FastEddieB Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 ...flying it [the CH] cross country slowly, making lots of fuel stops would be pretty painful.... Allow me to beg to differ. At the Sentimental Journey, lots and lots of Cubs and similar planes had made the pilgrimage back to Lock Haven. Many of these planes were even slower than a CH. Many of these pilots flew in from appreciable distances. Yet I doubt that an informal survey would elicit a response of "painful" to describe their flights. Assuming that flying, in and of itself is pleasurable, then shouldn't prolonging a cross-country flight be an overall good thing? These pilots have found joy in "slowing down and smelling the roses". If they can smell them over the stench of the turds they're flying, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 For many of us this is a hobby and we fly what we enjoy. People enjoy flying everything from a J-3 to an L-39, from a Quad City Challenger to a Lanceair. They are all great airplanes in their own way and for their own purposes, and people enjoy them. (I don't think CTLSi has unlimited resources or he wouldn't still be flying a slow, single engine, non-pressurized cabin, two place airplane.) One of the folks in a nearby hangar has two Mitsubishi thin turbos. He owns gas stations and his son it's a championship sprint car driver (He has been spending the winter/summer driving in Australia since it is the off season here.) I understand how they use their planes, but it is not my thing. I just like to fly and the CTLS fits my purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Allow me to beg to differ. At the Sentimental Journey, lots and lots of Cubs and similar planes had made the pilgrimage back to Lock Haven. Many of these planes were even slower than a CH. Many of these pilots flew in from appreciable distances. I have a friend here locally that flew his Kolb Firestar II from here in Georgia to Oshkosh... ~650nm at 50-60mph. Having flown in that Kolb, I bet that was one of the most enjoyable flights I can imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 I want a newer model Kitfox. They are well rounded (somewhat STOL-ish, pretty decent cruise speed, pretty good at most things, not really the best at anything) And more in my price range. The CT's are great airplanes, I would own one in a heartbeat! But a little out of my reach.. A good friend of mine flies an Avid, the earlier version of the Kitfox. Even with a 65hp Rotax 582 that is a fun airplane. Climbs fast, lands short, plenty of useful load...very capable. A little slow with ~70mph cruise, but with a 80hp or 100hp engine, I'd think an Avid/Kitfox would be a lot of fun, and is probably a 90-100mph airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 .....Anyway, I was doing a little IT work for the rental guys today, and I saw the plane. It's honestly not as bad as originally described. The gear is a little bent, but not bad... and it actually broke the wheel... as in it broke the rim itself. Thought that was interesting!! Left wing tip is ground down some, and who knows at this point if the wing itself suffered structural damage? But I was expecting worse! The fuselage would suffer cracking before the wings do. The wings are built strong, and the wing pins are high strength steel, but the pin sockets will give first. If there is no visible cracking forward of the flap on the fuselage, or near the front, then you should be safe. As for the wing: was it ground through, or just on the surface? As long as it didn't get through to the spars, it will be easy to fix. If it did get the spars, then the wing has to be worked on by FD engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 . . . "I want a newer model Kitfox. They are well rounded (somewhat STOL-ish, pretty decent cruise speed, pretty good at most things, not really the best at anything) And more in my price range." . . . Have you checked out the "Aerotrek?" Very similar to a Kitfox. I considered one before my CT. The Aerotrek has sold well in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 The Aerotrek was the first plane that I wanted. I still want one. Performs similarly to a CT, tailwheel configuration available, and can fold up the wings with a little bit of time. CT Advantage is the bigger baggage and slightly longer range, but that's about it (not going to get into the argument of composite vs tube and fabric). