Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Ch-750 versus Ch-701
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith701801-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

flicka750

Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 31

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

The debate continues. Some say the ch701 is not x-country, but people do it.



Some say that the 701 can't support a O-200, but they're out there, I have seen them.



The 750 is going to cost considerably more, and there still is little known information.



How about a real debate guys??



Is it really worth throwing away an extra $5-10K?? If so what do you get?



AMD is talking about offering a Ch-750 for $99k, which is going to becoming very close to kit-cost if you do QB, with nice panel.



How about a real debate, and some real information??

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Thats the rub isn't it .  A few inches of elbow room, a higher VNE and cruise. A quicker build for kit builders. A higher approved weight rating for the engine. A higher gross, but with about the same payload. Higher cash out-lay .... They will sell a ton of them. But to a slightly different demographic.



I'll just keep building my 701 and counting my penny's.



Kevin

_________________
“Always do what you are afraid to do.”
R.W. Emerson (1803-1882)

"Real freedom is the sustained act of being an individual." WW - 2009

"Life is a good deal...it's worth it" Feb 1969
Dorothy McCune

rvickski(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

fica750

Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will. You will be humbled by how much you thought you knew but do not. Kit or plans, the endeavor requires commitment and a long term one at that. Probably not the wisest choice if you require instant gratification. Only you can determine the value of a design suitable for you. The specs are pretty well spelled out on the Zenith site. Enough so that one should be able to make an informed choice if one is clear about ones mission.  No matter what your choice you will be throwing money at it. It may cost more than money if your spouse is less than an angel. If you want someone to tell you what to do or what you should want, don't start because you won't finish. Larry is spot on about the process being the real value and the cost comparisons. You would be best served by knowing and informing yourself.  There are many resources available to the newbie to help him define his mission, one being

 the book "kit airplane construction" .  These lists are only a small part of what is available  as an informational resource. I would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.

Roy Szarafinski

701 Corvair

---

Tommy Walker

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Anniston, AL 36207

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

I don’t want to prolong the “debate” but,  

   

I’ve found after building a 701 that I like building better than flying.  And I like to fly.  So, I’m building another 701.  I was lucky to find an abandoned kit and a used “unreal airplane engine”, Rotax 912ULS (sorry, couldn’t resist).  I think there are probably a hundred or more kits that were bought and never finished.  So the opportunity is there to build one at a reduced price.  Zenith will sell you the individual parts you may need to re-do any problems you find too.    

   

Or you can make them.  I also bought a cheap HF brake to help re-make a few smaller parts that I need from time to time.  The first 701 I built in a 10x20 garage that had a 12 inch slope in the floor from one end to the other.  I had to rub against the wings that were hanging on the walls as I built the fuselage.  It was all great fun.  Now, I have the luxury of a two-car garage to build in.  The boss is giving up her side for the duration of the project and I have LOTS of room.  Also, I don’t agonize for days about whether or not to drill or cut.  I have more confidence in my abilities (still screw up some though).    

   

If the 750 model had been available, I would have probably started to build it.  But really, the 701 does everything I want.  When I get in the sky, I have reached my destination.   Although I do have plans to fly around the Southeast for trips up to a couple hundred miles.    Price is certainly a consideration in building.  N8701, “Wing Walker” weighs 604 lbs.  That means we have 496 lbs available for fuel, pax, etc.    

   

We are going to put one of our planes up for sale in October.  Buy the one we’re flying that has 74 hours and a fresh annual, or buy the one we’re building and choose the panel and paint.  I’ll make you a good deal.   J    

   

When I first started flying our 701, I thought the 912ULS has way too much power, but now I like the fact that it is there.  That’s why I bought another 912, in excellent condition, albeit used.  I got a good deal on a well maintained Rotax.    

   

Some people seem to like to dis the Rotax, talking about all the AD’s, etc.  My Continental GO-300 had more AD’s than the Rotax.  But, I do understand that people really are just promoting their own engine choice and choose to make their decision sound better by knocking the other engine (Rotax, Suzuki, Corvair, Subaru, etc.).  I say everyone should just be happy about what they have and not bad mouth the competition to promote their decision about something else….  

   

Tommy Walker in Alabama  

Standing Down   

And definitely Do Not Archive  

   

   

       [quote][b]

_________________
Tommy Walker
N25A - Anniston, AL

gburdett

Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 13

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Re: How about a real debate, and some real information??



