Cirrus in LSA as of this morning. But not with a new design

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Cirrus Design is entering the LSA market. At 9:30 this morning they
unveiled, appropriately hidden beneath a parachute, their Cirrus SRS. The
aircraft will be produced in conjunction with Fk Lightplanes based in
Speyer, Germany, with production facilities in Poland. The aircraft is a
low-wing two-place side-by-side aircraft powered by a a 100 HP Rotax 912S
engine. First deliveries are expected in approximately one year.

Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as the FK-14
model. Alan Klapmeier, president of Cirrus, said "We're going to Cirrus-ize
the airplane a bit to create what we believe is the best aircraft for the
LSA market." He went on to say, "We believe it's important for every
aircraft manufacturer to grow the market to bring more people into flying
and that's why we decided to bring an LSA into our family of aircraft." For
more information, visit www.cirrusdesign.com or www.fk-lightplanes.com

[buttman]

On Jul 23, 2:24 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Cirrus Design is entering the LSA market. At 9:30 this morning they
> unveiled, appropriately hidden beneath a parachute, their Cirrus SRS. The
> aircraft will be produced in conjunction with Fk Lightplanes based in
> Speyer, Germany, with production facilities in Poland. The aircraft is a
> low-wing two-place side-by-side aircraft powered by a a 100 HP Rotax 912S
> engine. First deliveries are expected in approximately one year.
>
> Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as the FK-14
> model. Alan Klapmeier, president of Cirrus, said "We're going to Cirrus-ize
> the airplane a bit to create what we believe is the best aircraft for the
> LSA market." He went on to say, "We believe it's important for every
> aircraft manufacturer to grow the market to bring more people into flying
> and that's why we decided to bring an LSA into our family of aircraft." For
> more information, visitwww.cirrusdesign.comorwww.fk-lightplanes.com

wow this lsa thing is really starting to take off

when I first heard it announced back in '03 or something (whenever it
was), thought it'd go the way of the recreational certificate

[[email protected]]

buttman > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2:24 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
> > Cirrus Design is entering the LSA market. At 9:30 this morning they
> > unveiled, appropriately hidden beneath a parachute, their Cirrus SRS. The
> > aircraft will be produced in conjunction with Fk Lightplanes based in
> > Speyer, Germany, with production facilities in Poland. The aircraft is a
> > low-wing two-place side-by-side aircraft powered by a a 100 HP Rotax 912S
> > engine. First deliveries are expected in approximately one year.
> >
> > Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as the FK-14
> > model. Alan Klapmeier, president of Cirrus, said "We're going to Cirrus-ize
> > the airplane a bit to create what we believe is the best aircraft for the
> > LSA market." He went on to say, "We believe it's important for every
> > aircraft manufacturer to grow the market to bring more people into flying
> > and that's why we decided to bring an LSA into our family of aircraft." For
> > more information, visitwww.cirrusdesign.comorwww.fk-lightplanes.com

> wow this lsa thing is really starting to take off

> when I first heard it announced back in '03 or something (whenever it
> was), thought it'd go the way of the recreational certificate

The sport pilot is what the recreational should have been in the
first place; the only thing going for the recreational is the slightly
reduced training cost.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Kingfish]

On Jul 23, 5:24 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:

> Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as the FK-14
> model.


Neat looking airplane. I read they have to slow it down from 130kt to
120kt to conform with LSA rules. If that's just a matter of re-
pitching the prop (ground adjustable?) it shouldn't be too hard to get
that 10kt back. Or am I oversimplifying here?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kingfish wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:24 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as
>> the FK-14 model.
>
>
> Neat looking airplane. I read they have to slow it down from 130kt to
> 120kt to conform with LSA rules. If that's just a matter of re-
> pitching the prop (ground adjustable?) it shouldn't be too hard to get
> that 10kt back. Or am I oversimplifying here?

Probably not.

[Dave[_5_]]

I saw the plane today at the Cirrus display (somehow missed it
yesterday). I can sum up my impression of it in one word: WOW! I'd say
it is the best looking Light Sport aircraft I have seen, and
definitely fits in with Cirrus' image and product line. Just my .02
worth.

