LANDINGS: Flap 0 landings are pretty similar to a light G.A. aircraft like the C152. With 45 kts set on approach and sufficient power to maintain a normal glideslope flare is made at normal height and power reduced but at a slower rate than in the Cessna to compensate for the lower inertia. With the throttle closed as the mains touch the nosewheel will self lower even with the stick hard back. Flap 30 landings are more demanding and the dynamics change at a much faster rate. With the extra drag one must be aware of the combined effects of low inertia and reduced elevator control at idle thrust. For a “normal” flap 30 landing, approach at 40 kts with sufficient power to maintain the desired approach path, (about twice as steep as for a GA aircraft.)  Be alert to any wind gradient near the ground and correct with smallish thrust adjustments. Flare and note the aircraft response being ready to add power should the nose drop. Leave the power on until touchdown unless the speed  is really excessive. If the throttle is closed below 30 kts whilst still in the air the aircraft will land and park all in the one operation!

There are two ways of doing short landings in the 701 and which method used is dependent on the mission. It is possible to approach with a high angle of attack, moderate power and at speed below 30 kts. This results in a very flat approach but could be useful if approaching over water onto a short paddock. Closing the throttle at any point signifies the end of the flight so it takes judgement to make sure the intersection of the glide slope and the ground is where you want to land so the thottle can be closed on touchdown and not before. This is a technique in which C180 pilots are well versed but it doesn’t work any where as well in the 701 and so far I haven’t been able to achieve anything but very flat approaches using it. Reducing power to steepen the approach drops the nose and approach stability is lost. I also think an engine failure at this stage would be irrecoverable.The other end of the spectrum is the approach I had to employ at my own strip. This had 80’ high trees on short final bordering a river, the width of a narrowish river, and then my strip, all 120m of it. The technique here, (recommended by Zenair) is to approach with flaps 30, idle thrust, and 50 kts. The body angle and rate of descent takes some getting used to. 50 kts is maintained to about 30’ and a positive flare carried out being absolutely ready to heap on the coals if the sink isn’t being arrested. If it all works out the speed bleeds off like crazy in the flare and “impact” occurs as elevator response decays. If I misjudged and had to power up I had to do a go around. With no wind and using moderate braking would bring me to a halt with 30m to go, (enough for a take off!) Landings were consistently horrible as there was no time for fineness and lowering the tyre pressue to 8 p.s.i. helped a lot, but at the end of the day I really found the margin a bit slim. Since then I have been able to extend the strip out to 217m and the neighbour kindly let me top the trees to 40’.  This results in my approach being intially steep at 50 kts at idle thrust, flattening out at about 50’ applying power and continuing at 40 kts on a 6 deg glideslope and landing normally. This is a comfortable operation. As a matter of interest the 701 is one of a very few landing limited aeroplanes even though the advertising does not mention it. This means that if it can get in it can certainly get out again. It would probably be more balanced with a slightly lighter less powerful engine and my guess would put the Rotax 618, 75 h.p.  engine about spot on. Heavier engines will only increase the landing distance and more power won’t do too much in the way of a speed increase. With the drag this thing has got 70 kts must surely be hull speed!