How about not.

ifly4fun2(at)sbcglobal.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Tommy-well said, your last sentence nailed it home.



do not archive

Art

--- On Wed, 8/20/08, Tommy Walker <twalker(at)cableone.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: Tommy Walker <twalker(at)cableone.net>

 Subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

 To: zenith701801-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 8:21 AM

 I don't want to prolong the "debate" but,

 

  

 

 I've found after building a 701 that I like building

 better than flying.

 And I like to fly.  So, I'm building another 701.  I

 was lucky to find an

 abandoned kit and a used "unreal airplane

 engine", Rotax 912ULS (sorry,

 couldn't resist).  I think there are probably a hundred

 or more kits that

 were bought and never finished.  So the opportunity is

 there to build one at

 a reduced price.  Zenith will sell you the individual parts

 you may need to

 re-do any problems you find too.  

 

  

 

 Or you can make them.  I also bought a cheap HF brake to

 help re-make a few

 smaller parts that I need from time to time.  The first 701

 I built in a

 10x20 garage that had a 12 inch slope in the floor from one

 end to the

 other.  I had to rub against the wings that were hanging on

 the walls as I

 built the fuselage.  It was all great fun.  Now, I have the

 luxury of a

 two-car garage to build in.  The boss is giving up her side

 for the duration

 of the project and I have LOTS of room.  Also, I don't

 agonize for days

 about whether or not to drill or cut.  I have more

 confidence in my

 abilities (still screw up some though).  

 

  

 

 If the 750 model had been available, I would have probably

 started to build

 it.  But really, the 701 does everything I want.  When I

 get in the sky, I

 have reached my destination.   Although I do have plans to

 fly around the

 Southeast for trips up to a couple hundred miles.    Price

 is certainly a

 consideration in building.  N8701, "Wing Walker"

 weighs 604 lbs.  That means

 we have 496 lbs available for fuel, pax, etc.  

 

  

 

 We are going to put one of our planes up for sale in

 October.  Buy the one

 we're flying that has 74 hours and a fresh annual, or

 buy the one we're

 building and choose the panel and paint.  I'll make you

 a good deal.     

 

  

 

 When I first started flying our 701, I thought the 912ULS

 has way too much

 power, but now I like the fact that it is there. 

 That's why I bought

 another 912, in excellent condition, albeit used.  I got a

 good deal on a

 well maintained Rotax.  

 

  

 

 Some people seem to like to dis the Rotax, talking about

 all the AD's, etc.

 My Continental GO-300 had more AD's than the Rotax. 

 But, I do understand

 that people really are just promoting their own engine

 choice and choose to

 make their decision sound better by knocking the other

 engine (Rotax,

 Suzuki, Corvair, Subaru, etc.).  I say everyone should just

 be happy about

 what they have and not bad mouth the competition to promote

 their decision

 about something else..

 

  

 

 Tommy Walker in Alabama

 

 Standing Down 

 

 And definitely Do Not Archive

flicka750

Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 31

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

The entire 'kit build' biz is ran by 'Quick-Build' consultants and Suppliers. The gatekeepers of all conversation shutdown any real discussion every time. None the questions I have addressed have been answered. There is no real engineering desire to understand. Just trust the 'force' and leap. Roll the craps, and land on one of three wonderful planes that Zenith has to offer. That's not science its witchcraft.



Regarding the 912 issue and real-planes. It's interesting that Van's is now selling the RV-12 that will only use the 912. Thus the argument that the 750 is for 'real-engines' while Vans with the their 'real-planes' is going in the opposite direction. I find that interesting.



To date we have learned.



1.) That the 701 is not a x-country plane or isn't, I have seen a lot of people x-country in 701's. In the true since none of Zen's STOL class aircraft are x-country, thus that subject should not even have been introduced?



2.) It took a month to learn the 750/701 had the same rudder, to date  that's about all we know. I guess the way things are done is we wait for Santa ( Uncle Heintz ) to deliver our xmas plans, and keep our mouth shut until then? [ I have had my 750 plans on order for over a month, my estimate of deliver is around xmas, my rudder is done. ]. I'm skeptical to hand over $10k or more in cash ( Zen wants 1/2 down to order in cash ), for a kit that has no back-order log time available. I'm assuming right now to just purchase the components as they come available?