David Johnson

[Denny]

On Jul 25, 12:09 am, Dave > wrote:
> I saw the plane today at the Cirrus display (somehow missed it
> yesterday). I can sum up my impression of it in one word: WOW! I'd say
> it is the best looking Light Sport aircraft I have seen, and
> definitely fits in with Cirrus' image and product line. Just my .02
> worth.
>
> David Johnson

The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
break there will be a fresh market...

denny

[Phil]

On Jul 23, 4:24 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Cirrus Design is entering the LSA market. At 9:30 this morning they
> unveiled, appropriately hidden beneath a parachute, their Cirrus SRS. The
> aircraft will be produced in conjunction with Fk Lightplanes based in
> Speyer, Germany, with production facilities in Poland. The aircraft is a
> low-wing two-place side-by-side aircraft powered by a a 100 HP Rotax 912S
> engine. First deliveries are expected in approximately one year.
>
> Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as the FK-14
> model. Alan Klapmeier, president of Cirrus, said "We're going to Cirrus-ize
> the airplane a bit to create what we believe is the best aircraft for the
> LSA market." He went on to say, "We believe it's important for every
> aircraft manufacturer to grow the market to bring more people into flying
> and that's why we decided to bring an LSA into our family of aircraft." For
> more information, visitwww.cirrusdesign.comorwww.fk-lightplanes.com

Nice plane. And the empty weight of the FK-14 is 626 pounds, which
means it has a useful load under LSA rules of 694 pounds! And that
includes a steel safety cage around the passenger compartment and a
ballistic chute. It is pretty clear that composite construction is
the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

[Jim Logajan]

Denny > wrote:
> The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
> certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
> break there will be a fresh market...

Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you can
already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm

But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets tougher.
Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I know of at US
$65k:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
(Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )

Here's one at $70k:
http://www.usjabiru.com/jabiru_calypso.htm

There are a bunch of kits that allegedly have sub-1000 hour build times
that can be had for under $45k. (The Savannah kit for example can be had
for under $45k and allegedly built on the order of about 300 to 400 hours.)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Denny > wrote:
>> The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
>> certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
>> break there will be a fresh market...
>
> Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
> can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
> http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm
>
> But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
> tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
> know of at US $65k:
> http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
> (Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )
>

I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Denny > wrote:
>>> The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
>>> certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
>>> break there will be a fresh market...
>>
>> Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
>> can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
>> http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm
>>
>> But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
>> tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
>> know of at US $65k:
>> http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
>> (Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )
>>
>
> I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.

You're right - except for the different wings (the Savannah has 3
variations available and the wing is longer than the 701), different
fuselage (the Savannah cabin is slightly larger, skins are corrugated, and
the two planes have different lengths and heights), and different empennage
(Savannah has a conventional horizontal stabilizer and conventional 2-piece
vertical tail while the 701 has an inverted horizontal stabilizer and a
single piece full-flying vertical tail/rudder), they are EXACTLY THE SAME!

Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-wing
STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy shape?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Denny > wrote:
>>>> The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
>>>> certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
>>>> break there will be a fresh market...
>>>
>>> Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
>>> can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
>>> http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm
>>>
>>> But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
>>> tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
>>> know of at US $65k:
>>> http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
>>> (Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )
>>>
>>
>> I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.
>
> You're right - except for the different wings (the Savannah has 3
> variations available and the wing is longer than the 701), different
> fuselage (the Savannah cabin is slightly larger, skins are
> corrugated, and the two planes have different lengths and heights),
> and different empennage (Savannah has a conventional horizontal
> stabilizer and conventional 2-piece vertical tail while the 701 has
> an inverted horizontal stabilizer and a single piece full-flying
> vertical tail/rudder), they are EXACTLY THE SAME!
>
> Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
> wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
> shape?

Sure they modified it somewhat. But come on, for all intents the same damn
plane.



Following is the translation of an editorial from the French magazine
EXPERIMENTAL/FOX ECHOS, May/June 2000 issue. It addresses the issue of R&D*
we are experiencing more and more.

NON-CONFORMING COPIES
By Gabriel Gavard

"Chris Heintz and sons, designers and manufacturers of the Zodiac CH 601 and
STOL CH701 series of aircraft (built from plans only, from partial or from
complete kits by homebuilders), are getting less tolerant of supposedly
"improved" pirated copies of their designs. Zenith Aircraft’s internet
homepage recently added a new link identifying rebel copies of their
aircrafts originating from Brazil, Poland and Italy. The company has been
sending updates and cautionary notices to the aviation press on a regular
basis regarding these "new" machines, clearly derived from the CH 701 or CH
601, clearly unauthorized.

