Anyone of you pilots ever see/fly one of these two designs?

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/index1.html

http://www.preceptoraircraft.com/stolking.html

Interesting, to say the least.

I have flown the smaller CH701 with a Rotax 582, and one with a Rotax 912. (The factory is about 3 hours from my house in Mexico, MO; they have an "open house" every year and give demo flights.) I've inspected the CH801 and it looks to be "stoutly" built, but is of "monocoque" contruction using "thinner" aluminum "skins" and that will not take the abuses of a "Cub" or "180" when "man handed" on the ground. I was surprised with the low speed handling of the CH701 and was impressed with its STOL capabilities. (Because of its "fixed" slats, same as the 801, it does not go very fast in cruise no matter what you put in the "nose".) The Preceptor's version of the German "Storch" is an interesting design. (I have also been to their factory in North Carolina.) I have yet to see one up close, but maybe I'll get my chance at Oshkosh EAA fly-in this year. I built a "Ridge Runner" a couple of years ago (2/3 size cub design) and am experiencing "2 stroke" power for the first time in my flying career (yeah, I know that "friends don't let friends fly 2 strokes".) It's a "blast" to fly and I can get in and out of some very small fields, though not with the aplomb some of you real bush pilot have demonstrated. I owned a Maule for about 5 1/2 years and missed "Conventional" gear aircraft after owning a "spam cam" for the last 17 years. For those who may want to use an experimental for occassional "commercial" flights, FAA say you can't, legally. I'm currently looking for a PA-12 to replace a "mature" Mooney. Mags

I have looked at both aircraft and they are quite different. The 801 is more of a hauler vs the Preceptor. Personally I thought the 801 is ugly looking. I may try and build the Storch replica one day if I ever find the time. I had looked at many homebuilts over the years and kept going back to the Murphy Rebel. I had made a list of wants vs. actual needs and it seemed that the Rebel was the best compromise for me. That is what I am currently building. I currently own a 172 that I have had for nearly 20 years (it's for sale) and also have a '47 Champ 7AC with an 0-235 in it.

Keith

Thanks for the replies.

I may never get the chance to build a homebuilt aircraft, but I love the inventiveness and prctical nature of planes like the CH 801.

Mags, what was your overall impression of the 701. Did you like how it flew?

Mark

M Stevenson - I did like the way it flew! It had a center stick with a "Y" at the top and throttles on the corner of each side of the panel, so the left side pilot could fly in the same way you would in a cub (stick - right hand and throttle - left). It was also quite "roomy". Since I also fly helicopters, I was particularly interested in its low speed capability. Adding full throttle, it almost levitated off the "deck" with just a little back pressure at what I could only guess was less than 30mph (the gauge didn't regestar that low). The controls were responsive at all speeds within its envelope and the stalls were a "non-event". In fact, the "demo pilot" (designer's son) showed me how you could stall the plane to within 50ft of the ground, add power, and "light like crow" (less than fity foot roll). The cruise speed with the 582 was about 75mph, at best, and the 912 was about 80. I talked to the designer, Chris Heintz (sic) about the "fixed slats" on the front of the wing and he said he considered "moveable" ones for increased speed, but that they complicated the design without really adding much speed (there's alot of drag hanging all over the aircraft). Being a "Tricycle" gear with large tires, it was very easy to land and handle well on the ground (the gear is very sturdy). I did build a tail section at one of their work siminars and it was fairly simple to construct, but when I figured the entire cost of putting a 912 Rotax (4 cycle and preferred engine) the cost of construction, it put it in the cost range of a good Taylorcraft, Luscombe, or Champ (J-3 already too high!). I do have a friend at the local EAA chapter that has a CH701; he bought his "partially built" and installed a "Great Plains" VW (derivitive) engine to save cost. He was successful and it flys about the same as the original, but he had a "heck of a time" getting the mount and cowling worked out so it wouldn't run hot. (I'm not so sure he saved alot of money after it was all said and done.) I'm sorry that I got a bit long, your question was "how did it fly, not how it was built" Regards, Mags

Mags, I did ask how did it fly, the how it was built is just a bonus.

I see a CH 701/801 website has an inline 6 a Walter-LOM M337B. Might be a better powerplant?

Anyway, thanks for your insights.

M Stevenson - You are welcome. I have looked at the LOM engine with interest, but the weight and availability have always been "big" question whether they would actually fit in the 701 (it is limited, I believe, to 160# complete with accessories). The 801 would take most of their engines (not sure what weight they limit the engine to), and if Zenair would provide an engine mount (another "big IF")it might be a "viable" option. The engine itself will run on "tobacca juice" (78 octane advertised); and it has a small frontal profile, which will necessitate a "custom" cowl, and a prop (probably Warp Drive) would have to be matched for tourqe and ground clearance. I'm surprised Zenair is promoting an alternate engine to the Rotax. They've tried Jabiru engines with limited success (distributor and cooling problems), and promoted the Franklin engine for the 801 initially, but Franklin was not "forth coming" with the goods and parts to satify most buyers IMHO. There are many builders out there that are trying many alternative engines like: Corvairs, Rotary, VW, Ford Javiline, etc. It is hard to adapt auto engines to aircraft engines due to the "torsional effect" of a prop versus an axle while deriving "best" power (75%) in the 2500rpm range vice 3500 to 5000rpm without a "gear box". I hope that LOM becomes a good option, for the "Cechs" make some good products and are very inventive. I think if they can overcome the current distribution problems (and weight) their engines, which are aircraft engines by design, could be a big success. The experimental industry, as well as Light Sport, is just waiting for light weight, 4 stroke engine to power its "fleet" that can beat the "price points" of the Rotax while providing the same power to the prop. Every time I see a new experimental with a new engine I have to remind myself that most of these experimental manufactures are selling "dreams", knowing that less that 25% will ever see completion. (BTW, if you see build times of less than 1000 hours, double it and thank your "lucky stars" if you can make that.) Good luck in your search. Regards, Mags

The preceptor website doesn't have a lot of info on the stol king there, is it offered in a kit at all?

Kids are getting older, and in a couple more years I'll be actively looking for a LSA STOL trainer to teach them in.

I've had a couple of homebuilts and have NO desire to build anything from scratch anymore, but might consider a fast build kit of some sort or other.

Ideal at this point would be 2 seat tandem open cockpit bipe, that takes off and lands in about 300 feetish, but am also partial to the tandem configuration high wing. I do like teaching in a tandem configuration better.