EAA STORE
[ Home | Subscribe | Issues | Articles | Q&A | How To | Forum Review ]
[ Hints for Homebuilders | Glossary | Polls | Around the Web | Submit an Article]
Don't Build a Zenith STOL CH 701!
Originally appeared in Zenair News #183, March-April 2011
By Bob Jones, Big Lake, Alaska
Zenith flightline at the Quality Sport Planes Open House & Fly-In, Mother’s Day weekend 2011
Whoa, I bet that title will get the attention of Sebastien and the boys at Zenith Aircraft. There’s a good reason for that statement, but it should actually read, “Don’t build a 701, unless you want to use it for what it’s capable of!”
I built my first 701 in the 1990s, and according to my logbook, I now have in excess of 1,350 landings. And no, they weren’t short demo flights – they were mostly for hunting, fishing, and backwoods exploring. The honest truth is, there’s no other plane that will do what the 701 will do, for price, durability, and capability. I can hear the arguments already, so let’s set some criteria.
To beat the 701, a plane will have to:
- land on a logging road with trees only 30 feet apart
- take off on floats in less than 3.5 seconds
- cruise at 85 mph
- burn less than 4.5 gallons/hour of automobile fuel
- be legally flown by sport pilots
- carry two people side by side
- carry a payload of 500-plus pounds
- take off anyplace it will land
- have all-aluminum construction
- be built with floats, wheels, and skis for less than $40,000
- carry a minimum of 20 gallons of fuel
- have folding wings, tundra tires, and true STOL capability
- have a kit construction time of less than 400 hours.
Specifications |
STOL CH 701 |
|
Wingspan |
27 feet |
8.2 meters |
Wing area |
122 square feet |
11.4 meters² |
Length |
20 feet, 11 inches |
6.38 meters |
Height (rudder tip) |
8 feet, 7 inches |
2.6 meters |
Empty weight |
580 pounds |
263 kilograms |
Gross weight |
1,100 pounds |
500 kilograms |
Useful load |
520 pounds |
236 kilograms |
Wing loading |
9.0 pounds/feet² |
43.8 meters² |
Power loading |
13.75 pounds/bhp |
6.25 kilograms/bhp |
Design load factor (ultimate) |
+6g/-3g |
|
Cabin width (shoulders) |
40 inches |
100 centimeters |
Cabin width (optional bubble doors) |
44 inches |
110 centimeters |
Fuel capacity (std., dual wing tanks) |
20 U.S. gallons |
76 liters |
CH 701 Performance |
Rotax 912 (80 hp) |
Rotax 912S (100 hp) |
||
|
Single |
Dual |
Single |
Dual |
Top speed (mph) |
85 |
85 |
95 |
95 |
Cruise, sea level (mph) |
80 |
80 |
85 |
85 |
75% cruise at 8,000 feet (approximate true airspeed) |
92 |
92 |
98 |
98 |
Redline (mph) |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
Stall (mph) |
28 |
30 |
28 |
30 |
Rate of climb (feet/minute) |
1,100 |
1,000 |
1,200 |
1,100 |
Takeoff roll (feet) |
60 |
115 |
50 |
90 |
Landing roll (feet) |
80 |
140 |
80 |
140 |
Service ceiling (feet) |
13,000+ |
12,000+ |
15,000+ |
12,000+ |
Range (miles) |
372 |
372 |
350 |
350 |
Endurance |
4.6 hours |
4.6 hours |
4.1 hours |
4.1 hours |
3-view.jpg
I have people contact me from all over the world and ask me about the plane, and my answers are always the same. I’ve probably promoted the sale of about 30 planes and discouraged about as many people for the simple reason that it’s a very specific piece of equipment. If all your friends are building RVs, then build an RV, unless you think you will tire of airport-only operations or want to talk about places they can’t land.
Okay, now which airplanes can even come close to meeting this list? How about the Savannah VG? It looks like a 701; it goes faster, but the leading edge slats have been replaced with vortex generators. And although the specs for the Savannah state a slower stall speed, the takeoff and landing distances are longer than the 701. Also, the rate of climb isn’t as brisk as the 701.
Does any of this matter? It does to me. I don’t have to share my favorite little lake with Savannah owners. The Savannah can’t get in or out. How about putting dual sticks in the 701 like those in the Savannah, as opposed to the 701’s shared center stick? That’s great until you try getting in with waders or snowmobile boots on. The answer to that is, don’t go fishing on floats or skis.
There’s good reason the 701 is now flown for famine relief in Africa, pipeline patrol in Saudi Arabia, game preserve enforcement on the Serengeti, and highway patrol in Wisconsin. It’s literally a flying Jeep. It’s an ugly little plane, and you won’t see many at Oshkosh, probably because they’re out working. It’s not a hangar queen; it doesn’t matter how much pretty paint you put on it, and it’s not going to fly faster or work harder. Maximum performance is just that.
I like sitting on a pothole-sized lake, catching trout and watching the competition circle. Thankfully they’re smart enough not to try to land, because cell phones don’t work down there and the only way out for them is via helicopter. My good friend’s Robinson R44 helicopter takes longer than 3.5 seconds to spool up – much less to take off on floats, but then his takeoff run is a lot shorter.
The next time someone tells you he has a true bush plane, look for brush scratches, gravel pitting, smashed bugs, and a few dings, and underneath all that will more than likely be a 701.
---------------------------
