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

questions on weights

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith701801-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

kenryan(at)alaska.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: questions on weights

First time poster,



I'm trying to figure out what the 701 really weighs, and looking for any tips on keeping things 

light. It would be great if some of you could post your empty weights (along with engine 

choice and anything you did that added/subtracted weight).



I also have a couple of specific questions:



1. Regarding the extended fuel option, can someone tell me the complete weight of 

upgrading to four wing tanks versus the standard two?



side issue: 701 comes with 2 X 10 gallons but how much of that is usable?



2. Did any of you weigh your plane before and then after painting? I'm curious as to how 

much weight is saved by not painting.



Thanks for help with weights



Right now I'm trying to decide between a 701 and a 750, and in order to do that, I really need 

to figure out what the "real world" useful load might be.

-- 

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-

arno7452(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: questions on weights

Ken,

My 701 EW is 605# including paint.  Rotax 912ULS.

Regards,

Ken Arnold



do not archive



---

cscsail(at)gmavt.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: questions on weights

Ken,



    My 701 has the extra fuel tanks (4 x 10) although if I had it to do 

again I probably would not have spent the time, money and extra weight on 

them. Rotax 912ULS with CZ firewall forward, bubble doors, full panel (ifr). 

electric flaps and trim.

I stuck to the plans and the only modification was to add false ribs in the 

outer wing bays to prevent oil canning. Below is a copy of my weight and 

balance after painting. I didn't weigh it before painting.

    I'm very happy with the performance!

Gordon

          ITEM                     WEIGHT               ARM           MOMENT



______________________empty weight  & CG________________



right main wheel               214                       716 

153224



left  main wheel                218                       716 

156088



nose wheel 

         178                       -686             -122108



computed CG empty         610                       307              187204





---

georgerace

Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 788
Location: Albion, MI

Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: questions on weights

Hi Ken:



I have recently finished a 701.  My empty weight was 582 pounds.  With full

fuel, 20 gals, and me on board the total weight is 882 pounds.  My CG worked

out to be 14.81, which is almost perfect.  I am running the Jabiur 2200a and

have the battery mounted on the firewall.



I did not do anything to try to reduce the overall weight.  I do have dual

sticks and an electric flaperon control.  My ELT is located in the tail.  I

have a fully equipped panel, and even a small center console with the EIS

located just below the panel.



You can see pictures at www.mykitairplane.com/MyCH701



I choose not to paint the airplane at this time.  I was told by my EAA

advisors that paint, depending on the type and number of coats, can add

between 25 and 50 pounds to the overall weight.  That seems a bit high to

me, based on the size of the aircraft.



 



--

_________________
Check out my CH-701 project at:
http://www.mykitairplane.com

sonar1@cox.net

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Santa Barbara, Ca

Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: questions on weights

My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no modifications except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 585 pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!

Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to move around on the ground, the wings are longer, it would burn more fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine, and still carries the same useful load.



Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew Sept 2005)

bobcollins42(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: questions on weights

Hi Fred,



I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However, 

useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 750 

is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this changed the 

equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting ready to order the 

rudder kit for the 750.



After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect some others may come to 

the same conclusion. Your mileage my vary. 



Bob Collins

Sunnyvale CA USA



sonar1(at)cox.net wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no modifications except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 585 pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!

 Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to move around on the ground, the wings are longer, it would burn more fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine, and still carries the same useful load.



 Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew Sept 2005)

lrm(at)skyhawg.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: questions on weights

If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as 

they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3" 

frame.  My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.  

Larry N1345L



Bob Collins wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>



 Hi Fred,



 I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However, 

 useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 

 750 is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this 

 changed the equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting 

 ready to order the rudder kit for the 750.



 After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect some others may come to 

 the same conclusion. Your mileage my vary. 



 Bob Collins

 Sunnyvale CA USA



 sonar1(at)cox.net wrote:

> 

> <sonar1(at)cox.net>

>

> My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no 

> modifications except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 585 

> pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!

> Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound 

> heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to move 

> around on the ground, the wings are longer, it would burn more fuel, 

> costs more, needs a bigger engine, and still carries the same useful 

> load.

>

> Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew Sept 2005)

>   



 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM

flicka750

Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 31

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: Re: questions on weights

 	  bobcollins42(at)gmail.com wrote: 	
		  Hi Fred,



I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However, 

useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 750 

is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this changed the 

equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting ready to order the 

rudder kit for the 750. 	




It's interesting how this debate is evolving. The entire premise for the 750 is getting a real aircraft engine, and now folks are talking about putting a Rotax in a 750. Which to me asks the question, why the 750, Deja-Vu.



I'm 5'10" 170LB. I have been wanting to build a zen-701 for years. I started a RV-9, but its real hard doing it by yourself, and tends to take 5+ years. Because I want to fly sooner in my own home-built I decided to fall back to the zen. I went ahead and ordered the rudder a few weeks ago knowing they were the same. I got the rudder this past monday, and had it finished the next day. I simply can't believe how easy it was, compared to the RV. I have the metal-101 dvd, and 1/2 the stuff from that video is now simplified with all the pre-punch #40 pilots on the rudder-kit. So know I'm ready to order my next step.



The decision 750 or 701? It's about the engine, the weight advantage is NIL, the 0.016" vs 0.020"? Now that I have worked with 0.016" ( same rudder for both is 0.016 ), it was very rigid and I had no problem, it wasn't as flimsy as I had assumed.



So the decision.



1.) The 701 is still the same price as last year $12k, the 750 is priced at the price of the 801 for last year, over $20k

2.) The 750 is on a oct back order just for the build-book, perhaps the wings will be avail in nov? The engine kits are still not priced, but its the 601 so you can guess.

3.) The 701 is a $35k airplane, the 750 is a $60k airplane, 

4.) The Mat o-200 is $20k, the rotax 912uls is $20k

5.) The 750 is 50% extra across the board, for X% improvement where X is an unknown. To date I have only seen one person here say the advantage, and that was that the 750 is/was a x-country plane, but is it? Tell that to the people at Arlington or Osh that fly 701's there.

6.) I do like the fact that the 750 has a higher structural airspeed, but dislike the loss of low speed stall, the 750 is getting very close to a C150, the whole point of the 701 is the low stall, .e.g. helicopter like performance.



I did order the 750 build-book, but its not going to get shipped for 2-3 months, there really is no idea on 750 delivery for complete kit, or partial, on partial I think they ship parts  at a time which would kill me at $200/shipment in common-carrier charges. It would be preferable to have one package sent once for $450. The back-order TODAY for the 701 is late october/november. The back-order for the 750 is a  black-hole.



In summary the 750 is 50% MORE, for 1% inc in weight, and now people are talking about putting rotax's in it, which elminates the whole reason for its existance, which was to support an engine over #180LB.



I'll say this the zen kit is a breeze to work with, after working with the RV kit, and having all the tools. It took me minutes with my air-rivet gun to rivet the rudder, and all the rivets came out perfect. I was impressed.



The zenith plans are well written, with pic's, and clear with all the caveats. The RV plans are the same, .e.g. cad-draw plus english, but the english is un-intelliglbe gibberish with no pics, and no caveats. I found with the RV that I had study the plans, there was no way to follow the procedure with their english they would have one paragraph for a 1/2 day procedure. While the zen plans have every step pictured and described in detail. Somebody at ZEN worked very hard.



I hope the 750 plans are every bit as good as the current 701, my suspicion is that it will take years to get the bugs out of the 750, given they have only worked for two years on the kit, and the 701 has been what 20 years in evolution?