"The principle cause spurring the spread of these copies on the new
light-plane market is not just the undeniable success of these two designs –
now commonly registered as ultralights in many countries. A prime
contributing factor has been the availability of complete blue-prints and
assembly manuals for all components aircraft in question from Zenith
Aircraft. This intentional move by Chris Heintz has allowed hundreds of
aviation enthusiasts around the world to build and fly their own aircraft,
on a budget.

"Making these construction plans available, while not profitable, was a
generous move by Heintz in "the spirit of homebuilding". It is also having
dire commercial repercussions: The designer’s gesture has now been
dishonored and misused by a number of unscrupulous manufacturers who, by
their very actions, attest to their own inability to conceive and engineer
their original aircraft. Naturally, each of these nevertheless had the
expertise to then "improve" on the original design.

"The motivation for the modifications has been varied: Changes to avoid
"copyright" infringements; advanced or complete assemblies to meet market
demands (ready-to-fly, custom modifications, etc.); and "improved"
performances, often sadly based on strokes of ingenious intuition by novice
builders not yet fully aware that every airplane is a sum of compromises…

"Chris Heintz engineers his airplanes to well-known stringent standards.
Every component and flight characteristic is conceived to work in harmony
with the whole from the outset. The wings, fuselage and tail; the controls,
the cabin and the rest form that whole which can be appreciated in its
entirety. Modify just one, let alone several, of these elements without
reviewing the whole and clearly, the machine as a unit will have been
tainted…"

* R & D: Research and Development, but also sometimes known as ‘Rip-off
and Duplicate’.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
> wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
> shape?

Oh, and one other thing. In 2001, the design gross weight of the STOL CH 701
was increased to 1,100 lbs. from 950 lbs. by redesigning the wing spar and
numerous other structural components. Nearly overnight, copies were
subsequently marketed with a gross weight increase to 1,100 lbs. - with no
apparent design or structural changes to justify the gross weight increase

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Phil" > wrote

> It is pretty clear that composite construction is
> the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

Not necessarily. You can build just as light with aluminum, steel tube, or
wood. Just look at the 601 and 701, or Kitfox. There are examples in wood,
also.

I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for their LSA
offering. It does not make sense.

Sure, they want to make it rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
a middle ground.
--
Jim in NC

[Phil]

On Jul 25, 5:58 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Phil" > wrote
>
> > It is pretty clear that composite construction is
> > the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.
>
> Not necessarily. You can build just as light with aluminum, steel tube, or
> wood. Just look at the 601 and 701, or Kitfox. There are examples in wood,
> also.
>
> I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for their LSA
> offering. It does not make sense.
>
> Sure, they want to make it rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
> a middle ground.
> --
> Jim in NC

Well the Kitfox is fabric covered so I would expect it to be lighter.
But you are right about the 601 and 701. The 701 has an empty weight
of 580 pounds, although that doesn't include a safety cage or
ballistic chute. Since it has a configuration very similar to the
Cessna 162, it really makes you wonder why the Cessna comes in at 830
pounds. It must be built like a tank. Maybe they should have called
it SkyPanzer!

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
>> wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
>> shape?
>
> Sure they modified it somewhat. But come on, for all intents the same
> damn plane.

If they are both the same plane, then they should fly the same way. Yet
both manufacturers explicitly claim otherwise in their specs. I don't see
how they can both be the same "for all intents" and yet different at the
same time.

There appears to be no question (in my mind) that the fuselage shape (and
its internal structure?) and design of the landing gear appear to be have
been taken/stolen from the 701.

On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not a
CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business decisions on the
Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little to improve the 701 kit
for years - until the Savannah came out.

This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably priced
(he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD) comes close to
that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can find to matching his
requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes
in at $80k.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-
>>> wing STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy
>>> shape?
>>
>> Sure they modified it somewhat. But come on, for all intents the same
>> damn plane.
>
> If they are both the same plane, then they should fly the same way.
> Yet both manufacturers explicitly claim otherwise in their specs. I
> don't see how they can both be the same "for all intents" and yet
> different at the same time.

ICP made some changes to the wing. Many will say they improved the aircraft
and I'm not going to argue that because they may have. That doesn't disprove
that it looks like they made their modifications while they had a copy of
the 701 plans sitting there in front of them.