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted January 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Allow me to beg to differ. At the Sentimental Journey, lots and lots of Cubs and similar planes had made the pilgrimage back to Lock Haven. Many of these planes were even slower than a CH. Many of these pilots flew in from appreciable distances. I see where you are coming from. If I owned the plane, I would definitely care less about how fast I was going. I almost got into a powered parachute to enjoy some real out in the open slow scenic fun.... When renting however, and trying to take someone up to a scenic place to fly around, every minute costs me. And I know a lot of people buy airplanes so they can travel fast (not myself). A good friend of mine flies an Avid, the earlier version of the Kitfox. Even with a 65hp Rotax 582 that is a fun airplane. Climbs fast, lands short, plenty of useful load...very capable. A little slow with ~70mph cruise, but with a 80hp or 100hp engine, I'd think an Avid/Kitfox would be a lot of fun, and is probably a 90-100mph airplane. Yea the newer models have come a long ways. (Series 5 onwards)... Many of them are built with a 1550lbs gross weight (with grove gear). You can hang up to about a 250lb engine on them now (several of them running around with 150hp 0-320's) Tail or tricycle wheel (can be changed later), quick folding wings, removable doors etc. Actually I just copied the series 7 info from their site: (w/ a 912) And it really looks pretty good Performance Takeoff Ground Roll 290 ft Landing Ground Roll 270 ft Rate of Climb 1000 fpm Vne 140 mph Top Speed 125 mph Cruise 120 mph Stall Vso 41 mph Endurance 5.4 hours Range @ 4.8 gph = 612 miles (with VFR Reserve) Service Ceiling 16000 MSL Performance figures are calculated using average pilot weight and pilot skills with standard sea level conditions and powered by the Rotax 912S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Just wanted to update this topic. I was finally able to get checked out in the ch750. After 8 cancelled flights in a row - plane problems, bad weather (no vis, 50 knot winds etc.) I got a chance to fly the Zenith. Bummer was we couldn't quite get it done the first day... got dark... their requirement is 2 hrs / 10 landings minimum. I made every landing without help so I was on par for the minimums but we got to 9 landings 1.9 hours and had to stop. Finished yesterday. Thoughts on the 750. With power left in, it lands easier than a CT... It's easy to fly, it climbs steep, and it lands nicely. With power at idle, it comes down like a bag of rocks and is bit of a handful to land. Not hard, but you need to come in steep to maintain enough airspeed. The difference between power and power off in this plane is massive. It doesn't glide well, but it does land very slow, and climb steep even with an under powered 0-200 up here at high altitude. Visibility is good, it's surprisingly comfortable, controls feel good (with flaps at low airspeed the controls get pretty heavy, and the rudders become "notchy"). The plane is heavy, and can exceed 1320 if you aren't careful with 2 passengers. At 6200ft elevation, depending on the DA, this can become a single person plane pretty fast. It reminds me of the CTLS (possibly worse), up here the LS with 2 people and a fair amount of fuel is not worth flying on a warm to hot day. The SW can pull it off, but the LS and the 750 are downright dangerous. The pleasures of living at high elevation.... The plane is just fun, its made to take a pretty hard landing, it can drop in over something tall and make a very steep approach and still land very, very quickly. It climbs steep (not fast, fpm isn't very impressive).... it's not refined, it doesn't have a good useful load or carry enough fuel. It's under powered up here with an 0-200, it does have a nice big accessible from the seats cargo area (though I'm not sure you would want to put much back there).. the look grows on you. I'm looking forward to some adventures in this plane... sadly with the time of year that's approaching, that will mean mostly solo adventures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 I can't believe you would fly that turd. Beat me to it. Headed to the hangar to work on my turd's annual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted April 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I can't believe you would fly that turd. Just kidding, of course. LOL Been hard to get in the air lately, more days like this than not (wind attachments) The CTSW is still down from the crash, so I'm still flying the turd. It's really fun, just needs some more power up here at this high elevation. (two people, fuel, hot day is basically not happening from here - 6200ft) The SW can pull it off, this one can't. Landed it on my homebuilt strip the other day for the first time in anything! 