Zenith CH 601 vs. CH 701, better?

[DL152279546231]

I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I was
only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high wing,
because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone out
there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it might
be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country

[Dave Covert]

Best to decide what kind of flying you really want to do... aircraft design
is a big ball of compromises. Huge lift means huge drag, huge drag means
slower top speed or a bigger engine, bigger engine means short legs or huge
tanks, etc etc There is no such thing as a home-built design that takes off
in 100ft and then cruises at 135mph on 4 gal/hr. (unless you have a design
that changes its shape based on the phase of flight it is in, the
ever-popular 'morpho-kit').

Dave

"DL152279546231" > wrote in message
...
> I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I
was
> only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high
wing,
> because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
> Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone
out
> there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
> thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it
might
> be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country

[Gig Giacona]

"DL152279546231" > wrote in message
...
> I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I
was
> only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high
wing,
> because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
> Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone
out
> there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
> thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it
might
> be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country

I'm building a 601XL and have seen 701s under construction. There is not
that much difference in building complexity.

What you need to decide is how you are going to use it. If you need the
short field and aren't planning a lot of cross country trips go with the
701. If you plan to use it as I do, which is a pretty even mix of local and
cross country go with the 601XL.

No mater which one you pick, go to the builders workshop at the factory. It
will be the best money you spend on the thing.

You can see photos of my construction at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

[[email protected]]

The other posters are right on about knowing what you want to do with plane.
One option not mentioned, though, is to use the Dedalius wing designed for the
701 that does "morph". It is a kit that you can build instead of the Zenith
wing. It has passive retractable slats, so it cleans up somewhat in normal
flight, and according to Dedalius, it will cruise 20% faster than the stock
Zenith, while maintaining the STOL characteristics. The cost to build this
wing over the Zenith is about $2000. The Dedalius site is:

http://www.dedaliusaviation.com/newdedalius/anglais.htm

Happy trails,
tom pettit


>I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I was
>only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high wing,
>because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
>Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone out
>there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
>thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it might
>be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country

[Ken Finney]

"DL152279546231" > wrote in message
...
> I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I
was
> only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high
wing,
> because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
> Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone
out
> there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
> thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it
might
> be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country

Are you aware that the January 2004 issue of Kitplanes compared the two?

[Scrappman]

Both are pretty close built to factory specs, want more speed,,, go
tail dragger on the 601XL,,, 20 more mph....easy,
Scrappman
There will be a new design at sun'n fun, gotta be there to see it,,, no
I not going to tell,,,,,,,,

wrote:

> The other posters are right on about knowing what you want to do with plane.
> One option not mentioned, though, is to use the Dedalius wing designed for the
> 701 that does "morph". It is a kit that you can build instead of the Zenith
> wing. It has passive retractable slats, so it cleans up somewhat in normal
> flight, and according to Dedalius, it will cruise 20% faster than the stock
> Zenith, while maintaining the STOL characteristics. The cost to build this
> wing over the Zenith is about $2000. The Dedalius site is:
>
> http://www.dedaliusaviation.com/newdedalius/anglais.htm
>
> Happy trails,
> tom pettit
>
>
>
>>I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I was
>>only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high wing,
>>because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
>>Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone out
>>there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
>>thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it might
>>be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country
>>

[Skyking]

(DL152279546231) wrote in message >...
> I am thinking about building either a Zenith CH 601 or CH 701.Initially I was
> only looking at the 701 because of looks, its STOL capability, its high wing,
> because of its squared off design I believe it should be easier to build.
> Drawbacks of the 701 range and fuel consumption, increased drag. Anyone out
> there have any experience with having to choose between these two? I am
> thinking the CH 701 would be fun to fly around in but it looks as if it might
> be as slow as a car on the interstate flying cross-country

I know of one that was just completed with a Suburu engine.
It is for sale in Kingman,AZ.

Skyking

[DL152279546231]

>Are you aware that the January 2004 issue of Kitplanes compared the two?

Thanks, I will check into getting the back issue