Johno rv8

Just talked to a guy who has flown the CH701 and the CH750 both powered by a 100hp rotax. He said the performance was similar, when asked what he meant by similar, he said the CH701 can cruise at a 105 mph and the CH750 96 mph.

What sorts of flight control modifications do the Brits insist upon, I wonder?

At the core of the problem was longitudinal

stability. Broadly speaking, it’s regarded as a

good thing if the more you pull (or push) the

stick from the trim position, (a) the faster (or

slower) the aircraft goes, and (b) the larger the

forces are. The Savannah was fine at doing the

first, but there weren’t enough centring forces,

and a low-hours pilot could accidentally apply

lots of up or down stick without realising it.

BMAA test pilot Tim Cripps spent a long time

getting the figures for all this, and helping to

devise a simple get-around that didn’t involve

too much modification.

The simple fix may not look too elegant,

but it works and, since it involves a length of

bungee and a jamming cleat, Thruster owners

will feel right at home!

Anyway, finally the modifications were

sorted out, so now we can go and fly

Paul Dewhurst did the flight testing on the Skyranger I flew, so I guess the aileron set up is correct. In that case he must be EXCEPTIONAL to win the world championships as the Savannah is a much nicer aircraft to fly in my opinion. That said the Savannah had to have several modifications to its flight controls to be certified in the UK.

Regards Johno.

Greg.

Thanks for the info on the ailerons, I will pass it on to the two guy's on the field with Skyrangers.

Hi Milton.Do yourself a favour and have a look at a Skyranger Swift. Similar in many ways to the Savannah in that they are high wing with a useful load of about 270 KGs with a Rotax 912 engine. A very easy aircraft to fly, very good short field performance and a little faster than the Savannah in the cruise. Mine cruises at just over 90 kts at 5000 rpm and at 97 kts at 5250 rpm. In Europe they have won the world ultralight championship something like 6 times in the last 10 years and there are good reasons why.

 

Regards

 

Greg

The

Eightyknots.

The 750 has a lot more headroom than the 701 and exudes space, the seating position was good for me as everything just seemed right (rudder, control's, instrument panel). As for the Savannah the seating position just did not seem as natural but saying that I liked the Savannah a lot, maybe the lack of upward visibility compared to the 750/701 had something to do with it.

I am in the same position trying to choose between the Savannah and the Ch701/750. I have flown the original Savannah and the VG version they both flew really nice with little to no adverse yaw. Here in the UK, they classified as a micro light and are limited to 450 kg MTOW this been limited by the sum of two 86 kg pilots one hours fuel at max continuous power and the ZFW, which limits the engine to a Jabiru 2200A. I have no issues with Jabiru engines but think the slower turning prop of the Rotax 912 suits the stol characteristics of these aircraft better.

I went to Sun and Fun this year and got to sit in the Savannah VG and XL then the Ch701 and Ch750. The clear winner for me was the Ch750, the reasons for my decision were, the ease of access, luggage area, pilots seating position which felt like I was wearing the aircraft, the excellent outside visibility and in the UK they are a group A aircraft so are not limited to 450 kg (Ch 750 not yet approved in the UK) . I have never flown Ch701/750 so cannot comment on the flying qualities but as I stated earlier have flown the Savannah which really impressed me.

Conclusion if the Ch750 flies as good as the Savannah it is my choice especially if I could remove the slats, but if it does not then the Savannah XL as a group A (not limited to 450 kg) would get my vote.

On another note got my PPL at Archerfield 1986