3.) The purpose of the 750 was to offer an LSA with a 'real engine', its clear that Zenith with their new pricing is going head-on to Vans, yet Vans is going with the 912, and zenith is going towards the O-200. Yes, I agree its all wink/nod, nod/wink, next year both partys will flip-flop. Only 5 years ago the Rotax 912 could be had for less than $10k. The 701 kit for the same, thus it was concievable to fly for less than $20k, especially if you scratch built. Today I'm seeing people put $50k into panels. It's obvious that kit-building, and build-assist racket is a gold-mine. That said it could have all simply been east HELOC MTG money, and those days be over.



4.) We have learned that the 750 is comfy for big guys, if your not a big guy, you don't need a 750.



5.) I got into kit building a long time ago to keep the cost down. The cost of say the skycatcher ( cessna lsa ), and the RV-12 class of kit is now closely converging. The 750 is heading in the same direction. It's clear at the current rate of price increase that in 1-2 years it will cost more to build a kit plane, than to buy a new plane. Regarding 'scratch build' its a KNOWN FACT that the skin/skeleton is less than 20% of the cost of a finished plane. The 'kit' price is not where the bulk of the money goes. 4X or more is a good rule of thumb, and 6-8X is most realistic.



6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its not grandfathered like the 701.



I haven't heard any logical arguments for the 750. We know that going back to 2005 in the early Uncle-Heintz announcements it was a 'marketing' project. Like the Alarus it was going to be a certified AMD-750. Then it became a kit, I like the Alarus it feels like a very solid ch-601.



701 vs 750 - There is about 3-6% increase in dimensions, no noticeable increase in carrying weight, yet there is a 40% increase in cost. ( 750 kit is over $20k, and 701 kit can be had for $13k ). Same rudder, but 750 is said to use .020" skin, rather than 0.016". The 750 is all about using an engine over 180LB's, but at the same time the leader in 'PLANE KITS' (Van's) is moving towards the Rotax.



What I have seen so far in the 701 vs 750 debate is 100% emotion, and perhaps that is all this group is capable of, perhaps there are no engineers or scientists in this group?



Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share information. Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public zenith data-sheets, and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption that a debate and/or exchange of information could take place was asking too much??



 	  gburdett wrote: 	
		  Re: How about a real debate, and some real information??



How about not.

flicka750

Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 31

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

The implicit message here is if you ask tough questions then your not a determined builder. I don't want to even go there.



The second message is that serious people use their real names, I have a different view of the internet. I  feel its essential to not post your real-name & physical address so that  common criminals knows where they can find of thousands of dollars of aircraft tools. 



All I asked was an informed discussion about the 701 versus 750. When people mumble platitudes about trusting the 'force' and randomly picking one of the three great planes. It tells me they know nothing about the subject matter.



Like in this instance, rather than going on what a 'serious builder' you are and how 'strong and determined' you are, why don't you tell us what you know about the 701 versus the 750?

 	  rvickski(at)yahoo.com wrote: 	
		  flicka750

Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will....I would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.

Roy Szarafinski

701 Corvair

---

av8or(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Van's didn't "go" to the 912.  It was the only already "approved" LSA engine 

available at the time of design.  He still wasn't happy about it.  I'm 

hoping the Lycoming IO-233 will be an alternative since he is an OEM for 

them, but only time will tell.



John



---

rvickski(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Nothing at all, I am not second guessing my choice, I just keep building. 

 

Like in this instance, rather than going on what a 'serious builder' you are and how 'strong and determined' you are, why don't you tell us what you know about the 701 versus the 750?



rvickski(at)yahoo.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   flicka750

 Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will....I would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.

 Roy Szarafinski

 701 Corvair

 

 

 ---


	






Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199801#199801

John Bolding

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 281

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Flicka  or whoever,



With all of your drivel you finally hit on the magic paragraph.  It's a NEW 

airplane. Info will unfold slowly if past experience with Zenith is any 

indication.  You expected different just because it's a new airplane?  Do 

you expect/want Zenith to provide engineering data?  Doubtful, (and horribly 

stupid) .



What SPECIFICALLY are you looking for that you haven't already answered 

yourself? Post a list if you wish , you might get surprised, some pretty 

sharp dudes here.



As far a pricing goes it's THEIR product and they can price it wherever in 

the hell THEY want to, it's called capitalism. If it's too high for you then 

you can buy a set of plans and get busy,  you can build all of the "kit" in 

30 days of spare time if you stay off the computer. I'm tickled pink that 

plans will be available as they first said a yr ago that they wouldn't be.



Probably the only one in this group that KNOWS anything other than 3rd hand 

info is Mark and he's close enough to the source he ISN'T saying anything 

that is not yet ready for retail consumption.



