Chrisoz

Rotax 912S and Kiev prop, gives about 110kts at 5,400rpm, and 100kts at 5,000rpm…

Hi Guys, Yes, that’s a modified Zodiac fuselage, it has a raised rear turtledeck with windows and a different spar arrangement, as I fitted the wing of a BRM Bristell LSA. It‘s funny, the blue and white Zodiac in the picture above is the first CH601 I built, back in 2000. A very docile and fool proof taildragger, just sat down nicely when three pointed. The price it sold for was ridiculous… The Zodiac Special with the Bristell wing is a bit more demanding, partially because the spring undercarriage is more nervous than the bungee gear on the older models, which dampen things somewhat. Most of my aircraft, other than Valkyrie and a couple of CH601‘s, have been low wing taildraggers. I find them fun to fly, they keep you from getting complacent. Slippery and don’t want to slow down on approach without a draggy nose wheel and strut. Nailing a landing feels more rewarding than with a nose wheel. But it’s like so many things, some people prefer wine and some drink beer…

Well, this thread has drifted a bit off-topic from the Watts Bridge prang, hasn't it? As the builder/owner of a customised single seat MK25, the take off prang does make me somewhat uneasy, though my aircraft is lighter and has a tame 912S. But there definitely will be sweaty hands when the first flight comes up next year. Overall, I am really impressed how well the left wing and the general airframe stood up to the impact! What I noticed is that there seems to be a bit of confusion about split flaps versus two part flaps. The MK25 and MK 26 have two part flaps comprising a smaller inboard section, and a larger outboard section, very similar to the real Spit, but they are not split flaps. The MK26 is a development of the single seat MK25 and utilises the same outer wing panels and same max wing chord, with a slightly wider centre section. That makes the aircraft somewhat disproportionate (specifically the bloated MK26B), and with the higher weight the handling is less forgiving (more unforgiving?) than the Mk25. Re Gympie, I find it ludicrous to completely blame it on the pilot, given what the investigation has shown. No flight manual provided by Sullivan, the actual weight not recorded, papers falsified, accidents not reported that happened during flight testing, CoG God knows where, all to protect the brand and his business? He even admitted to have provided false information... While I have one of his designs, I still think Mike is a cowboy and what he says should be treated with caution. With great power comes great responsibility, and he let his customer down by not providing a product that was up to standard. Having moved to Texas, he might be clear of prosecution here, but good luck with the American lawyers and their culture of litigation! My 2 cents worth...