>
> There appears to be no question (in my mind) that the fuselage shape
> (and its internal structure?) and design of the landing gear appear
> to be have been taken/stolen from the 701.
>

That's good otherwise I would have been concerned about the outcome of the
vision portion of your next medical. :)

> On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not a
> CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business decisions
> on the Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little to improve
> the 701 kit for years - until the Savannah came out.

Check out the new AMD Patriot that was announced at OSH. It is the next
generation 701. Please note though that now kit or plans were announced for
it. That's probably because of the way the 701 plans were copied.

I don't know when the Savannah came out. But the 2001 increase in GW was a
pretty significant improvement and Zenith has continued to increase the
quality of thier kits since I've began dealing with them in 2002. Leet me
ask you this. If Piper hadn't improved the wing on the Cherokee would that
have given Cessna the right to copy it and put a better wing on it?



>
> This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably
> priced (he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD)
> comes close to that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can
> find to matching his requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too
> pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes in at $80k.

Yes and the new Zenith Patriot LSA will be RTF at about $100K as well. That
ought to tell you something. How can one company produce an aircraft that
much cheaper than all the rest? You can't blame USA labor costs because some
of those $80K-$100K planes are coming out of places like the Czech Republic.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not
>> a CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business decisions
>> on the Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little to improve
>> the 701 kit for years - until the Savannah came out.
>
> Check out the new AMD Patriot that was announced at OSH. It is the
> next generation 701. Please note though that now kit or plans were
> announced for it. That's probably because of the way the 701 plans
> were copied.

I've Googled for info on the Patriot and gone to AMD's web site and can't
find any formal mention of it. Nor any mention on any news sites covering
OSH. Closest I could find is a news item from 2005 on Heintz working on a
"CH 750" S-LSA model, which may be AMD's Patriot:

http://www.zenithair.com/news/ch750.html

> I don't know when the Savannah came out. But the 2001 increase in GW
> was a pretty significant improvement and Zenith has continued to
> increase the quality of thier kits since I've began dealing with them
> in 2002. Leet me ask you this. If Piper hadn't improved the wing on
> the Cherokee would that have given Cessna the right to copy it and put
> a better wing on it?

So long as no trademarks, patents, or copyrights are violated I don't
think there is any legal protection for designs per se. So if none of the
above apply, then the answer to your question is "yes." The ethical,
moral, and marketing consequences are, no doubt, sometimes less
charitable to such actions.

>> This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably
>> priced (he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD)
>> comes close to that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can
>> find to matching his requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too
>> pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes in at $80k.
>
> Yes and the new Zenith Patriot LSA will be RTF at about $100K as well.
> That ought to tell you something. How can one company produce an
> aircraft that much cheaper than all the rest? You can't blame USA
> labor costs because some of those $80K-$100K planes are coming out of
> places like the Czech Republic.

I don't see $65k as being terribly cheaper than all the rest. The Jabiru
Calypso-SP is a RTF composite plane that starts at $70k and it is built
in Australia (I think). North American Sport Aviation sells the Savage
RTF starting at $54k (built in the U.S. I believe). And I believe the
EuroFox is available RTF starting around $60k.

[Ken Finney]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Denny > wrote:
>>>> The best way to bring in the new pilots, etc., is to have an LSA,
>>>> certified and ready to go, for $45K out the door... At that price
>>>> break there will be a fresh market...
>>>
>>> Technically, LSA can include the heavier powered parachutes and you
>>> can already buy them "ready-to-fly" for under US$45k:
>>> http://www.steelbreeze.ca/pricing_CDN.htm
>>>
>>> But no doubt you mean traditional fixed-wing aircraft - which gets
>>> tougher. Here are a couple of the lowest cost ready-to-fly models I
>>> know of at US $65k:
>>> http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.060107.htm
>>> (Main web page http://www.skykits.com/ )
>>>
>>
>> I does reduce the cost when you steal the design.
>
> You're right - except for the different wings (the Savannah has 3
> variations available and the wing is longer than the 701), different
> fuselage (the Savannah cabin is slightly larger, skins are corrugated, and
> the two planes have different lengths and heights), and different
> empennage
> (Savannah has a conventional horizontal stabilizer and conventional
> 2-piece
> vertical tail while the 701 has an inverted horizontal stabilizer and a
> single piece full-flying vertical tail/rudder), they are EXACTLY THE SAME!
>
> Seriously though - which parts are you saying they stole? The high-wing
> STOL concept itself? Use of pulled rivets? Or the ugly boxy shape?