 My guess is you've never started/run a company (using gobs of your OWN 

money) or designed anything from scratch, let alone tooled up for a new 

product.

I HAVE been known to make the occasional error however, if so, my apologies 

for any aspersions cast.



pot is now well stirred,



John



 	  Quote: 	
		   Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share 

  >information. Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public 

  >zenith data-sheets, and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption 

 that >a debate and/or exchange of information could take place was asking 

 too >much??

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Hi Roy,

I was perhaps a little harsh with the post on quick-built aircraft, but 

I feel they are going to be the death of experimental aircraft 

construction because of

implications of the 51% rule, current politics and the radical 

environmental lobby etc. We're making it way too easy for the regulators.

The Van's RV-12 is decidedly a 912 build because it's been constructed 

in a way that nearly prohibits any other engine, the space is integrated 

with that engine.  Cannot imagine other engines fitting the space 

without real redesign in the firewall and floor. Van's is a completely 

different approach to kit-building.

No variation. Just do it their way.

The 750 is one I'm seriously looking at from a plans build perspective 

and the reason is that it will fit any configuration of 100 hp without 

major problems. Open architecture is the term, I believe, used in 

computers.  Zenith is just tooling up and it's likely their facility 

will be a while incorporating everything for the 750.  The 701 is a 

great light plane and it fits the best definition of that category, but 

there are a lot of people putting Subaru, 0-200s and Corvair on the 701 

and not getting the kind of  intended STOL performance with these 

engines.  The 750 is lighter than a type-certified, but is a decided 

match for any of the heavy 100-hp and still provides great STOL performance.

Cross country use is decidedly a variable inside one's head.

Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com

do not archive

flicka750 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 The implicit message here is if you ask tough questions then your not a determined builder. I don't want to even go there.

 The second message is that serious people use their real names, I have a different view of the internet. I  feel its essential to not post your real-name & physical address so that  common criminals knows where they can find of thousands of dollars of aircraft tools. 

 All I asked was an informed discussion about the 701 versus 750. When people mumble platitudes about trusting the 'force' and randomly picking one of the three great planes. It tells me they know nothing about the subject matter.

 Like in this instance, rather than going on what a 'serious builder' you are and how 'strong and determined' you are, why don't you tell us what you know about the 701 versus the 750?

 rvickski(at)yahoo.com wrote:

> flicka750

> Building an airplane takes determination, tenacity and strength of will....I would like to point out that Larry, myself and the majority of serious builders use their real names on these forums as a courtesy to each other.

> Roy Szarafinski

> 701 Corvair

> ---

>     

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199801#199801

ProWash

Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Geezz, Flicka750,  

Who pissed in your Cheerios.  I'm a complete beginner at building and I was able to gather the information available at the time and make a decision about which airplane to build.  I bought a 701 kit and within a year have nearly completed it without even talking to the "Quick Build" industry.



If I can do it, anyone can.  You do have to take responsibility for for your thoughts and actions though.



If you can't do that, wait a few months and Obama will tell you which airplane to build.  If "you're" lucky.



No Fear, I only needed $150 worth of tools.

_________________
R Craig
North Central Arkansas
N701LR CH701 SP ELB
30 HRS into Phase One testing
Do Not Archive

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

see replies underlined below

do not archive



 	  flicka750 wrote: 	
		  

To date we have learned.



1.) That the 701 is not a x-country plane or isn't, I have seen a lot of people x-country in 701's. In the true since none of Zen's STOL class aircraft are x-country, thus that subject should not even have been introduced?



KM  If you fly it cross country it is a cross country airplane.



2.) It took a month to learn the 750/701 had the same rudder, to date  that's about all we know. I guess the way things are done is we wait for Santa ( Uncle Heintz ) to deliver our xmas plans, and keep our mouth shut until then? [ I have had my 750 plans on order for over a month, my estimate of deliver is around xmas, my rudder is done. ]. I'm skeptical to hand over $10k or more in cash ( Zen wants 1/2 down to order in cash ), for a kit that has no back-order log time available. I'm assuming right now to just purchase the components as they come available?

KM After the release it took me one email to find out





3.) The purpose of the 750 was to offer an LSA with a 'real engine', its clear that Zenith with their new pricing is going head-on to Vans, yet Vans is going with the 912, and zenith is going towards the O-200. Yes, I agree its all wink/nod, nod/wink, next year both partys will flip-flop. Only 5 years ago the Rotax 912 could be had for less than $10k. The 701 kit for the same, thus it was concievable to fly for less than $20k, especially if you scratch built. Today I'm seeing people put $50k into panels. It's obvious that kit-building, and build-assist racket is a gold-mine. That said it could have all simply been east HELOC MTG money, and those days be over.

