Anatomy of a STOL Aircraft:

Designing a Modern Short Take-Off and Landing Aircraft.

"Form follows function"

By Chris Heintz

The world truly seems to be smaller today, thanks in large part to aviation. This has created
a renewed interest in many of us to see what is around us, and not just to dash as quickly as
possible to a new destination. While recreational aviation certainly has its share of high-
performance (fast) aircraft, I think that what continues to draw most of us to flying is the shear
excitement, enjoyment and freedom of being at the controls of our own aircraft. We want
aircraft to give us the ability to fly cross-country, but we want to be able to see and visit the
country we’re flying over.

The popularity of aircraft like the Piper Cub has endured and grown over the years, not only
on account of nostalgia, but because these aircraft are just plain fun and easy to fly and
provide good grass field capability (most classic aircraft were developed in a time when paved
runways were rare). However, because of their age, many of these older designs do not offer
modern improvements that most of us take for granted, such as electrical systems, side-by-
side seating, all-metal construction, steerable nosewheel, etc. And of course, classic
airplanes are becoming scarce and require significant maintenance just to keep them
airworthy.

For most of us recreational pilots, we’re already where we want to be when we’re in the

air, and we therefore get the most enjoyment from flying an airplane that’s easy and fun to
fly, that provides good comfort and visibility, and that has low operating costs (who cares
about miles per gallon – we want low hourly operating costs). When we do fly cross-country,
the trip is as important (if not more) as arriving to the destination. A STOL (short take-off and
landing) airplane gives us the ability to go to more places, especially in remote areas, where
the world becomes your runway (this is an important safety feature too). With good payload,
we have the ability to haul all the bags we want (camping equipment), or amphibious floats
can give us the added capability and freedom to operate from water. Of course, a STOL
airplane also allows us the opportunity to operate the aircraft out of our own "back yard." Just
as sport utility vehicles (SUVs) have become very popular in the automotive world, many
recreational pilots are also seeking maximum utility from their aircraft.
STOL CH 801

Ultralight aircraft provide an easy and inexpensive way to experience STOL performance,
and the popularity of ultralights and other light kit aircraft has proven the demand for ‘low

and slow’ flying, but ultralights, by their very definition, have many limitations – low speed,
low payload, low comfort level, and wind limitations, to name a few of their inherent limitations.

Today, with the knowledge accumulated for over a century on aerodynamics, structural
strength, on their relation in aerolasticity (flutter), on ergonomics and with the ongoing
development of modern, efficient, reliable and lightweight engines, it is relatively easy for
almost anyone curious enough to seriously study the above fields to design a light aircraft
capable of carrying two to four occupants.

As a professional light aircraft designer and engineer I have done just that … quite a few
times. In the mid-eighties, I decided to design a light kit aircraft that combined the advantages
of an ultralight aircraft with the characteristics of a modern ‘real’ airplane. Thus I designed
the STOL CH 701 aircraft: It needed to offer outstanding short and rough field performance,
acceptable cruise performance, good cross-wind capability, excellent visibility, comfortable
side-by-side seating, and a durable all-metal airframe - that was easy to build and maintain.
The STOL CH 701 design proved to be very successful (more than 400 STOL CH 701 aircraft
flying) and I subsequently designed a 4-seat utility version, the STOL CH 801 (introduced in
1998). The two seat STOL CH 750 was introduced in 2008 to take advantage of the new
Sport Pilot category and to provide more cabin room than the original 701 and new engine
choices.

My STOL designs have sometimes been called ‘ugly’ because of their unconventional
shape. However, with form following function, a study of the unique shapes shows the
inherent beauty of these aircraft in their interesting, unique and highly effective aerodynamic
and design features. Following is an explanation of the basic design concepts that I have
applied in designing my STOL aircraft:

POWER

Overpowering an existing aircraft is the easiest way to achieve short take-off performance
(with enough power anything will take-off in a short distance!), but this requires a lot of fuel
for acceptable endurance, and is an expensive, heavy, and inefficient way to obtain STOL
performance, and does not provide good slow flight or payload due to the heavier engine
weight and/or fuel load requirement. My experience tells me that I need 60 to 100 hp for a
two-seat aircraft, or 150 to 200 hp for a four-seater capable of carrying 1,000 lbs. As an
airplane designer and builder (and not an engine manufacturer), I design aircraft around
existing and readily-available engines. For maximum flexibility and to keep costs low, a kit
aircraft must be designed to accommodate different engine types so that owners can choose
among existing (and new) powerplants.

