Comment

Comment by Geoff Downy on November 11, 2011 at 9:41pm

Go with the 750 for sure !

Comment by Andre Levesque on November 7, 2011 at 1:17pm

I always like to hear positive comments on the 750's performance  as oppose to "it's ugly"  -:)

As for me...I don't find the 701/750/801  ugly....I think theyr look "Rugged"...all terrain type vehicule. 

Good to know.

 

Comment by Bob McDonald on November 7, 2011 at 12:55pm

Andre

The longer wings and lighter wing loading results in turbulence, thermals, wind having longer leverage to move the cockpit? I am not real familar with the Bush Caddy. It was a comment made by two Bush Caddy owners after I gave them a demo flight in my CH750 on a very windy day. The CH750 was solid and brushed aside turbulence, one of the other pilots experience was positive enough he ordered a CH750 kit. :>)

Comment by Andre Levesque on November 7, 2011 at 10:45am

Bob,

Why would there be such a difference in handling turbulence between a Bush Caddy and a CH750?

I would of thought the opposite becasue of the boxy sides of the 750 -:)

Interesting!! 

Comment by Bob McDonald on November 7, 2011 at 7:29am

The Chinnook compares to the Challenger. Even there it comes up 2nd place. I have had Bush Caddy owners remark at how the CH750 handles turbulence and high winds vs. the Bush Caddy. Keep the 0-200 and build the aircraft that suits your needs.

Comment by Mike Hammond on November 6, 2011 at 8:21pm

Thanks for the response Bob.  I did not intend to compare the two aircraft...I am probably gonna have to sell the PA28-180 soon and I came across the Chinook for a steal.  I do not have much time in ultralights, one flight each in a Challenger, a Quicksilver MX2 and an Aircam.  The Challenger and Aircam were cool, but the Quicksilver was like hearding cats through the sky!  I am familiar with the evolution of the Chinnok and I read that it actually flys pretty well.  Just wondering if I should keep my O-200 and go ahead and buy the 750 kit or pick up the brand new Chinook for a little more than half the cost of finishing the 750.  Again I know they are two different animals, but the mission would be the same, and although they would fly totally different,the performance would be roughly the same.  What say you?

Comment by Bob McDonald on November 6, 2011 at 8:08pm

Brian

Dave has about 2 - 2 1/2 inches above the head set frame on top of his head to the lexan roof of the cockpit. We just flew 6.5 hrs and he never complained about about any fit issues.

Comment by Brian Fitzpatrick on November 6, 2011 at 7:48pm

Hi Bob MacDonald: 

Can your bud Dave Ray at 6'4" actually see below window frame without ducking when flying?  How much headroom did he have?

I'm 6' and and wondering if one can easily see below window frame. 

Brian Fitzpatrick

Comment by Bob McDonald on November 6, 2011 at 6:19pm

Best part of the Chinook would be the Rotax 912 engine. The Chinook was originally a single place, then the fuel tanks was removed from the rear to make a 2 place... and the fuel moved to pods on the struts. This adversly affected the  C of G and flight handling. Adding a Rotax 912 in a high centre line thrust installation results in pitch changes when power setting is changed. Not in the same class as the CH750 so its not fair to compare the two. I have 400 hrs flying Challengers as well. Several of my Challenger buddies have move up to the CH701 / CH750 aircraft also.

Comment by Bob McDonald on November 6, 2011 at 6:11pm

The airfield I fly is grass. Take off was on the 1500 ft cross strip with 50 ft pine trees on either end. The main runway is 2000 ft grass.... with the same 50 ft pine trees on either end. Solo with only my 210 lb bulk the rate of climb is 1000 - 1200 fpm.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page