KM actually the guys at the Oshkosh Zenith booth recommended the Rotax.



4.) We have learned that the 750 is comfy for big guys, if your not a big guy, you don't need a 750.





KM personal opinion, buy what you want.



5.) I got into kit building a long time ago to keep the cost down. The cost of say the skycatcher ( cessna lsa ), and the RV-12 class of kit is now closely converging. The 750 is heading in the same direction. It's clear at the current rate of price increase that in 1-2 years it will cost more to build a kit plane, than to buy a new plane. Regarding 'scratch build' its a KNOWN FACT that the skin/skeleton is less than 20% of the cost of a finished plane. The 'kit' price is not where the bulk of the money goes. 4X or more is a good rule of thumb, and 6-8X is most realistic.





KM The 750 is a new design and as such the engineering costs are factored in at todays prices, This is not the case with the 701.



6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its not grandfathered like the 701.





KM got me there.





701 vs 750 - There is about 3-6% increase in dimensions, no noticeable increase in carrying weight, yet there is a 40% increase in cost. ( 750 kit is over $20k, and 701 kit can be had for $13k ). Same rudder, but 750 is said to use .020" skin, rather than 0.016". The 750 is all about using an engine over 180LB's, but at the same time the leader in 'PLANE KITS' (Van's) is moving towards the Rotax.





KM see oatmeal comment below.



What I have seen so far in the 701 vs 750 debate is 100% emotion, and perhaps that is all this group is capable of, perhaps there are no engineers or scientists in this group?







KM seems to me that all the emotion is coming from you.





Perhaps debate is the wrong word, perhaps the word should have been share information. Perhaps nobody in this forum knows anything more than public zenith data-sheets, and google searches, and thus the implicit assumption that a debate and/or exchange of information could take place was asking too much??





KM back to the oatmeal comment below.



 	  gburdett wrote: 	
		  Re: How about a real debate, and some real information??



How about not.   	
	
Z

kenryan(at)alaska.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be "approved")

Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?

What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?

I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?

Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective of someone 

deciding between the 701 and the 750.

Ken Ryan

On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   > 

 > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its

 not grandfathered like the 701.

 > 

-- 

Ken Ryan

http://kenryan.com

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, 

and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

The FAA "approval" that you are asking about is concerning the new interpretation of the 51% rule.

Previously the FAA would evaluate a kit to see if it fit within their interpretation of the 51% rule. If it did meet the letter of the rule then it was placed on a list of evaluated kits that let the DARs know that the kit already met the letter of the interpretation.

The new rules that spell out the interpretation of the 51% rule are now much more stringent. Any kit that has been previously evaluated is grandfathered in, but there is the thought that many kits that are produced now may not meet the new rules.

Remember the FAA never "approves" a kit, they only evaluate if it meets the 51% rule.

Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE

John Marzulli

http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan(at)alaska.net (kenryan(at)alaska.net)> wrote:

[quote] --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "Ken Ryan" <kenryan(at)alaska.net (kenryan(at)alaska.net)>

 Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be "approved")

 Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?

 What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?

 I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?

 Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective of someone

 deciding between the 701 and the 750.

 Ken Ryan

 On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:

 > >

 > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its

 > not grandfathered like the 701.

 > >

--

 Ken Ryan

 http://kenryan.com

 "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

 and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

[b]

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

 	  Quote: 	
		  If you can't do that, wait a few months and Obama will tell you which airplane to build.  If "you're" lucky.

	




WTF?

 John Marzulli



http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/

  



On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM, ProWash <rcraigcraig(at)yahoo.com (rcraigcraig(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "ProWash" <rcraigcraig(at)yahoo.com (rcraigcraig(at)yahoo.com)>

 

 Geezz, Flicka750,

 Who pissed in your Cheerios.  I'm a complete beginner at building and I was able to gather the information available at the time and make a decision about which airplane to build.  I bought a 701 kit and within a year have nearly completed it without even talking to the "Quick Build" industry.

  

 If I can do it, anyone can.  You do have to take responsibility for for your thoughts and actions though.

 

 If you can't do that, wait a few months and Obama will tell you which airplane to build.  If "you're" lucky.

 

 No Fear, I only needed $150 worth of tools.

