Thanks for your answer. As soon as I have more hours on my 701 (with Rotax 582), I will make some test flights with STOL measurements. For the time beeing, I keep the 582.
Sorry, I did not express me correctly. With "less power" I mean with a smaller engine. Instead of 100 HP say 65 and 80 HP. The very reason of my question is because some pilots think that the ideal engine for the CH 701 should be one between Rotax 582 and 912 (i.e. 65 and 80 HP). I still use the 582 but was thinking about the Hirth 3503E (70 HP with only 34 kg weight).
Just about ready to sell everything I own to buy an 801. Just awesome.
jessehart05 1 year ago
stol41 post some videos of your 701 with 2stroke engine, I have been looking for them but not been able to find 2 stroke 701's on youtube.
bandolero515 2 years ago
nice Michael, C ur birds at Natfly 2009
benmerkenhof 2 years ago 2
Thanks for your answer. As soon as I have more hours on my 701 (with Rotax 582), I will make some test flights with STOL measurements. For the time beeing, I keep the 582.
stol41 3 years ago
The early 701's used 65 and 80 hp (Rotax 582 and 912UL) with impressive results (though they we also lighter).
sche1nz 3 years ago 2
Sorry, I did not express me correctly. With "less power" I mean with a smaller engine. Instead of 100 HP say 65 and 80 HP. The very reason of my question is because some pilots think that the ideal engine for the CH 701 should be one between Rotax 582 and 912 (i.e. 65 and 80 HP). I still use the 582 but was thinking about the Hirth 3503E (70 HP with only 34 kg weight).
stol41 3 years ago 2
What's the point? If you're demonstrating STOL performance you might as well use full power.
stolflyer 3 years ago
It would be interesting to know the effect of less power on short take-off. Sure the run will be longer, but how much?
stol41 3 years ago
WOW!!!
801pilot 3 years ago 2