STOL COMMENTS: As mentioned above, the 701 is a landing limited airplane. Landings then are the most important area for STOL 701 operations. Published landing roll figures are very misleading as getting to the touchdown point is where all of the skill and distance used up resides. It is an amazing revalation to find, even in the 701, in calm air, crossing the the barbary hedge with an adaquate margin and effecting a nice touchdown, that the touchdown is still 50m into the paddock even though it only felt like 20 feet when sitting in the seat doing it. Operating a short strip with the throttle closed and speed bleeding near the ground I have a little rule. If I lose elevator control above 10 feet above the ground I correct it with addition of  appropriate power. If the elevator control loss occurs below 10 feet above the ground I just accept it, the nose drops, all 3 wheels hit simultaneously but not too hard. I run the tundra tyres quite flat, (8 psi) to give more cushioning. The main wheel tyres have 4 short self tapping screws that go through the rim and into the bead of the tyre to prevent tyre creep during heavy braking.  Our other strip is 180m long but has clear approaches with a fence at only 1 end. That is quite an easy operation. In my humble opinion any strip with a fence at each end less than 200 m long requires the pilot to be well versed with the STOL capabilites of the 701 and I believe it’s absolute minimum length, in still air, fenced at both ends, level, at sea level and moderate temperatures is 100m with no margin for error. The STOL takeoff in the 701 is easy. It’s just open the throttle and pull back , it leaps in the air, and keeps going. However it is a very easy aeroplane to get a bit overconfident in and believe that it can do any thing, but of course it can not. It is still just as capable of having a severe attack of gravity the same as any other. To pull it off the ground and climbout steeply without regard to windshear or engine failure could be a recipe for disaster. At least one pilot has inadvertantly put a 701 into a spin near the ground through self admitted absolute clumsy flying caused by complacence, ie full rudder at 35 kts. He stopped the spin and started to pull out at 60’, (now brilliant flying!) but was unable to arrest the sink and it squashed in doing a lot of damage and hurting his bottom. In my opinion, STOL landings, i.e. any landing that is dependent on the correct judicious use of power to be successful, are really quite specialised and depending on the strip into which one is trying to stuff it, the pilot skill required varies disproportionally from say 3 out 10 for a long field to about 10 out of 10  for an exceptionally short one. A low experience pilot wanting to buy a 701 to operate a really short field on the strength of the advertised figures  could be in for disappointment.
STOL TAKE OFFS  Every take off in a CH701 is a STOL take off, but sometimes a take off may need to be a little more STOL than normal.  The 701 can be dragged into the air at impossibly low speeds and at alarming body angles. This can be really handy for getting out of long wet grass, mud or slush. The down sides are:

So here's a little tip that works better in a 701 than just about any other airplane.  Remain in ground effect by carefully lowering the body angle, being careful to not let the airplane sink back on to the ground. The reflected downwash cancels the drag, (bit of an oversimplification but will give the idea,) and acceleration to best climb speed will be astonishing. Then continue climb. If you have used flap for the take off, don't attempt to retract it in ground effect unless it is well practiced as the retraction pressure on the lever can easily result in the flap being dumped and cause a ground strike.
 

ENGINE FAILURE ON TAKE OFF  40/400 are the figures to have before you can consider a turn back to the field. 40 m.p.h. and 400 feet. Even with these number you have to be on the ball. Lower the nose, roll into the turn maintaining your placarded engine out speed. Keep the turn balanced and fly smoothly.
 A turn back at 300 feet can be achieved if you use an unorthodox departure. At 100 feet after takeoff, turn right and then left again to parallel the centreline about 200 feet to the right of centreline. If the engine quits at 300 feet you are now effectively "downwind" with less distance to touchdown and only a 180 degree turn to make. This could be worth a shot if your strip has real hostile terrain ahead. Remember though that there are many other factors, e.g. wind, length of airstrip, obstacles, familiarity with aircraft and recent practice that will have a significant effect on the outcome. Landing straight ahead under perfect control is nearly always the best option.

SUMMARY:  I have owned and part owned a few aircraft over the years, amongst them a C150, C172, PA28 and AA1B but this is really the first one that turned the dream into a reality. This is very subjective I know as it depends on the role one has for their aircraft. One passenger commented in flight whilst noting it’s low cruise speed, “This is boring”.  Well at my age, boring is good, as is the peace of mind knowing it can be put down nearly anywhere, with its C185 size tyres, soft wet paddocks, mud and sand present no problem. It’s fabulous in strong gusty crosswinds, is easy to fly in “normal” mode and is simple to maintain. It takes my wife, myself, our minature dog, 2 folding bikes, tent, stove food and camping gear, full fuel and we still have heaps of kilos to spare. I have test flown the 100 hp P92 Tecnam Echo and found it fabulous. Really much nicer to fly than the 701, quieter and much faster. But for what I need, (a  “bush plane”) unfortunately, the P92 can’t deliver. So, if it ever came to a replacement for the 701, at this stage it would have to be another 701!