STOL Plans

"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:


"Lou Parker" wrote in message

Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/

That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.

Why, so their respective lawyers can get rich?

The reason why no one has filed a lawsuit in such a case, aside from Deldo's
argument that lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make a living, is that an
aircraft's unique looks are not proprietary. Its name might be but not its
appearance.

Remember how H-D tried like hell, but in vain, to get an exclusive on the
sound of its engines? They needn't have worried. Every once in a while I
see a bike looking to be a Harley but the cheap shape of the breather cover
and the tenor farting of its engine always give it away as a piece of crap
from the orient.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:53:06 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:


"Lou Parker" wrote in message

Take a look at the Savannah, the numbers are impressive
http://www.sky-rider.net/

That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.

Why, so their respective lawyers can get rich?

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

"Jean-Paul Roy" wrote in message m...
FWIW, my understanding is that Chris Heinz sold the rights to a Brazilian
company that after experiencing some financial problems, sold those rights
to ICP in Italia.



I would really like to find out if there is truth to this. Where did
you come across this info?
Lou




That plane is such an obvious copy of the Zenith 701. I just don't
understand why Chris Hienz doesn't sue them into oblivion.

Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.

Again, thank you all for your input

Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:38:20 +1300, "M."
wrote:

Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair 100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.

Again, thank you all for your input

Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand

The beauty of the peg (over the Zen 701) is the chrome moly fuselage,
which means no "oil canning" and better surviveability and
repairability in case of a "hard landing". With the automatic slats it
is a bit faster on the same horsepower, and it is designed for a
greater FWF weight (300 lb limit) so a "real" aircraft engine can be
installed without making it into a single seater.

I was seriously thinking 701 a few years back (with a Soob) but I
found the soob was too heavy for my thinking on that plane - and the
Peg was a "similar mission".

Before you decide, check out this site:
http://bearhawkpatrol.tripod.com/
Takes off in under 250' and has a useful load of around 1000 lbs. Plans
build, tube and fabric with a aluminum wing. Uses 150 to 180 HP engine. Two
seat, tandem. It's a smaller version of this:
http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

Peter

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:38:20 +1300, "M."
wrote:

Thanks everybody for the input. I'm seriously looking at the Pegazair
100,
I't appears to have all the features that I'm looking for. I'll keep the
group posted on my descision, and I guess details of when I commence my
build.

Again, thank you all for your input

Mike Karsten
Invercargill
New Zealand

The beauty of the peg (over the Zen 701) is the chrome moly fuselage,
which means no "oil canning" and better surviveability and
repairability in case of a "hard landing". With the automatic slats it
is a bit faster on the same horsepower, and it is designed for a
greater FWF weight (300 lb limit) so a "real" aircraft engine can be
installed without making it into a single seater.

I was seriously thinking 701 a few years back (with a Soob) but I
found the soob was too heavy for my thinking on that plane - and the
Peg was a "similar mission".

I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/S...ng_Intro2.html

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am currently building a STOL King. I have a web site at
http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/S...ng_Intro2.html

Nice web content, but you really need to make your buttons labels bigger,
and with a total change of colors. The contrast is terrible. Sorry.

I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet. Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that they will get back with me later. I tried calling but it takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM their time when I am not able to call. Doesn't matter, due to never trusting a salesman (no slam on them and kind of moot considering I already bought the plans) I prefer finding someone independent of them who has built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.

Their specs say this aircraft will take off in 50 feet but no mention of whether the aircraft is lightly loaded or at gross weight or even which engine is needed for this performance. How about stall speed? Their specs say 15 MPH, I assume that is with power on and full flaps, anyone know?

Also, I found these numbers for the aircraft which differ by a large amount with what is currently on their web site: http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...ature&-nothing

STOL King — (Preceptor Aircraft Corp.); monoplane, high; conventional gear; 75-120; empty wt: 675 lbs; gross wt: 1500 lbs; fabric, tubing; seats: 2; plans: none; kit price: $17,000

Obviously, this is an old spec because their kit is now 25 thousand dollars but why would the specs change, just to meet LSA or is the airframe much lighter now? Is there anyone here who knows anything about the real world performance of this plane?

Preceptors web page for the STOL King: http://www.preceptoraircraft.com/STOL%20King.htm

If anyone else is researching this I am putting links to all of the sites I can find about the STOL King and or Storch homebuilts plus a few others on a new yahoo group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Extreme_STOL - there is no activity there but the links section of the group is full of lots of different homebuilt aircraft which will take off and land in 300 feet or less which is growing and may be helpful to others like myself who are deciding on which extreme STOL aircraft to build.

I have tried to get the opinion of CPotter (post above) and although very friendly and helpful in every other way he is reluctant to guess on the performance figures I am looking for because his project isn't finished yet. Anyone know someone who has one flying right now and how to contact them ?

Christopher wrote:
I also bought the plans for the STOL King but haven't received them yet.
Although the general specs on this aircraft are enough for me to want to
build one I have tried to get more detailed information about this
aircrafts performance by emailing Preceptor aircraft twice and they
will not respond other than to say thank you for the email and that
they will get back with me later. Phone calls to their number only
takes me to an answering machine telling me to call back at 2 PM.
Doesn't matter, I prefer finding someone independent of them who has
built this aircraft themselves to answer the questions anyway.


You need to join Preceptorgroup on Yahoo.
--
J Kimmel

www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.