STOL CH 750

WING

To be practical, a STOL aircraft must be able to fly at very low speeds, yet it must also offer
acceptable cross-country (cruise) performance. The next big challenge is to design a wing
with a high lift coefficient so that the wing area is as small as possible, while take-off / landing
speeds are as low as possible. Relatively short wings make the aircraft easier to taxi,
especially when operating in an off-airport environment with obstructions, and requires less
space for hangaring, while being easier to build, and stronger (less weight and wing span to
support).

The stall of the wing occurs at the highest lift coefficient on an airfoil, when the airflow can no
longer go around the airfoil’s nose (leading edge) and separates from the upper wing surface.
Figure 1 – Stalled Airfoil

To delay the stall to a higher lift coefficient, many airplanes are equipped with flaps (on the
wing trailing edge), and a few designs use slats (on the wing leading edge) to further lower
the stall speed. The following diagram illustrates the use of flaps and leading-edge slats to
increase a wing’s lift coefficient.

Figure 2 – Lift Coefficient vs. Airfoil Angle of Attack

The lift coefficient can thus be effectively doubled with relatively simple devices (flaps and
slats) if used on the full span of the wing.

Leading Edge Slats

Leading edge slats prevent the stall up to approximately 30 degrees incidence (angle of
attack) by picking up a lot of air from below, where the slot is large (Figure 3), accelerating
the air in the funnel shaped slot (venturi effect) and blowing this fast air tangentially on the
upper wing surface through the much smaller slot. This "pulls" the air around the leading
edge, thus preventing the stall up to a much higher angle of incidence and lift coefficient. The
disadvantage of the leading edge slat is that the air accelerated in the slot requires energy
which means higher drag. As the high lift is needed only when flying slowly (take-off, initial
climb, and final approach and landing) the temptation for the designer is to use a retractable
device which closes at higher speeds to reduce drag.

Figure 3 – Leading Edge Wing Slats

This can be done in different ways: The slats can be mounted on roller rails so that at high
angles of attack they are automatically pulled out by the airstream around the leading edge,
and in cruise (at lower angle of attack) they are pushed in. This is a relatively simple system
and not too heavy to design, but it has one big disadvantage: in gusty weather only one wing
slat may be drawn out while the other stays in, creating a potentially major problem for the
pilot who now needs full aileron just to keep the airplane level…!

So the safe way is to connect the right and left wing slats mechanically to prevent asymmetric
extension. However, creating such an installation is heavy and more complex. The efficiency
gained by the system must be very significant to compensate for the extra weight of the
device (not to mention cost and complexity). A pilot controlled slat extension system is
another approach, but has the same drawbacks: weight and complexity.
Figure 4 – Fixed Leading Edge Slat Lift vs. Drag

But there is a simple solution: The amount of drag increase created by the slot depends on
the amount of air going through the slot in the whole range of flight. In take-off and landing
configurations we want maximum lift, and in cruise we want minimum drag. By equalizing the
amount of air pressure on the top and bottom of the wing at the leading edge (where the slat
is located) in cruise configuration, there is no air flowing through the slot, and thus no lost
energy (or extra drag created). Equalizing air pressure is easily achieved in cruise
configuration with a slight trailing edge upward deflection of the wing flap. Figure 4 illustrates
the lift coefficient and drag of such a wing design.

The illustration clearly shows that the wing with slats and flaps is the solution for slow flight
where high lift is required, and also has little drag penalty in cruise. It is a light weight wing
with no moving mechanical parts associated with the leading edge slats. A noticeable
drawback is a relatively small low drag range, which means a narrow economical cruise
speed range, but the overall configuration provides the best wing design for a STOL aircraft.

Thus, I have chosen this fixed slat configuration for the two-seat STOL CH 701 and the new
four-seat STOL CH 801. The wing is lightweight, yet yields a very high lift coefficient, making
it a very reliable, simple, and a low-cost high lift device for these two designs.

I have also used a relatively thick wing chord on these designs to provide high lift. The thick
wing chord, combined with a relatively short wing span, also provides maximum strength and
low weight. With its constant chord (as opposed to tapered) the wing is as also easy to build
and assemble.

Wing Tips
For a long time, I’ve said that Hoerner wing tips should be used on most light aircraft designs,
since they increase the effective wing span from 8" to over one foot without having to carry
any additional weight: As we all know, there is low pressure on top of the wing, and higher
pressure on the bottom of the wing, with the pressure difference creating the lift that allows
us to fly. Toward the tip of the wing, the high pressure ‘feels’ that there is less pressure
on the top of the wing (just around the tip), and wants to go there to equalize the pressure,
thus creating a secondary flow out toward the tip of the wing. This secondary outward flow
generates a vortex (a circular motion) behind the wing, as illustrated below.

