Sport Pilot Talk

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article ... xuM4Hpnzgp

http://www.flyingmag.com/factory-built- ... -to-market

I like the 100 ft takeoff and 125 ft landing rolls. Cruise not too quick, but that's the STOL trade-off. Depends on your mission, I suppose...

Thoughts?

If you haven't seen this already, it's pretty impressive! 20 foot landing, 24 foot takeoff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V8cnMJSEAk

Not enthused about their choice of O-200 because I'm a lardbutt pilot at 220 lbs, but as long as it permits them to keep the cost down... So far I was unable to find the empty weight for this S-LSA. Some website quote useful of 545 lbs, which was probably calculated with a 912. Well, we know it can't be less than 400 lbs., else it would not be an S-LSA. The problem here is that if one defines the mission as a back-country airplane, the useful load requirements skyrocket because of camping gear and supplies. Love the 99,999 pirce though (if it's real).

It does seem a good backcountry machine, even having tricycle gear. And yes, useful load can be an issue, but there is some amazingly good lightweight camping gear out there.

The quality of the first production SLSAs remains to be seen. Hopefully, it can stay below $100K.

They are cool, but trike gear kind of limits their usefulness in the woods. I think for $100k I'd go with a Highlander (non-Super STOL). It's faster (100-110mph) and has a useful load of about 700lb for people, fuel, gear, dogs, etc.

How does the CH750's trike configuration limit its usefulness? It seems quite beefy, especially with tundra tires. And its STOL capability means that it doesn't spend much time on the ground anyway!

Hambone wrote:How does the CH750's trike configuration limit its usefulness? It seems quite beefy, especially with tundra tires. And its STOL capability means that it doesn't spend much time on the ground anyway!

The main problem is prop clearance when landing on rough ground, gravel, dirt, etc. The CH750's gear is pretty short... That's the primary reason most bush planes are taildraggers. Plus if the nose wheel snags on rollout, over you go.

The kit 750 can be built with a tailwheel. No idea if the SLSA will be available this way.

I'm not sure comparing the 750 with the Just is apples to apples, as the Just is tube and fabric and the 750 is all aluminum. This may or may not be important to the buyer but there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

rsteele wrote:The kit 750 can be built with a tailwheel. No idea if the SLSA will be available this way.

I'm not sure comparing the 750 with the Just is apples to apples, as the Just is tube and fabric and the 750 is all aluminum. This may or may not be important to the buyer but there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Sure, preferences come into play. But both are short field planes designed for back country use. I think they are comparable in role if not construction.

Good point. I didn't think about the prop clearance issue. A prop strike in a remote location doesn't sound like fun!

The thing to remember about prop clearance is that there is really only a difference when taxiing and a very short time on take off and landing. Once the tail is in the air, a taildragger is going to have the clearance as a tricycle. So does the extra prop clearance during taxiing make up for the lack of visibility and the decreased cross wind capability of a taildragger? I think a bigger point is burying the front wheel in a hole at speed which has a very short window of possibility in a STOL but could be nasty none-the-less. In my mind the big advantages of a taildragger are reduced complexity, reduced weight and reduced drag for a non-retract.

As a reality check there are a couple of 701's (750 predecessor) that are flown on medical missions in Africa daily. Always off dirt strips in rough conditions. They have never had a gear problem that has been mentioned in their blog. These two planes were built on site. primary by teenaged girls and are maintained by girls also. If interested you can get the full story at zenith.aero in the blogs section.

Ron

As I'm contemplating teaching, I feel a tricycle gear would be better suited, particularly for my retired target audience. But I'd also like to use it for backcountry flying, so the STOL CH750 seems to fill both criteria for me.

I look forward to seeing the quality of the first production models.

My backcountry ambition goes about this far:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn1dD_A1ojE

Factory built zenith Ch-750 have been around before. I have some hours in one they used to rent in Carson City, Nevada. Which was bought by buzz flight school and moved. As for quality it stood up well to students using it. The disadvantage as a trainer is they can be a bit harder to land. You can get your self in a lot of trouble quickly on landing if not done properly. Which can be said of almost every plane but some are more forgiving. The plane did have a few hard landings where the student landed nose wheel first and bent up the prop. They went through two composite props and switched to a wood prop. I found that climb performance suffered with the wood prop. As for the plane I fell in love with it and decided to build a 701 the older brother of the 750. I perferfered the flying characteristics and perfomence over the larger 750.

The 701/750 series has had every engine in the world hung on it, and I think that choice makes a big difference in how the airplane flies. My choice would be a Rotax 912 100hp over a heavier O-200, Jabiru, VW, etc.