Here is my understanding:
A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to use as
military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of building the planes
and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a company in that Country, but
forgot to limit the terms of the license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big
time by not limiting the terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale.
The license changed hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP.
After evaluating the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed
the Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing the
Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> On the other hand, one can buy a ready-to-fly S-LSA Savannah but not
>>> a CH-701, as far as I know. ICP has made some good business
>>> decisions on the Savannah while Zenith appears to have done little
>>> to improve the 701 kit for years - until the Savannah came out.
>>
>> Check out the new AMD Patriot that was announced at OSH. It is the
>> next generation 701. Please note though that now kit or plans were
>> announced for it. That's probably because of the way the 701 plans
>> were copied.
>
> I've Googled for info on the Patriot and gone to AMD's web site and
> can't find any formal mention of it. Nor any mention on any news
> sites covering OSH. Closest I could find is a news item from 2005 on
> Heintz working on a "CH 750" S-LSA model, which may be AMD's Patriot:
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/news/ch750.html
>


Here's a link with a photo. http://mostlyflying.blogspot.com/


>> I don't know when the Savannah came out. But the 2001 increase in GW
>> was a pretty significant improvement and Zenith has continued to
>> increase the quality of thier kits since I've began dealing with them
>> in 2002. Leet me ask you this. If Piper hadn't improved the wing on
>> the Cherokee would that have given Cessna the right to copy it and
>> put a better wing on it?
>
> So long as no trademarks, patents, or copyrights are violated I don't
> think there is any legal protection for designs per se. So if none of
> the above apply, then the answer to your question is "yes." The
> ethical, moral, and marketing consequences are, no doubt, sometimes
> less charitable to such actions.


The plans for the 701 are copyrighted. Before a copy of those plans go out
they buyer signs an agreement that they will not copy the plans and that
only one aircraft will be built. So either ICP broke that agreement and the
copyright that was on the plans or they used a bootleg copy of the plans.



>
>>> This all relates to Denny's point: the plane has to be reasonably
>>> priced (he set $45k) and ready-to-fly. Nothing from Zenith (or AMD)
>>> comes close to that price point. The Savannah is the closest I can
>>> find to matching his requirements - but at $65k still ~50% too
>>> pricey. The AMD Zodiac XL comes in at $80k.
>>
>> Yes and the new Zenith Patriot LSA will be RTF at about $100K as
>> well. That ought to tell you something. How can one company produce
>> an aircraft that much cheaper than all the rest? You can't blame USA
>> labor costs because some of those $80K-$100K planes are coming out of
>> places like the Czech Republic.
>
> I don't see $65k as being terribly cheaper than all the rest. The
> Jabiru Calypso-SP is a RTF composite plane that starts at $70k and it
> is built in Australia (I think). North American Sport Aviation sells
> the Savage RTF starting at $54k (built in the U.S. I believe). And I
> believe the EuroFox is available RTF starting around $60k.

The Calypso starts the but I'd bet the majority that are sold are sold with
a a lot of the extras. Plus Jabiru are using an engine that they build
themselves so there is a little more room for profit.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ken Finney wrote:
>
> Here is my understanding:
> A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to
> use as military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of
> building the planes and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a
> company in that Country, but forgot to limit the terms of the
> license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big time by not limiting the
> terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale. The license changed
> hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP. After evaluating
> the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed the
> Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing
> the Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.

Good story and you'd think I would have heard or read it in the almost 6
years I've been a Zenith builder and talking to a bunch of Zenith builders.
DO you have a cite for it? If so it will end a lot of coversations.