 

 --------

 R Craig

 North Central Arkansas

 701 SP  Nearly Done

 Do Not Archive

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=199829#199829

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 [b]

kenryan(at)alaska.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

Thank you John for that clear, non-emotional, non-political explanation.



When will we know if the 750 meets the 51% rule?





On 21 Aug 2008 at 15:03, John Marzulli wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 The FAA "approval" that you are asking about is concerning the new interpretation of the 51% 

 rule.

 

 Previously the FAA would evaluate a kit to see if it fit within their interpretation of the 51% rule. If it 

 did meet the letter of the rule then it was placed on a list of evaluated kits that let the DARs know 

 that the kit already met the letter of the interpretation.

 

 The new rules that spell out the interpretation of the 51% rule are now much more stringent. Any 

 kit that has been previously evaluated is grandfathered in, but there is the thought that many kits 

 that are produced now may not meet the new rules.

 

 Remember the FAA never "approves" a kit, they only evaluate if it meets the 51% rule.

 

 

 Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE

 John Marzulli

 

 http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

 http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/

 

 

 On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan(at)alaska.net> wrote:

     

     

     Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be "approved")

     

     Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?

     

     What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?

     

     I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?

     

     Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective of someone

     deciding between the 701 and the 750.

     

     Ken Ryan

     

     

     

     On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:

     

     > >

     > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its

     > not grandfathered like the 701.

     > >

 

 

 

 

 --

 Ken Ryan

 http://kenryan.com

 "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

 and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


	




-- 

Ken Ryan

http://kenryan.com

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, 

and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

For the record, I did not wright that.  



do not archive.



Kevin



 	  kenryan(at)alaska.net wrote: 	
		  

On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   > 

 > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its

 not grandfathered like the 701.

 > 



	




-- 

Ken Ryan

http://kenryan.com

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, 

and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: Ch-750 versus Ch-701

NP.



I should probably add that the 701 was evaluated and met the 51% rule, therefore it any builder who does not use significant assistance should have no problem obtaining an airworthiness certificate.

 

As for the 750, the FAA has suspended kit evaluations until the new rules are finalized.



Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE!

John Marzulli



http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/

 



On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan(at)alaska.net (kenryan(at)alaska.net)> wrote:

[quote] --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "Ken Ryan" <kenryan(at)alaska.net (kenryan(at)alaska.net)>

 

 

Thank you John for that clear, non-emotional, non-political explanation.

 

 When will we know if the 750 meets the 51% rule?

 



 

 

 

 On 21 Aug 2008 at 15:03, John Marzulli wrote:

 

 >

 > The FAA "approval" that you are asking about is concerning the new interpretation of the 51%

 > rule.

 >

 > Previously the FAA would evaluate a kit to see if it fit within their interpretation of the 51% rule. If it

 > did meet the letter of the rule then it was placed on a list of evaluated kits that let the DARs know

 > that the kit already met the letter of the interpretation.

 >

 > The new rules that spell out the interpretation of the 51% rule are now much more stringent. Any

 > kit that has been previously evaluated is grandfathered in, but there is the thought that many kits

 > that are produced now may not meet the new rules.

 >

 > Remember the FAA never "approves" a kit, they only evaluate if it meets the 51% rule.

 >

 >

 > Good luck and DO NOT ARCHIVE

 > John Marzulli

 >

 > http://701Builder.blogspot.com/

 > http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/

 > http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/

 >

 >

 > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan <kenryan(at)alaska.net (kenryan(at)alaska.net)> wrote:

 >     --> Zenith701801-List message posted by: "Ken Ryan" <kenryan(at)alaska.net (kenryan(at)alaska.net)>

 >

 >     Can some of you elaborate on the comment below? (that the 750 may not be "approved")

 >

 >     Is there really some danger of the 750 not being "approved" by the FAA?

 >

 >     What are the requirements? If it hasn't already been "approved" why not?

 >

 >     I would think that if it's not "approved" they couldn't sell it?

 >

 >     Any enlightenment would be appreciated, particularly from the perspective of someone

 >     deciding between the 701 and the 750.

 >

 >     Ken Ryan

 >

 >

 >

 >     On 21 Aug 2008 at 14:41, kmccune wrote:

 >

 >     > >

 >     > > 6.) We still don't know if the 750 will be approved by the FAA, as its

 >     > not grandfathered like the 701.

 >     > >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 > --

 > Ken Ryan

 > http://kenryan.com

 > "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

 > and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 

 

 

 

 



--

 

Ken Ryan

 http://kenryan.com

 "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

 and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith701801-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum