Series 7 vs. CH-750 (again?)

[SkyPirate]

haven't seen the video's,....but personally I have landed and took off as short as 75 foot in a kitfox..but that doesn't mean that everyone can ,..no not bragging that I am a better pilot .. I will also fly upside down under a bridge ,( potential for a "that guy's nut's" classification ).. not all will do that either,..that's why I said pilot experience regardless of what is forecasted,..it's the individuals experience in the specific aircraft that dictates how long or short a landing or take off will be unless they want the factory rep there for every take off or landing situation to perform it.
not being maliscious saying this ..just being honest just because it's said it can be done ..doesn't mean everyone can do it
when watching an aircraft being advertised as being the best at anything ..it's not the average C-150 pilot at the helm ..it's an experienced pilot that has practiced the maneuver many times in the aircraft that is being advertised.

I'll agree with the point that if you plan on leaving the plane out in the weather ..the CH would do better as for it being all aluminum,.with exception,..you have to go out and drain the water out of the tail after a hard rain,..there is a CH based at Cuba MO airport ..outside all the time ..after a hard rain you can drive by and see the tail sitting on the ground every time,..so it's not really weather proof either,..a little moisture and a little corrosive agent and instead of replacing the fabric ..your rebuilding the whole plane . I think the mechanism for the flying vertical surface is the reason for the water getting in the tail,..

doing my best to stay neutral in comparison too,.. but ..the kitfox outweighs the CH in my mind,.. in too many ways

Chase

[akflyer]

In addition to what the rest of the guys have said, the CH does not really fly... it is so friggin ugly the earth repels it

[SkyPirate]

ROFLMAO~!! akflyer ..you owe me a coffee ~!!! I spit mine out all over my monitor while reading your post cause I was laughing so hard..but your right ~!!!!

getting paper towels ha ha ha~!!

Chase

[BajaCat]

Thanks for all of the replies thus far. I should clarify that I would get a tri-gear Series 7 (if that makes a difference). It doesn't sound like I have SkyPirate's level of skill, but with my limited experience the airplane does seem to matter. I used to own a Cessna 182 with a STOL kit and I now regularly fly (but do not own) a Flight Design CTLS. There's no question I could land shorter in 182 than the CTLS, although the CTLS isn't as bad as some people seem to think. At this point I'm mostly concerned about issues with building the Kitfox. I would get the quickbuild wing, but I didn't see many other quickbuld options on the Kitfox website.

Thanks

[SkyPirate]

I wouldn't call it experience with me Bajacat,..I'm just nut's is all..been known to fly light aircraft in 70 mph winds,..land in roads and pull up to stop and shop store pumps for gas,..attempted to land on top of a moving tractor trailer but too many freekin wires on the road I chose,..i have land on the roof of a building and on a sand bar in front of the Kennedy mansion off Cape Cod.( little black jeeps came out and greeted me .so ..I'm just nut's is all

Chase

[SkyPirate]

OK on a more serious note I have been to the Zenith factory n Mexico Missouri ..actually just went up there last week and spent a $1000.00 on some aluminum for a project,..while I was there ..I got a tour ..they have a nice set up,..I am also a member of an EAA chapter that is building a 601,..what got me asking myself questions about the CH's after seeing the wing construction ..some of the bays between the ribs are 22 inches apart ,.and from I was told ...020 6061 T-6 is used for the skins and basically the whole wing construction,..some that own CH's have said the wing beer cans,..meaning the surface actually moves in and out like a beer can if you had squeezed it ..in flight due to thermals and or rough air etc..
The CH that was parked out on the ramp actually showed sign of this with the top flying surface looking like a dented can between the ribs,..I'm sure in flight while the wing is creating lift ..the surface is pulled out so the wing is uniform,..and 6061 T-6 is pretty resilient ,..the 601's actually use the top skin of the wing as the aeleron hinge,..advantage no need for gap seals on top or hinges for the control surface,..the CH's I believe actually use hinges.

I'm not trying to force judgement..just giving a heads up on what I did see concerning the wing construction..you can make your own analysis,.
along with the strut design,.it not being a solid strut ..but split on both leading and trailing struts at the jury strut location and not having an adjustment on either end of the strut.

This evidently is all fine,..or the FAA would ground the CH's as they did the 601's concerning wing construction until the AD's where completed.
the 601's AD was the bellcrank support inside the wing for the aeleron.

you might also want to research recent aircraft accidents in Eldon MO 2 with in 2 weeks of each other,..1 for sure was a CH


Chase

[DesertFox4]

Time to get back on topic guys. Don't make me put my Administrator hat on. It cuts off my circulation.



To address the original question in this thread: I have not flown a CH-750 (nor do I really care to). I have a friend that loves to fly in my Kitfox anytime he gets the chance and he'd been talking up the great STOL capabilities he'd seen in videos of the CH for two years but had never flown one. My brother arranged to get him a flight in a brand new one with the 912S Rotax and same prop as I fly with so the comparison was spot on. When he returned after a 45 minute flight he didn't say much. I think it was out of respect for the owner/builder. Nothing was said the whole hour we flew back to our airport. I finally had to ask him what he thought after we landed and tied down. He said he was very disappointed. It didn't take off much quicker than my Kitfox and climbed to altitude slower and was noticeably slower in cruise. I think he said it was extremely noisy inside but don't hold me to that one.
Not much of a decision in his book or mine for that matter. A beautiful aircraft that does everything very well or a not so pretty one trick pony.
Anyone that flies their Kitfox anywhere near max performance knows it does STOL as well as any aircraft in that market.
Go Kitfox and you'll never ever have to feel like you made the wrong decision. Also people will actually compliment you on its good looks and ask you if they can get a ride in it.

[Av8r3400]

STOL must be a consideration to you, judging by this thread. Remember, if you are thinking STOL performance, a 3300 rpm engine will not get you there.

I have a buddy with a Jabaru 2200 on his Avid mark IV, normally an awesome STOL performing design. The Jab requires such a short prop for the high RPM (3400) it's take-off and climb performance is terrible. Easily triple my take off distance and half my climb from my 80 HP Rotax powered KF-IV. He should be able to to much better than me...

The 900 series Rotax is perfect for these planes. LIGHT weight and high HP turning the prop at a relatively slow RPM.

Variety is the spice of life, so I say go for the UL motor. I will pretty much guarantee you will not get the performance you want and will be unhappy. Just don't blame the Kitfox design, though.


Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a "high" oil temp on your ULS?

[Av8r3400]

Rotax says the redline temp for oil is 260° + with synthetic oil... I run 220-230° as a norm.

[rwaltman]

CH-750 ugly? Yes!!! - In a tie for 1st (or is it last?) place with a Shorts Airvan.
( http://www.pink.at/bilder/fde321.jpg )

Still, a very impresive STOL airplane.

R.W.