[Ken Finney]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ken Finney wrote:
>>
>> Here is my understanding:
>> A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to
>> use as military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of
>> building the planes and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a
>> company in that Country, but forgot to limit the terms of the
>> license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big time by not limiting the
>> terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale. The license changed
>> hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP. After evaluating
>> the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed the
>> Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing
>> the Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.
>
> Good story and you'd think I would have heard or read it in the almost 6
> years I've been a Zenith builder and talking to a bunch of Zenith
> builders. DO you have a cite for it? If so it will end a lot of
> coversations.
>

Interesting, because I've seen different pieces of it in the 4 or 5 years
that I've been subscribing to the 701 and Savannah groups on Yahoo, plus I
might have filled in some of the details from conversations I've had with
Eric, the head of Skykits. I'll search through the archives in the
Savannah Yahoo group, that is probably the best bet. As far as I know,
Zenith has never taken legal action against ICP or Skykits, which I think is
somewhat telling. In any event, having done a lot of walking between 701s
and Savannahs to compare them, while they LOOK similar, there are more
differences between them than similarities.

[Ken Finney]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is my understanding:
>>> A South American country (Columbia?) wanted to buy completed 701s to
>>> use as military trainers. Heintz didn't want the headache of
>>> building the planes and exporting. Heintz licensed the design to a
>>> company in that Country, but forgot to limit the terms of the
>>> license. Basically, Heintz screwed up big time by not limiting the
>>> terms of the license, or prohibiting its resale. The license changed
>>> hands several times, and finally ended up with ICP. After evaluating
>>> the design, ICP decided they could do better, and designed the
>>> Savannah. Comparing the 701 to the Savannah is a lot like comparing
>>> the Ford Model T to the Ford Model A.
>>
>> Good story and you'd think I would have heard or read it in the almost 6
>> years I've been a Zenith builder and talking to a bunch of Zenith
>> builders. DO you have a cite for it? If so it will end a lot of
>> coversations.
>>
>
> Interesting, because I've seen different pieces of it in the 4 or 5 years
> that I've been subscribing to the 701 and Savannah groups on Yahoo, plus I
> might have filled in some of the details from conversations I've had with
> Eric, the head of Skykits. I'll search through the archives in the
> Savannah Yahoo group, that is probably the best bet. As far as I know,
> Zenith has never taken legal action against ICP or Skykits, which I think
> is somewhat telling. In any event, having done a lot of walking between
> 701s and Savannahs to compare them, while they LOOK similar, there are
> more differences between them than similarities.
>
>

From a post in Yahoo's Savannah group (message #2744) by a George Tamvakis:

"Just To shine a little light on the Savannah /701 deal. I talked with Chris
Hintz at Sun-N-Fun in 2003 when I took my Savannah there for display and he
came over and looked it over , he spend over an hour looking at it and
finally I asked him how my plane that was so similar to his design came
about. His response was that in the late 80's a year or so after he designed
and built the 701 he was approached by a Colombian company to built and sell
701's to the Colombian army so he gave them permission to copy and built
701's in Colombia the deal went bad a year or so later and the Colombians
continued to built and modify the 701/Savannah and because he gave them
permission there was nothing he can do now , also after a number of years a
design is not copy writer anymore."

From message #2743:
"A designer in Columbia claims to be the originator of the MXP740 and his
first flight is within a plus or minus a year of the CH701. See

http://www.airandina.com/eng/modelos.htm

you will also see the 601 called a 640. And

http://www.aeroalpina.com/mxp740.htm

for the same thing from the same folks with a different company name.
However, most interesting is this page.

http://www.airandina.com/eng/historia.htm

You will see a four place "Zenith" and a bunch of aircraft that look very
familiar but with new names. The 740 Savannah was introduced sometime
between 1985 and 1990 and is either an improved 701 or the 701 is a
simplified 740???

Anyway, ICP was the European distributor for the 740 and the site claims the
"stole" the design and caused the failure of the company in Columbia.
However, reading the number of failures and restarts, I suspect that the
company failed and ICP found themselves with the rights to manufacture the
Savannah and set up a first rate parts production facility.

There are a great number of CH701 copiers around the World and Zenith has a
brief list with pictures on the web pages. I don't think the Savannah is
mentioned and who came first, the chicken or the egg, has eluded me. If I
had to guess, I would look at all the ripped off designs the Colombian has
in his history. The point is, Zenith does a lot of complaining, but no legal
action against anybody. This is also strange for an original designer."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ken Finney wrote:

Very good links. Thanks for the story. So while it may be legal that doesn't
make it moral.

[Ken Finney]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ken Finney wrote:
>
> Very good links. Thanks for the story. So while it may be legal that
> doesn't make it moral.

My guess is (and I have nothing to base this on), is that the contract
signed was in Spanish, and Heintz didn't have a lawyer who read Spanish
review it. Hindsight is always 20-20.

