, though I don't have any specific reason to believe it could handle it better.

Ch701 Rotec LCH Jabiru 85
Wag J-3 C-85/0-200, VG's

I may sell the CH701 just because I've had it a long time now (originally had an o-200) and I have too many planes. I'll have to learn to fly the Cuby better to do everything I have been doing in the 701. Snooping around here, rarely does anyone talk about the Wag (or certified J-3). I can't understand why. With the same pilot, I think my Wag will get in and out of places all the commonly discussed AC (Rans, Highlander, 750, 701, stock SC, and more) will, and they are typically half the money and much less than half the tinkering.

djonesutah wrote:Not sure I have ever posted on this site before,

This is your third post, the oldest from 2010.

Which of the two airplanes is cheaper to build (scratch or "full kit")? Which one would take more or less time to build? Those factors may favor one versus the other. What does an 85/90 HP Wag-Aero Cubby go for these days? I think you can buy an average 80-100HP CH-701 in the mid $20's.

I'm flying my 100hp Highlander and just started building a CH701. My friend bought a partially completed kit and we should have the 701 flying in the summer. Another factor to consider that we don't usually talk about is survivability.

After spending about 50 hours working on the 701, I would never fly it like my Highlander. In the H you're surrounded by a welded steel cage. The 701 is a solid design, but it's a riveted aluminum structure (mostly 0.016"). If I were out pushing the limits and ended up cartwheeling or doing an endo, I sure hope I'm in the Highlander...

The Zenith 750 is a compromise, and in real world flying, that's perfect for me. I depart in April for the Bahamas from California in my Zenith (4gph), and prior to that, I will be goofing off in the Sierras and the Hi Desert of Ca by my strip, and that's my real world, and mission. And enjoying that while I fight for stick time with my wife and daughter.

So bottom line again, it's perfect for me, maybe not so for others, who may be all for the "can I land there?" approach, which is understandable. It all depends on your mission, they are still all backcountry aircraft.

Yep. In the Highlander I fly the "can I land there?" style. We'll be using the 701 for more of a basic off-airport machine with super STOL capability.

djonesutah wrote:Snooping around here, rarely does anyone talk about the Wag (or certified J-3). I can't understand why. With the same pilot, I think my Wag will get in and out of places all the commonly discussed AC (Rans, Highlander, 750, 701, stock SC, and more) will, and they are typically half the money and much less than half the tinkering.

Small world. I have a O-235 powered Cuby and just started a CH750 rudder build (for entertainment purposes; who knows if it will ever fly). My Cuby is a bit of a pig (26"s, dual wing tanks, big Lycoming, etc), but I am surprised the stall speeds are similar between the Cuby and 701. Does your 701 not have slats? Does your Cuby have flaps?

Your comparison remarks are very helpful overall, and I can probably give some guidance on the Cuby conundrum: While some are built well, many of us have had to "tinker" an awful lot fixing crap that was either a Wag problem or a builder problem. While I enjoy my Cuby, I have spent at least triple the time working on my Cuby the last year than flying it. Prime example: Univair J3 sealed struts do not fit "some" Cuby builds without some extensive chassis or wing modifications. (I can go into detail if you are at all interested). There are a variety of J3 parts that "should" fit, that don't. There are Wag parts that are PMA'd that "should" fit both J3 and Cuby's, but don't. I expected a bit of churn with my bird, but as a whole have been very surprised with some of the big size differences in spec'd parts.

Even with all of the above, the Cuby is still one heck of a deal as long as you know what you are getting into. Mine is a hoot to fly and can't imagine being stuck in the certified world.

Both stall around 35 indicated with power off with me and half fuel, a little slower with a little power both, and no flaperons used for the 701. 30 ish for 1 notch. The 701 does have slats. The Cuby has VG's on the wings and stabilizer, and it is a PA-12 stabilizer rather than a J-3. I don't think there is anything special about my Cuby for stall speeds. Seems like from what I read about J-3's it is right in line.

I might have got lucky on my Cuby build quality. I didn't build it. it's not particularly pretty, but not embarrassing either. There is some deviation from plans like SC struts and large forks and the PA-12 tail. Wing tanks. Mac 74" . Some upgrades for tires and wheels and TW that I did. I did have TW shimmy with the Maule it came with. Other than that, I haven't had to fix anything yet in 4 years and haven't run into any build quality issues. It is very basic, with a starter and no alternator, no radio's, no lights. Around 860 lbs EW, now, with the larger tires..

It also came with floats and was used that way in Maine. The builder/pilot had this, after having a 150 SC and flying the same places. What he told me,.... The Cuby was off the water shorter than his SC was, but was on the water a lot longer. I do hear comments at my airport about how they notice how soon and short i'm off the ground in the Cuby. I'm not at a particularly high tach at around 2450 at climb out, but the C-85/O-200 helps a lot, I'm sure.

I'd say good 100 hp 701's and good Cuby's or J-3's can be had in the $30's. Both are adequate for guys with minimal budget and wanting some off-pavement experiences. My opinion. Have to admit, I never thought about survivability, and I don't know which is tougher. I would have guessed the 701, but really I am clueless on this.

Awesome info.

Mine had a Maule tailwheel as well. I sh!tcanned mine last spring and went to the wide Matco unit with much better results. Another big improvement was fixing the tailwheel arch to get the angle of kingpin correct. PA-18 tail-feathers and VGs on mine. I suspect our stall numbers are similar. Full electrics on mine (O-235 as well, which is heavy) so I suspect it is slightly heavier. A typical day for me is above 6K DAs on the ground and mine still works well enough.

(sorry for the thread drift everyone. Cuby is probably more than half the capability at around half the cost. J3 is similar in this regards.)

SkySteve wrote:

I am going to look at the SuperSTOL at Sebring.