Figure 5 – Wing Tip Vortices

With a rounded or squared wing tip, the vortex is centered around the wing tip, as shown
above

With drooped or raised wing tips, the vortex is forced further out. Drooped wing tips are often
seen on STOL aircraft, but they create a weight penalty since they need to be added to the
wing.
Figure 6 – Drooped / Raised Wing Tips

If the wing tip is cut at 45-degrees with a small radius at the bottom and a relatively sharp top
corner, the air from the secondary flow travels around the rounded bottom but can’t go
around the sharp top corner and is thus pushed outward.

Figure 7 – Hoerner Wing Tips

The performance of the aircraft depends on the distance from the right to the left tip vortices
(the effective wing span), and not the actual measured geometric span. Hoerner wing tips
provide the largest effective span for a given geometric span or a given wing weight.

CONTROLS

Because a STOL airplane can fly at very low speeds, and is developed to operate in
unimproved areas (often with obstacles), controllability of the aircraft at slow speeds is
essential. This is one area that I’ve found to be lacking in many high-lift light aircraft designs

– while many of these planes have a low stall speed, the pilot needs to fly the aircraft at a
much higher speed in order to maintain control.
Flaps, Ailerons, and Flaperons

Full span ailerons, which also act as full span flaps, are thus used (called flaperons). The full
span provides maximum high lift (flaps) for the entire wing and roll controllability (ailerons) at
a minimal weight since both functions are shared by the same control surface (flaperon), with
a simple mechanical ‘mixer’ controller.

We all know that close to the airfoil, the air is slowed down by friction. This slowed down layer
of air is called the boundary layer. The boundary layer builds up thicker when moving from
the front of the airfoil toward the wing trailing edge. Another factor is called the Reynolds
effect, which means that the slower we fly, the thicker the boundary layer becomes. Friction
and the Reynolds effect result in an approximately �" thick boundary layer toward the rear
portion of a 4 to 5 ft. chord wing designed to fly at low speeds.

A conventional flap or aileron thus would have 1 or 2 degrees of deflection with very little
control effectiveness because it deflects in this not very aerodynamically active boundary
layer. To avoid this loss of controllability, the flaperon can be designed as a separate small
wing, moving outside of the wing’s boundary layer and slipstream. Additionally, such a
flaperon system (often called a "Junker" flaperon) is effective even at high angles of attack
because it is positioned below the wing and thus continues to get ‘fresh’ undisturbed air
even when the wing is at the extreme angle of attack (see Figure 8).

Figure 8 – Boundary Layer

Horizontal Tail
Also, because a high lift wing is designed to fly at an unusually high angle of attack (30
degrees compared to 15 to 17 degrees for a conventional wing) we need to achieve this high
angle by pushing the tail down much more than with a conventional wing. Short of building a
very large horizontal tail, we need a large negative lift coefficient on the tail. This is achieved
first with an inverted stabilizer airfoil, and secondly with a virtual venturi. Let me explain: From
an aerodynamics standpoint we know that a venturi provides lower pressure and higher
speeds at the smallest section, as illustrated in Figure 9.

Figures 9, 10 & 11 – Venturi

The increased speed will overcome the tendency of separation when the flow is deflected.
We also know that when we have a half venturi (Figure 10) the airflow creates a mirror image
and follows the principles of a complete venturi (Figure 11), and thus the increased speed
from the venturi effect follows the elevator of the horizontal tail even when deflected in the
trailing edge down position (thus the virtual venturi effect).

Rudder

I’ve used the all-flying vertical tail (rudder) on my STOL designs that I’ve used on many of
my earlier designs because it provides exceptional crosswind capability. With a STOL design,
when the crosswind is higher than the aircraft’s stall speed (this actually happens!) you can
just face the airplane into the wind and literally take-off vertically (even if you have to face
across the runway)! Another advantage of the all-flying vertical tail is that it is physically
smaller (and shorter) than a corresponding conventional fin and rudder vertical tail, and thus
lighter; and being a single piece it is easier to construct. It also provides excellent spin
recovery capability because the actual moving part (rudder) is larger. The rudder itself is an
actual symmetrical airfoil (and not just a flat ‘board’), helping to make it effective and
responsive even at lower speeds.

The main wings of the STOL designs taper at the wing root to allow undisturbed air to flow
from the propeller to the empennage (tail sections). The position of the tail above the fuselage,
with the direct undisturbed air from the prop, provides excellent and responsive control from
the tail sections, compared to the sluggish response a conventional configuration provides at
slow flight.