1800ft, power lines at one end, two story house at the other. I keep making it smoother, wider, and flatter, but I had to test it out and it went great. It's about 6-8ft or so wider now than in those pics 2 weeks ago.... but even like it was, it wasn't bad and this thing soaks up the bumps nicely. Couple pics from the experience! what a day! The jeep is more in it's element here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 OK, how can the service ceiling be 16,000 ft. when it is only 14k on the LS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Service ceiling is based on a few factors. FD shows 14K and Rotax 16K, but I have a friend and have heard of another over 18K in their CT. Set to prop correctly and don't get carried away with weight and whop knows where the real ceiling is. I believe it is based on at least 100 fpm climb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 OK, how can the service ceiling be 16,000 ft. when it is only 14k on the LS? It's a completely different airframe and wing design. That's like asking why does a C-180 have a higher service ceiling than a C-182 with the same engine. In fact, several thousand feet higher. Service ceiling, if I remember correctly, is when the aircraft, at legal gross, can only maintain a 100 fpm climb rate. Maybe one factor is that the plane in this thread has a lower gross?? And, remember, some manufacturers tend to stretch the truth. I know this is hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Service ceiling is based on a few factors. FD shows 14K and Rotax 16K, but I have a friend and have heard of another over 18K in their CT. Set to prop correctly and don't get carried away with weight and whop knows where the real ceiling is. I believe it is based on at least 100 fpm climb. Maybe the guy who went to 18K was not at gross? I am pretty sure service ceiling is for a max. allowable load. Go light and it goes higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 If I'm recalling correctly, single engine service ceiling is computed: With standard day conditions At maximum gross weight With CG at the forward limit (worst case for aircraft performance in general) It is then that altitude where the plane can still climb 100 fpm. So, it's clear that many times the plane will be able to exceed that, and it's perfectly legal to do so. But... Be aware many newer planes have a "Maximum Authorized Operating Altitude" listed in the "Limitations" section of the POH. That is a hard legal limit. It has nothing, or little, to do with the plane's ability to climb. A non-turbo Cirrus SR22 is limited to 17,500', regardless of its ability to climb much higher. Planes certified much earlier with the same engine routinely climb into the Flight Levels, but stricter Part 23 certification requirements limit the Cirrus in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Service ceiling is based on a few factors. FD shows 14K and Rotax 16K, but I have a friend and have heard of another over 18K in their CT. Set to prop correctly and don't get carried away with weight and whop knows where the real ceiling is. I believe it is based on at least 100 fpm climb. I would be interesting to take a light CTSW with a relatively light pilot and nothing unnecessary in the airplane, and 15 gallons of fuel, and see how high it could go. It would probably be a pretty big number. You'd have to allow for the weight of an O2 bottle and mask though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 GravityKnight, that is the best looking CH701 (or is it a CH750?) I have seen...I love the yellow/black combo on airplanes. There is a CH701 nearby running a Viking engine, which is a combo I had not seen before...what engine is on yours? I have seen C85s, O-200s, various Rotax, and Jabiru 2200s and 3300 on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Thanks everyone. I was fixated on the engine and its ability to cope with thin air. In my case the regulatory ceiling is 10k or 2k AGL, whichever is greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 In my case the regulatory ceiling is 10k or 2k AGL, whichever is greater. Well, there's always that. It's my limit as well, though I don't really get the logic - I've spent a lot of time "high", including Flight Levels in a Cessna P210, and in the mid-teens in my Cirrus, and my skill set has not changed for want of a medical. But it is what it is and I'm glad just to be in the air, restrictions notwithstanding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 12,500' or 2000' AGL would've made sense but, of course, the FAA had to invent an arbitrary limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted April 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 GravityKnight, that is the best looking CH701 (or is it a CH750?) I have seen...I love the yellow/black combo on airplanes. There is a CH701 nearby running a Viking engine, which is a combo I had not seen before...what engine is on yours? I have seen C85s, O-200s, various Rotax, and Jabiru 2200s and 3300 on them. It's a CH750. Though it's not my first choice in planes, I would take it in a heartbeat if someone wanted to you know, donate something It has pretty low hours, dynon setup