Paul, are you thinking of selling your Fox?

Steve, if I decide to get a SuoerSTOL, yes I am thinking of selling it.

Looking at these photos of the CH750 nose gear suspension and housing, I was really surprised at how it works. I don't think it looks very robust in an off-airport context. I am convinced the CH750 is a winning STOL performer which works hard off airport, but when it's nosewheel that lightly engineered, you can quickly understand why - it's very lightly built. There's very few heavy components. Personally, I don't think I would be comfortable regularly landing one off airport with any big loads aboard. That's just my opinion, YMMV.

I guess I am just not au fait enough with LSA engineering design. From what I know of the Just series, they are more strongly built that the CH750!

I know this is not related to OP original question but after contributing to the rebuild of 2 Highlanders & now almost finished a Rans kit for a customer, what I see inside a Rans I like much better than the Highlander. Personally I'd like to try out the newer model side by side Rans, I believe it would be the winner in my book

senior wrote:after contributing to the rebuild of 2 Highlanders & now almost finished a Rans kit for a customer, what I see inside a Rans I like much better than the Highlander.

I find that interesting. I'd love to hear some of the specifics of why?

(not disputing; just curious since I would have expected both kits to be similiar...)

I know this is a CH-750 vs Highlander thread but here is something outside the box(y), pun intended.

Pipistrel offers the lift spoilers that are standard on their 40' and 50' wingspan motorgliders as a option on their Virus SW and also offer tundra tires. I'm not saying it is any way as capable back country ride as the Chris Heinz or Just, but its cargo hold can take (2) electric Yike Bikes and the specs for performance are impressive as this model won the NASA Challenge two years running.

On the Rotax 912 100 hp,

75% Cruise 147 kt @ 4.7 gph. On the Pipistrel forum an owner buddy flew with a friend that could only cruise at 85 kt, at that speed fuel flow dropped to 1.4 gph.

Rate of climb 1680 fpm


Take off role 310'

I'm not sure how that tail structure would hold up long term to any type of off airport ops, or the main gear. Let's compare apples to apples. In the past, I know the design had some (since solved) tail structural issues, as in catastrophic failure. Good to see they got that resolved.

Cool plane, looks real low drag so no surprise on the speed/economy for sure. Many of the Rotax powered LSA go fasts offer incredible economy, some with 1000 mile ranges due to that economy. They would make a fine traveling machine but I wouldn't be taking one anywhere off airport, or for that matter off my airstrip. I also can't begin to imagine how you could do any repairs on it, I'll stick with fabric and chrome moly for off airport use.

Those are some pretty amazing specs listed.. and it seems to fly well, man it's fast!!

A little off from the OP's question, but the issues discussed are precisely why I chose to build a Bearhawk Patrol instead of the Highlander or SuperStol... I'm a big guy, and my family members are larger as well. Pick any two of us, and put us in either of the Just Aircraft designs, and we're either at gross weight, or over - before adding any fuel at all. The Patrol was designed to handle two 300-lb people, full fuel, and up to 100 lbs of baggage, and remain well within the CG range. It's a tandem-seat design, with about 31 inches of elbow room. Very roomy and comfortable, and fantastic visibility.

The stated takeoff / landing distance is 250 ft with about 1700 FPM climb rate, but that's at gross weight with zero wind, and is a pretty conservative estimate for the 180-HP version, although probably pretty accurate at gross for the 150-HP powered examples. At OSH, I got to fly in their 180-HP demo plane, and with a 200-lb pilot and my 310-lbs in the back seat, we were off the ground in well under 150 feet (about 10 knots headwind), and had to level off at pattern altitude about halfway to the end of the runway. It's a rocket ship with 180 HP and constant-speed prop, for sure! The fact that it cruises at 140-150 mph (depending on engine and prop combo) and stalls at under 35 mph makes it the ideal airplane for my mission. It seems like everyone who has ever flown it wants one - including several guys that previously built (and still own) 4-place Bearhawks who are now building Patrols!

"QuickBuild" kits are available, but even with the QB kit, there is a lot of work to be done. It's not like the Van's design, where it's basically "insert tab A into slot B" - there is no "build manual" so there's a lot more effort involved with interpreting the plans and figuring out what to do next. But it's a lot of fun, and you wind up with a LOT of airplane. Their website is http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com if you want more information. (My only relationship with them is as a satisfied builder-in-progress.)

My hangar-mate has a CH-750 with the Jab-3300, and absolutely loves it. He jokingly refers to our 7,002-ft long, 150-ft wide runway 18-36 (KTKI - McKinney, TX) as "The World's Widest Runway 09-27"... He likes to fly to a friend's grass runway just up the road, and has flown it up to Mexico, MO to the Zenith factory, but at the ~90 mph cruise speed, and with the very light wing loading, it can be a beating if there is turbulence and/or headwinds. It's a great plane for "dawn patrol" and "hundred dollar hamburger" flights, though, and he really enjoys flying it.

deckofficer wrote:I know this is a CH-750 vs Highlander thread but here is something outside the box(y), pun intended.

Pipistrel offers the lift spoilers that are standard on their 40' and 50' wingspan motorgliders as a option on their Virus SW and also offer tundra tires. I'm not saying it is any way as capable back country ride as the Chris Heinz or Just, but its cargo hold can take (2) electric Yike Bikes and the specs for performance are impressive as this model won the NASA Challenge two years running.

On the Rotax 912 100 hp,

75% Cruise 147 kt @ 4.7 gph. On the Pipistrel forum an owner buddy flew with a friend that could only cruise at 85 kt, at that speed fuel flow dropped to 1.4 gph.

Rate of climb 1680 fpm


Take off role 310'

Those are pretty cool, i saw a formation of those a while back….