Hey SavannahTom,

I would like to know more about your experience with your Savannah. Looks like a very capable plane from your picture gallery. Are you the builder?

My EAA chapter is thinking about building a Zenith 701, which I think is similar to the Savannah.

Any thoughts/experiences/pros/cons you would like to share?

They look like easy to fly, inexpensive to operate planes that would be great for short grass fields.

A guy at my airport just bought a Savannah, from a guy in BC (in Kalowna?) who built it. It's my understanding that this is an S-SLA, and that the Kalowna guy is the manufacturer. My buddy sez that it is a completely different airplane from the Zeanith 701. Maybe so... but it looks to me like a 701 without the leading edge slats. This has VG's instead.... and it has the same "two-peckered billy goat" center stick as the 701. Has the 100-horse Rotax 912 in it, my buddy sez it's real STOL but I haven't yet flown in it or even seen it fly. Hoping to fly in it as soon as he gets proficient. Pretty nicely built, but the lines are not real attractive (to me) plus it has one of those scary nosewheel things....

Eric

Skystrider wrote:Hey SavannahTom,
I would like to know more about your experience with your Savannah. Looks like a very capable plane from your picture gallery. Are you the builder?
My EAA chapter is thinking about building a Zenith 701, which I think is similar to the Savannah.
Any thoughts/experiences/pros/cons you would like to share?
They look like easy to fly, inexpensive to operate planes that would be great for short grass fields.

I started constrution on my Savannah about three years ago. It took 5 months and 275 hours of construction time to get it into the air. Since then, I've put over 300 hours of flying in it and except for being butt slow, I love the little bugger.

I've got the standard 800x6 tires that most run on this plane. It will land most places that aren't too extreme. I've landed gravel bars on the Willamette, sandy beaches (Copalis in Wa.), dirt two track roads in Central Oregon, dry lakebeds in Northern Nevada, farmers fields, 600 foot short field private strips, and nearly every public airstrip in Western Oregon. Real world numbers for my plane are 300 feet of roll for either landing or takeoff at 200 pounds under gross and 5000 feet DA. I'm no great pilot, so I think these numbers could be improved by quite a bit.

The plane is very easy to fly. It mushes more than stalls. Doesn't change pitch much with throttle changes. Lands without floating on and on, and both the Savannah and the 701 have an excellent safety record. I think the EAA chapter would be happy with either one.

The North American distributor for the Savannah has a good comparison on their website here: http://www.skykits.com/Comparison.rev1.htm

At the time I bought my kit, the Savannah had better delivery time, same price, and much more extensive pre drilling of holes. The decision was easy. Now, I don't know how these things compare.

There is a guy in Australia that makes vortex generators for the two planes. He claims nearly as good stol performance with better cruise by removing the leading edge slats and installing "feathers". His web site is here: http://www.stolspeed.com/

tom

Well yeah... if what I've heard is correct... they had all the more time to do all that extra work after Mr Heintz did all the tough stuff.

Yeah, Eric Giles of Skykits (in High River Alerta CA) is the guy my friend bought his Savannah from, ready-to-fly.

I just checked out stolspeed.com. Interesting reading. There are a couple outfits making VG kits for experimentals nowadays. Quite a bit cheaper than for certified planes. One guy in Idaho is landshorter.com. He's got some interesting stuff on his site too. I see that a cople of these lesser-known guys make their VG's out of plastic, instead of aluminum. Claim less chance for damage to hands as well as to wings and wing covers. Makes sense.
At least one of these smaller outfits,Pacific Northwest Aero in Oregon, appears to be making kits for some certificated airplanes-prices for those appear to be about the same as Micro.

Eric

Savannah-Tom wrote:The plane is very easy to fly. It mushes more than stalls. Doesn't change pitch much with throttle changes. Lands without floating on and on, and both the Savannah and the 701 have an excellent safety record. I think the EAA chapter would be happy with either one.

The North American distributor for the Savannah has a good comparison on their website here: http://www.skykits.com/Comparison.rev1.htm

At the time I bought my kit, the Savannah had better delivery time, same price, and much more extensive pre drilling of holes. The decision was easy. Now, I don't know how these things compare.

... from another thread ...
My LSA Savannah comes close, at 630 pounds. With four hours of fuel, (55%) it can carry 470 pounds of useful cargo. It just sucks to have trucks pass you on the freeway is all. (80mph cruise)

tom

Tom,

At 80mph are you running at 55% power? Which engine did you get?

I don't know much about experimental aircraft. I assume that the wheel ski's, belly pod, & floats (with possible mods) that Zenith makes would work on the Savannah.

I do like that the Savannah has about 134 more pounds of useful load than the Zenith 701. It peaked my interest. I suspect that the baggage area is about the same size as the 701. A belly pod might help but, of course, that cuts into the useful load. Doubt I could get a couple of folding bikes crammed in with a passenger.

Hmmm, passenger could ride in the pod....