just like the CT's etc. But this one has an 0-200D and it's a turd. The useful load is pretty low, and performance up here get's a little iffy with a passenger. Still though, with just me in it, it gets off the ground in like 250ft, and climbs out pretty steep at 40-45 knots. And with flaps and the power off you pretty much have to point it straight down to keep it flying, so you can come down over obstacles quite nicely... it's a ride. But don't plan on being in a hurry to get somewhere. I have to believe it would have been better off with a 912 though, it's like 40 lbs lighter iirc. A 914 would be even better... Or if we weren't concerned with FAA light sport gross weight numbers, this thing would really get fun with an 0-320 or something similar.... Speaking of engine options in Zenith STOL planes.. here is a 701 with a turbo prop lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yle0bNfmf0E Silly and not worth it.. but cool!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Well, there's always that. It's my limit as well, though I don't really get the logic - I've spent a lot of time "high", including Flight Levels in a Cessna P210, and in the mid-teens in my Cirrus, and my skill set has not changed for want of a medical. But it is what it is and I'm glad just to be in the air, restrictions notwithstanding! Because now you don't have that piece of paper that prevents you from turning into a pumpkin at 10,001 feet and falling, Icarus-like, to your fiery demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 And with flaps and the power off you pretty much have to point it straight down to keep it flying, so you can come down over obstacles quite nicely... it's a ride. But don't plan on being in a hurry to get somewhere. The only really negative thing I have heard about the CH7xx series is that they are very high drag, low-speed airplanes, and take off with a pretty high deck angle. There have been a couple of fatalities involving engine failure on takeoff and the pilot literally could not get the stick forward fast enough to avoid a stall/spin. Maybe climbing at less than maximum performance and really being ready to be Johnny-on-the-spot with the stick if the engine so much as stumbles in the first 1000 feet or so would be prudent. Good luck, looks like a blast! Do you have some little remote places to set it down in like it was built for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 The only really negative thing I have heard about the CH7xx series is that they are very high drag, low-speed airplanes, and take off with a pretty high deck angle. There have been a couple of fatalities involving engine failure on takeoff and the pilot literally could not get the stick forward fast enough to avoid a stall/spin. Maybe climbing at less than maximum performance and really being ready to be Johnny-on-the-spot with the stick if the engine so much as stumbles in the first 1000 feet or so would be prudent. Good luck, looks like a blast! Do you have some little remote places to set it down in like it was built for? They definitely are high drag low speed. When you pull the power back completely it feels like a CT with at least 15 deg of flaps if not 30. With flaps this thing is actually a bit of a handful. Landing with a little power in however makes for very smooth and easy landings. It doesn't balloon, it's predictable, it's actually quite easy to fly IMO. Power off or with flaps the challenging level does go up though, it comes down fast so you better be ready I'm not sure what to think about losing power on take off, not something I wan't to experience in anything, but in doing some stalls with this plane it was very mild, you could actually just hold it wings level and let it sink in a stall, it was the mildest thing I have been in to stall (not many planes so take it for what it's worth). I think you would have to work at putting it in a spin... but.... I feel for anyone who has had it happen, and the loss of life is terrible, and I wound't have wanted to face the same situation. You would definitely want to be on your game if climbing out at 40 or so knots for the steep (fun!) climb. I've got some friends who have a dirt strip about 30 miles from mine, I may take it out there sometime. Not much else around (local airport in my town is 1250ft artificial turf/dirt after that.. been out there a few times). I'd like to take it out and land in somewhere remote (after checking it out from the ground) like at my gf's folks 1400acre ranch- they have some great spots. But the guys I rent from are not real excited about their planes being off airport (even though this one was designed for it) so I figure I'll hold off on all the real fun until I can buy my own set of wings... don't want to burn any bridges there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.