Which would make a good first plane that is cheap...or do you have a better option?

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/index1.html
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/index.html

I dunno, it depends what you want to do with it.

It also depends on what your abilities are, are you a pilot already? If not, I'd suggest getting a license in a conventionally certified aircraft first and then deciding what you want to do.

Not to sound flippant, I understand it is a serious question you are asking but it would be the same as if someone out of the blue asked if a 260 would be a good first rifle to buy, and of course the answer is "It depends, what do you want to use it for?" If he wanted to hunt grizzlys then no, it is not a good first rifle.

Yes my cart is in front of my horse...I do need to get licensed first.

I like the idea of a Corvair engine powered plane.

Just wanting a validation on what I think might be good plane for a visual of what the finish line looks like after my cart gets behind my horse

Well nothing wrong with learning before doing, but do yourself a favor and realize a corvair engine on a plane is about as practical as a 45-70 in Africa.....

Another thing regarding homebuilts, infinitely more are started than are finished and the more variables are tossed in, the bigger the disproportion gets. Tell yourself right now if you build something you'll go with one of the makers suggested engine packages.

I've had 2 engine failures, one in a VW powered homebuilt and one in a Piper Seminole. Both I made it back to the airport (the VW wasn't a total stoppage like the Piper but I only cleared the rwy threshhold by 50 feet or so)but leave the monkeying with 40 year old conversions to someone else.

from my reading the corvair owners seemed to have good reports on reliability.
one guy replaced the vw to a corvair.

Yes buying unfinished project planes is easier and less expensive but not as fun.

http://www.zenvair.com/index.html

rotax or corvair besides...what do you think of the planes?

I may be showing my age here, but wasn't the Corvair engine plagued with oil leaks?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Learn to fly and fly well before contemplating an aircraft purchase. They always cost twice as much to operate as you think they will.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
I may be showing my age here, but wasn't the Corvair engine plagued with oil leaks?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Learn to fly and fly well before contemplating an aircraft purchase. They always cost twice as much to operate as you think they will.

Most of the ones that worked had been retrofitted with "O" ring seals - stopped the leaks but pricy - $$$.

depends on what your plans are... i soloed in a piper cherokee warrior...i've owned a tripacer, a 172, a cherokee 140, and now have a cessna 310n bearcat conversion....i never wanted a home-built... impatient i guess...

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
I may be showing my age here, but wasn't the Corvair engine plagued with oil leaks?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Learn to fly and fly well before contemplating an aircraft purchase. They always cost twice as much to operate as you think they will.

Yes but the oil leaks have been fixed by using modern gaskets.

If you read about the recommended engine for the 701, it's a Rotax 912. They weigh about 125 lbs.

It's been a while since I goofed around with corvairs, but they are EASILY over 200 lbs, quite a bit over IIRC.

On top of that, the HP is going to be close to the R912S, so I see you picking up an extra 100 pounds and no extra gains. Then you have to design and fabricate your own engine mount, and now the weight and balance of the plane has changed so you have to monkey with that (sometimes you can just move the battery aft but that's your decision) And you'll have to make a new cowl since this new engine is longer than the old one.

What sort of propeller are you going to put on your new engine? You'll have to experiment with that, I'd suggest a ground adjustable pitch prop, then you don't have to buy 2 or 3 props to figure out which one works best....

Airplanes are rather complex inter-related beings, just changing something without solid reasoning that provides a benefit is not usually a smart thing to do.

FWIW, cruise speed between 80 hp and 100 hp is probably less than 6 mph. At 80 hp the plane takes off shorter than it can land so there is no reason to have extra HP for that purpose.

The engine weighs 220 lbs and mounts are manufactured. I read that the engine is very smooth running by design. maybe just polish the aluminium and use no paint, pee before flights and other weight savers.

From the website:

The Rotax 912 series engine (80 or 100 hp) is the standard recommended powerplant for the STOL CH 701. Other engine installations are not directly supported by Zenith Aircraft Co., and will affect the performance and specifications of the aircraft. Suitable engines for the STOL CH 701: 50 - 100 hp, up to 185 lbs. installed weight.

Rather than argue how to fit 220 pounds of mud into a 185 pound sack, I think these would be a better choice for a corvair conversion:

http://www.waraircraftreplicas.com/

AND they make a nice, economical first time airplane.

not really a plane reply, but
my first car was a 64 corvair monza ... as late as 1992, there was no way to fix the oil leaks... but its not a giant leak... they all leak, just like harleys... and if you check the oil, it STILL LEAKS...

Jim, a 310N? COOL!!

I own several planes including building a homebuilt. Do yourself a favor....buy a flying plane and then do your homebuilding. You have no idea how long one of these things takes unless you have built several. There is a learning curve and it starts out very slow. I have done total restorations on auto and building a plane is much more intense. It is your ASS that will be up in it and there is no short cutting. The 701 is a neat little plane but actually more of a toy than something you'ld want to fly someplace in. I looked at them years ago and they sure are ugly but preform well.

A good ol Cessna 172 is hard to beat for all around usefulness and still be fairly inexpensive to operate as far as planes go.

You can pick up a good used 172 for what it will cost to build that 701.

Also...the Rotax would definitely be my engine choice. All auto engines converted to aircraft use are a compromise and in the long run don't save much money. They also extend the build time of most homebuilts by a big margin.

I have a 172 for sale by the way.

WW

quote:

A good ol Cessna 172 is hard to beat for all around usefulness and still be fairly inexpensive to operate as far as planes go

Extremely sound advice.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

quote:

A good ol Cessna 172 is hard to beat for all around usefulness and still be fairly inexpensive to operate as far as planes go

Extremely sound advice.

Add to that advice that you can find parts off the shelf and you can get someone to work on it anywhere in the world. Now, paying for that work may be another matter!

Yeah, I haven't been around general aviation for many years, but I remember a buddy of mine had a repair shop back in 1987 who charged $1200.00 just to open a 172 up for an annual. I can only imagine what an annual costs now.