EAA flyin census info, actively flying homebuilt #'s??

I am thinking of getting into a new homebuilt project but I wonder where to get
accurate numbers of how many of a particular design are flying or where I might
see some examples of the kit I am thinking of building. Does the EAA keep a
record of the kits flown into the big fly-ins Oshkosh or Sun-n-Fun? The FAA? Do
they keep track of the kit manufacturer or just lump everything into amatuere
built.
Specifically, I wonder how many Zenith CH 701's (STOL) are flying and what has
their accident history been?

Anthony
Memphis TN

On 15 Feb 2004 01:42:40 GMT, (DL152279546231)
wrote:

I am thinking of getting into a new homebuilt project but I wonder where to get
accurate numbers of how many of a particular design are flying or where I might
see some examples of the kit I am thinking of building. Does the EAA keep a
record of the kits flown into the big fly-ins Oshkosh or Sun-n-Fun? The FAA? Do
they keep track of the kit manufacturer or just lump everything into amatuere
built.
Specifically, I wonder how many Zenith CH 701's (STOL) are flying and what has
their accident history been?

Anthony
Memphis TN


ask chris heintz. I'm sure he has a web site. a direct question should
get a direct answer.

(DL152279546231) wrote:


Specifically, I wonder how many Zenith CH 701's (STOL) are flying and what has
their accident history been?

Anthony
Memphis TN


Anthony,

Chris Heintz and his Zenith aircraft designs have an excellent
reputation in the homebuilt community. The Zenith Aircraft Company
web site claims over 500 CH 701 flying throughout the world. The FAA
registry database shows 151 registered in the USA but those would only
be ones in which the builder chose to include "701" in the aircraft
make description. Remember, the builder *is* the manufacturer and can
put in anything for manufacturer and model on the FAA registration
form.

The NTSB accident database has 11 reports (plus one preliminary) for
aircraft with "701" in the model field. Pull them up and you'll see
that they are all clearly Zenith CH 701. Below, I've summarized those
accidents and I've also added engine make/model and pilot hours
information that is not included in the NTSB web site reports. The
only accident that remotely suggests a problem with the Zenith CH 701
design is the 4-03-90 accident ("inadequate fuel drain design").
Reading between the lines, however, I doubt that there was truly a
problem with the fuel drain. On the other hand, if there was indeed a
problem with *Zenith's* fuel drain design I'm confident that Zenith
would have addressed and fixed the problem long ago. After all, that
accident occurred some 14 years ago.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

------

7-10-03 - Suzuki 993cm (four stroke, water cooled, three cyl, auto
engine) - The flight was to be a pre purchase test flight. The pilot
was the prospective purchaser. The pilot said the engine faltered
after takeoff. The owner said pilot faltered.

6/6/03 - Cont A-75 - Engine failure. The pilot/builder stated, "...
engine quit because a jet came loose in the carburetor".

3/1/01 - Subaru - Engine failure. The pilot/bulder said he suspected
"detonation" was the cause.

5/14/00 Rotax 582UL (two stroke, two cylinder, liquid cooled) - Fuel
exhaustion due to pilot's improper fuel management.

8/21/99 Rotax 912 (four stroke, four cylinder, liquid cooled) - Pilot
had 110 hours total time and claimed 4 hours in make/type. This was
the third of his test flights in his newly completed airplane. The
first and second test flights lasted approximately 30 minutes and
ended without incident. From the NTSB narrative: "He was on a long,
low, final approach, and the airplane bounced twice and headed towards
a corn field. He applied full power to go-around but the airplane
collided with the tops of trees adjacent to the field, then the
ground. A witness reported seeing the airplane on a low approach and
believed the airplane would land short of the runway."

8/11/97 AMW - (a 2 stroke outboard boat engine) Partial loss of power
after takeoff at 50 ft AGL and total loss of power during the
crosswind-downwind turn.

8/11/96 Cont C-85 - Total loss of power. Pilot had 1085 hours total
time and 176 hours in make/type. Pilot said he switched tanks from
left to right while on final. Post accident inspection revealed the
left tank was empty and the right tank was full.

9/29/93 Rotax 582LC - Total loss of engine power for undetermined
reasons. Pilot hat 542 total time and 96 hours in make/type.

6/12/93 Rotax 582 - Pilot had 338 hours total time, 60 hours glider
time, and 2 hours in make/type. NTSB probable cause: PIC's failure to
maintain aircraft control. The PIC's lack of total experience in
aircraft type was a factor.

3/13/93 Rotax 582UL - Pilot had 800 hours total time, and 180 hours in
make/type. Takeoff was from a backyard strip. NTSB probable cause:
The pilot's inadequate compensation for wind conditions and failure to
maintain directional control after lift-off. Factors related to the
accident were; The unfavorable wind condition and proximity of the
power line.

4/3/90 Rotax 532 - Pilot had 192 hours total time and 14 hours in
make/type. NTSB probable cause: Manufacturers's inadequate design of
the fuel drain. Contributing factor was PIC's disregarding the fuel
supply which resulted in fuel exhaustion.

"David O" wrote in message
...
(DL152279546231) wrote:


Specifically, I wonder how many Zenith CH 701's (STOL) are flying and
what has
their accident history been?

Anthony
Memphis TN


Anthony,

Chris Heintz and his Zenith aircraft designs have an excellent
reputation in the homebuilt community. The Zenith Aircraft Company
web site claims over 500 CH 701 flying throughout the world. The FAA
registry database shows 151 registered in the USA but those would only
be ones in which the builder chose to include "701" in the aircraft
make description. Remember, the builder *is* the manufacturer and can
put in anything for manufacturer and model on the FAA registration
form.

The NTSB accident database has 11 reports (plus one preliminary) for
aircraft with "701" in the model field. Pull them up and you'll see
that they are all clearly Zenith CH 701. Below, I've summarized those
accidents and I've also added engine make/model and pilot hours
information that is not included in the NTSB web site reports. The
only accident that remotely suggests a problem with the Zenith CH 701
design is the 4-03-90 accident ("inadequate fuel drain design").
Reading between the lines, however, I doubt that there was truly a
problem with the fuel drain. On the other hand, if there was indeed a
problem with *Zenith's* fuel drain design I'm confident that Zenith
would have addressed and fixed the problem long ago. After all, that
accident occurred some 14 years ago.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

------

7-10-03 - Suzuki 993cm (four stroke, water cooled, three cyl, auto
engine) - The flight was to be a pre purchase test flight. The pilot
was the prospective purchaser. The pilot said the engine faltered
after takeoff. The owner said pilot faltered.

Good reason not to let someone else fly your airplane. We have a trike at
a local airport with this engine. It is flown regularly by the owner who
installed it.

6/6/03 - Cont A-75 - Engine failure. The pilot/builder stated, "...
engine quit because a jet came loose in the carburetor".

Most likely this was the result of someone's carelessness. The Stromberg
carburetor, which is usually fitted to the A-75 Continental, has a main jet
which will come loose and starve the mixture when it has not been
safety-wired.

There are quite a few accidents in the literature attributable to the loose
Stromberg jet, which someone has been tampering with, in an effort to set
the float level --- and then neglected to safety the jet.