[Kingfish]

On Jul 25, 6:43 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
> > I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for their LSA offering. It does not make sense. Sure, they want to make it rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
> > a middle ground.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Well the Kitfox is fabric covered so I would expect it to be lighter.
> But you are right about the 601 and 701. The 701 has an empty weight
> of 580 pounds, although that doesn't include a safety cage or
> ballistic chute. Since it has a configuration very similar to the
> Cessna 162, it really makes you wonder why the Cessna comes in at 830
> pounds. It must be built like a tank. Maybe they should have called
> it SkyPanzer!- Hide quoted text -
>

Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

[Ken Finney]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 25, 6:43 pm, Phil > wrote:
>>
>> > I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for
>> > their LSA offering. It does not make sense. Sure, they want to make it
>> > rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
>> > a middle ground.
>> > --
>> > Jim in NC
>>
>> Well the Kitfox is fabric covered so I would expect it to be lighter.
>> But you are right about the 601 and 701. The 701 has an empty weight
>> of 580 pounds, although that doesn't include a safety cage or
>> ballistic chute. Since it has a configuration very similar to the
>> Cessna 162, it really makes you wonder why the Cessna comes in at 830
>> pounds. It must be built like a tank. Maybe they should have called
>> it SkyPanzer!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
> fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
> Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
> reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
> goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>

Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like "Indefagitable" too.

[Kingfish]

On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:

> > Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
> > fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
> > Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
> > reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
> > goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>
> Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
> public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?
>
> Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like "Indefagitable" too.- Hide quoted text -
>

Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already. Still not seeing how composites are any less maintainable by
flight school A&Ps - unless there's some issue with long term weather
exposure from outdoor tiedowns?

BTW, you *did* mean Indefatigable right?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish > wrote:

>On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
>
>> > ...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>>
>> Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".
>
>Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
>already.

Cessna 175....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175

Ron Wanttaja

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kingfish wrote:
> On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
>
>>> Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
>>> fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why
>>> wouldn't Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they
>>> had a reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with
>>> the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>>
>> Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
>> public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?
>>
>> Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like
>> "Indefagitable" too.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
> already. Still not seeing how composites are any less maintainable by
> flight school A&Ps - unless there's some issue with long term weather
> exposure from outdoor tiedowns?
>


Buick used the name Skylark for what was a very blah car.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish >
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
>>
>>>> ...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>>>
>>> Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".
>>
>> Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
>> already.
>
> Cessna 175....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?

[John[_1_]]

On Aug 2, 10:54 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish >
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
>
> >>>> ...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>
> >>> Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".
>
> >> Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
> >> already.
>
> > Cessna 175....
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175
>
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There were some variants that were named. Off the top of my head, I
recall the "Commuter" and the "Aerobat", there might be others.

Take care . . .

John

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


>
> I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?

Yep, it's the Commuter.

[Ken Finney]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
>
>> > Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
>> > fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
>> > Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
>> > reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
>> > goofy "SkyCatcher" name?
>>
>> Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
>> public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?
>>
>> Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like "Indefagitable"
>> too.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
> already. Still not seeing how composites are any less maintainable by
> flight school A&Ps - unless there's some issue with long term weather
> exposure from outdoor tiedowns?
>
> BTW, you *did* mean Indefatigable right?

My thinking is that an FBO in Resume Speed, Iowa is a lot more likely to
have an A&P on staff that is used to sheet metal repair than one that is
versed in composite repair.


Yes, "Indefatigable". Interesting, there are a lot of official places on
the web that mis-spell it the way I did.

[Montblack]

("Newps" wrote)
>> I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?

> Yep, it's the Commuter.


I've always liked the 152(II), too <g>

<http://new.photos.yahoo.com/landof10klakes/album/576460762322803945/photo/294928803262362356/30>
One of our Young Eagle pilots @ ANE in his Cessna152(II)


Paul-Mont

[John[_1_]]

On Aug 2, 6:17 pm, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>
> >> I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?
> > Yep, it's the Commuter.
>
> I've always liked the 152(II), too <g>
>
> <http://new.photos.yahoo.com/landof10klakes/album/576460762322803945/p...>
> One of our Young Eagle pilots @ ANE in his Cessna152(II)
>
> Paul-Mont

groooaaaaannnnn . . . let it be resolved . . . never read this stuff
before first cup of coffee.