From posts from builders, the Savannah build estimates seem to be closer to reality than many. It's also nice they have a pre-built LSA option.

Craig

GroundLooper wrote:At 80mph are you running at 55% power? Which engine did you get?

Yes, and that equates to about 4-1/4 gal/hr or about 18 mpg. I run the Rotax 912ULS which is the uncertified 100hp.

GroundLooper wrote:I don't know much about experimental aircraft. I assume that the wheel ski's, belly pod, & floats (with possible mods) that Zenith makes would work on the Savannah.

I don't know, but probably. I've seen photos of skis and floats on Savannahs.

GroundLooper wrote:Doubt I could get a couple of folding bikes crammed in with a passenger.

No way.

GroundLooper wrote:Hmmm, passenger could ride in the pod....Craig

Make it out of clear plastic, and they would have an outstanding view.

tom

Here's a magazine article on the Savannah VG. It's the one that uses vortex generators instead of leading edge slats.

tom

http://www.sportpilot.org/magazine/feat ... h%20VG.pdf

Savannah-Tom wrote:

GroundLooper wrote:]Hmmm, passenger could ride in the pod....Craig

Make it out of clear plastic, and they would have an outstanding view.

tom

And don't forget to make some airholes.

The 701 has a folding wing "Option". I didn't see that Savannah offered the same feature. I assume yours does not have that.

What about tools. They claim simple tools and recommend a pneumatic rivet gun. Anything they miss that you feel would be essential or greatly helpful? Bandsaw? Sheetmetal bender? Drill press?

They increased the gross weight and NE speed from 1100 to 1234 and 110 to 125 respectively. Anyone know what they did to justify the increase? Does anyone test these things or is all theoretical. I understand Australia has more stringent standards for Experimental craft and may have to undergo some testing but don't know what that entails.

While Weight and Balance is different for every aircraft, seeing your WB info may be helpful and appreciated.

GroundLooper,

I am about 1/3 of the way through building a 701 with my EAA chapter. So far Zenith's estimate of the time it will take looks pretty accurate. I think the Savanna time to build is about 100 hrs less.

Skystrider wrote:GroundLooper,

I am about 1/3 of the way through building a 701 with my EAA chapter. So far Zenith's estimate of the time it will take looks pretty accurate. I think the Savanna time to build is about 100 hrs less.

Is that with the "quick build" kit? Or maybe Zenith only sells a quick build. Pre-drilled holes, I assume?

Is that with the "quick build" kit? Or maybe Zenith only sells a quick build. Pre-drilled holes, I assume?

It is with the standard kit. Pre-drilled holes is a relative term. In the critical areas such as skins, it is pre-drilled but there is plenty of drilling to do!

The Savannah kit came with a pneumatic rivet puller. Very handy. Also came with a few Clecos and a really shitty Cleco pliers. I had to reinforce mine, but a good one only costs $15. (I'm a cheap bastard) I didn't have to buy any other tools, but I've got a fairly well stocked shop. You will need a hand puller to get into a few tight spots.

I'm guessing that 95% of the holes were pre-drilled. That still leaves something like 1000 to drill.

The wing and fuselage were both reinforced to allow the increase in weight. I don't know about Vne. I've seen a picture of a whole bunch of sand bags on a wing during test, but I can't remember if it was on the ICP website at the factory, or some dealer website. I think there are some European countries that require a load test on each homebuilt aircraft, but again, oldtimers disease has set in and I don't remember the particulars. By the way, this isn't such a bad state to be in, after all, I can hide my own Easter Eggs.

tom

Here's a story about how the Savannah came to be:

http://www.stolspeed.com/origins-701-savannah

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the overall story, but the changes between CH701 and the Savannah are true.

tom

Thanks for posting that Tom, I am glad to have learned the real story in detail. I was one of those people who had believed the Savannah was a rip off of Heintz' work.

Differences of philosophy and business goals are part of the history of many aircraft. One of the most well known being that of Piper and Taylorcraft. Each has their own advantages, similarities and differences but neither design should be considered a ripoff. Collaborating partners in a common aircraft design who then go their own way would be expected to show some common design agreement in their future work. I am amazed however, that Max would continue to design aircraft with lack of intellectual property protection. The old fool me once adage.
Thanks for the story Tom, I had never read it before but I also assumed the similarities were not coincidental.

I read this a few weeks back and I am not 100% convinced this new story is totally accurate either..... YMMV

Ben. Zenith 801 builder and flyer.

It is a good illustration of how folks can get caught up in something, without knowing the entire backstory.
I think I prefer this (so long as it's true) as I'm much happier with folks working together in this industry.

The Savannah can also be built as taildragger. See http://www.aeromedia.it/lb2110.html. About the square design, the latest model (the Savannah S) has rounded the fuselage corners. Take a peek at the ICP website http://www.icp.it for more infos and images. The VG version (no slats, which has a different airfoil section, btw) has quite similar low speeds than the slatted one, but at the higher speeds the difference is high.