I'm still open, and the above writing is to share another NEWBIE's experience with this process, I just want to fly in/out a STOL from my farm, before I die, and I fell back to the ZEN because I knew the RV wouldn't be finished until I was dead.

gburdett

Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: Re: questions on weights

Just to compare apples to pommes-The three similarly equipped kit airframes only from the website are:( All with bubble doors, elec trim, fairings)

701 $16065 

750 $19380

801 $25760

You pays your money and takes your choice.

bobcollins42(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: questions on weights

Hi Larry,



I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close 

(and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will not 

fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.



I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be 

threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the 701, 

I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is a major 

improvement.



As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and 

the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build 

may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.



Cheers,

Bob Collins

Sunnyvale CA USA



Larry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as 

 they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3" 

 frame.  My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.  

 Larry N1345L



 Bob Collins wrote:

> 

> <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>

>

> Hi Fred,

>

> I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However, 

> useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 

> 750 is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this 

> changed the equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting 

> ready to order the rudder kit for the 750.

>

> After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect some others may come to 

> the same conclusion. Your mileage my vary. 

>

> Bob Collins

> Sunnyvale CA USA

>

> sonar1(at)cox.net wrote:

>> 

>> <sonar1(at)cox.net>

>>

>> My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no 

>> modifications except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 

>> 585 pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!

>> Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound 

>> heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to 

>> move around on the ground, the wings are longer, it would burn more 

>> fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine, and still carries the same 

>> useful load.

>>

>> Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew Sept 2005)

>>

>>

>>   

>

bobcollins42(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: questions on weights

Hi Larry,



I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close 

(and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will not 

fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.



I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be 

threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the 701, 

I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is a major 

improvement.



As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and 

the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build 

may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.



Cheers,

Bob Collins

Sunnyvale CA USA



Larry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as 

 they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3" 

 frame.  My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.  

 Larry N1345L



 Bob Collins wrote:

> 

> <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>

>

> Hi Fred,

>

> I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However, 

> useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 

> 750 is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this 

> changed the equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting 

> ready to order the rudder kit for the 750.

>

> After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect some others may come to 

> the same conclusion. Your mileage my vary. 

>

> Bob Collins

> Sunnyvale CA USA

>

> sonar1(at)cox.net wrote:

>> 

>> <sonar1(at)cox.net>

>>

>> My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no 

>> modifications except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 

>> 585 pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!

>> Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound 

>> heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to 

>> move around on the ground, the wings are longer, it would burn more 

>> fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine, and still carries the same 

>> useful load.

>>

>> Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew Sept 2005)

>>

>>

>>   

>

lrm(at)skyhawg.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: questions on weights

Maybe you got too much cushion, mine is only an inch thick.  I'm 6'1", 

185 no problem.  Don't know what else to tell you, Larry



Bob Collins wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>



 Hi Larry,



 I'm glad your son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close 

 (and I'm 6'3", 200 lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will 

 not fly a plane where I would get a concussion in minor turbulence.



 I don't understand why the introduction of the larger 750 seems to be 

 threatening to many posters. I like the 701. If I could fit in the 

 701, I would probably have started on it long ago. For me, the 750 is 

 a major improvement.



 As far a costs go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and 

 the availability of mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build 

 may make the 750 cost on-par with the 701. We'll see.



 Cheers,

 Bob Collins

 Sunnyvale CA USA



 Larry wrote:

> 

>

> If you move the instrument panel 2" forward and the petals as far as 

> they will go, you will find the 701 can easily accommodate your 6'3" 

> frame.  My son-in-law is 6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 

> 701.  Larry N1345L

>

> Bob Collins wrote:

>> 

>> <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>

>>

>> Hi Fred,

>>

>> I do hope that the 750 has at least the same useful load. However, 

>> useful load isn't the only important dimension. Unlike the 701, the 

>> 750 is actually big enough inside for my 6'3" body. For me, this 

>> changed the equation from building a non-Zenith design to getting 

>> ready to order the rudder kit for the 750.

>>

>> After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect some others may come 

>> to the same conclusion. Your mileage my vary. 

>>

>> Bob Collins

>> Sunnyvale CA USA

>>

>> sonar1(at)cox.net wrote:

>>> 

>>> <sonar1(at)cox.net>

>>>

>>> My 701, with paint and the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no 

>>> modifications except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 

>>> 585 pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this plane!

>>> Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a 200 pound 

>>> heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It would be harder to 

>>> move around on the ground, the wings are longer, it would burn more 

>>> fuel, costs more, needs a bigger engine, and still carries the same 

>>> useful load.

>>>

>>> Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew Sept 2005)

>>>

>>>

>>>   

>>

 270.6.0/1604 - Release Date: 8/11/2008 5:50 AM

Ces701(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: questions on weights

Hello Listers

 Just a comment on cockpit room; I'm 6'4.5. I dropped the seat pan   when I built the plane.

 I don't remember how much I picked up probably about 1-1.5 inches. I  talked to Chris before I made the

 change. I have 285 flying hours.

 Charlie S

  

  In a message dated 8/11/2008 4:31:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  bobcollins42(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Zenith701801-List message posted by: Bob Collins    <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>



Hi Larry,



I'm glad your    son-in-law can fit in the 701. I can't...not even close 

(and I'm 6'3", 200    lbs). The issue is headroom, not legroom. I will not 

fly a plane where I    would get a concussion in minor turbulence.



I don't understand why the    introduction of the larger 750 seems to be 

threatening to many posters. I    like the 701. If I could fit in the 701, 

I would probably have started on    it long ago. For me, the 750 is a major 

improvement.



As far a costs    go, I expect with the demand and price of the 912S and 

the availability of    mid-time O-200s, the engine component of the build 

may make the 750 cost    on-par with the 701. We'll see.



Cheers,

Bob Collins

Sunnyvale CA    USA



Larry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Zenith701801-List message posted by:    Larry <lrm(at)skyhawg.com>



 If you move the instrument panel    2" forward and the petals as far as 

 they will go, you will find the    701 can easily accommodate your 6'3" 

 frame.  My son-in-law is    6'4", 240 lbs and has no problems in my 701.  

 Larry    N1345L



 Bob Collins wrote:

> --> Zenith701801-List    message posted by: Bob Collins 

>    <bobcollins42(at)gmail.com>

>

> Hi    Fred,

>

> I do hope that the 750 has at least the same    useful load. However, 

> useful load isn't the only important    dimension. Unlike the 701, the 

> 750 is actually big enough inside    for my 6'3" body. For me, this 

> changed the equation from building    a non-Zenith design to getting 

> ready to order the rudder kit for    the 750.

>

> After sitting in the 750 at Oshkosh, I expect    some others may come to 

> the same conclusion. Your mileage my    vary. 

>

> Bob Collins

> Sunnyvale CA    USA

>

> sonar1(at)cox.net wrote:

>> -->    Zenith701801-List message posted by: "sonar1(at)cox.net" 

>>    <sonar1(at)cox.net>

>>

>> My 701, with paint and    the 80 hp rotax, built with practically no 

>> modifications    except the addition of the small dynon   came in at 

>>    585 pounds, giving useful load of 515 pounds. I love this    plane!

>> Seems to me that the 750 is 200 pounds heavier with a    200 pound 

>> heavier gross, which  doesn't help anyone. It    would be harder to 

>> move around on the ground, the wings are    longer, it would burn more 

>> fuel, costs more, needs a bigger    engine, and still carries the same 

>> useful    load.

>>

>> Fred Sanford  N9701  (Flew    Sept 2005)

>>

>>

>>    = Use  lities  y  ; -->                 - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  nbsp;               - List Contribution Web Site  ;                             =========================


	


	




Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.

  [quote][b]

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: questions on weights

[quote]One of the 701s at Quality Sport Planes has an electric flap motor. When I asked why they said it was so they could lower the seat for a tall pilot. -- Craig [b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith701801-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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