Short take-off / Landing

To best achieve short take-off performance, the wing’s high angle of attack must be achieved
at or near the ground, and we thus need a general aircraft configuration that permits this high
angle of attack. We can do this either by using a very long main gear in tailwheel configuration
(raising the nose) or by raising the rear fuselage (in tricycle gear configuration).

Figure 12 – Landing Gear Configuration

With the taildragger configuration, the whole cabin is awkwardly inclined on the ground, and
the long gear legs mean that the landing gear structure is either weak or heavy. The inclined
cabin and high gear make access to the cabin difficult, especially for passengers or cargo
loading, and can severely limit the pilot’s forward visibility while on the ground (taxiing and
take-off).

Figure 13 – Cabin Angle

Most pilots today are much more comfortable (and safer) with a tricycle gear configuration,
as nearly all trainers are tricycles. A tricycle gear is very stable on the ground, whereas a
taildragger gear is not and needs continuous control input, especially in crosswind conditions.
Aircraft insurance rates reflect this.
In a tricycle gear configuration, the wing is at a "neutral" angle of attack while the aircraft is
on the ground, as opposed to a maximum lift angle with a taildragger (see Figure 12).
Tailwheel airplanes are thus much more susceptible to the wind while taxiing the aircraft, or
even while parked outdoors (this will be where the aircraft will spend the vast majority of its
life, unless hangared).

Despite the many advantages of a tricycle gear system, many older aircraft designs (as well
as many modern STOL designs) use a tailwheel configuration – this is mainly because the
technology and expertise did not exist to build a lightweight and strong nosewheel system,
and many designers today have little experience (or interest) in landing gear structures.

Off-airport operation dictates that a STOL aircraft have a durable and forgiving landing gear
system. Landing gear systems seem to be a major weakness on many light aircraft designs,
requiring that these aircraft be operated from paved runways, despite their capability to take
off and land in short distances.

TAIL DESIGN: The STOL CH 801 tail sections are designed to provide maximum
effectiveness (control) at slow speeds and at high angles of attack.
The aircraft features an all-flying vertical tail
(rudder) section for excellent effectiveness and
control, especially at low speeds. The all-flying
rudder provides responsive rudder control, while
also minimizing weight and complexity (there’s
only one vertical tail section). Two rudder bearings
bolt to the rear fuselage to fix the rudder to the
fuselage.

The horizontal tail sections are

made up of the elevator and the
stabilizer. Both these sections are
unique and developed specifically
for maximum effectiveness at low
speeds and at high angles of
attack. The stabilizer is an
inverted airfoil section to maximize downward lift to help achieve high angles of
attack required for short take-off and landing performance. The elevator is an
actual airfoil section, and provides a ‘virtual venturi’ effect when deflected
down, as illustrated below. The unique tail sections provide maximum
effectiveness for short take-off and landing performance – while also minimizing
the actual size of the tail sections.
The STOL CH 801 makes use of highly engineered design features for excellent
STOL performance, and importantly, responsive control at low speeds. While
many aircraft designs often boast a low stall speed, many of these same designs
have minimal control effectiveness at these lower speeds.

The STOL CH 801's large effective control surfaces provide excellent

controllability at very low flying speeds - a necessity for effective short take-off
and landing performance - while being very light and balanced.
FUSELAGE DESIGN: The square-shaped fuselage and cabin offer maximum usable
space for occupants and cargo. The four-seat STOL CH 801 cabin is designed to fit a
stretcher along the right side of the aircraft (with the co-pilot seat removed), while still
providing adequate space for the pilot and one passenger. The rear seat cabin area can be
used for hauling bulky cargo.

Of course, for those using the STOL CH 801 as a sport utility plane, there’s enough room
inside for two to camp in, and more than enough baggage area for extended cross-country
trips. An optional belly-mounted cargo pod further increases space for baggage.
The cabin area utilizes a 4130 chrome-moly (chromium-molybdenum) welded steel tube
frame top assembly. The tube frame allows for maximum visibility, and incorporates attach
points for the wings. The lower cabin is made up of a factory-riveted bottom-side assembly
that gets joined to the top tube frame. The cabin is fitted with two large doors for easy
access to the cabin.

• Click here for a detailed schematic of the rear fuselage assembly.

• Click here for a detailed schematic of the control system

The boxy rear fuselage lends itself for very easy assembly, allowing each of the four
‘flat’ sides to be built individually on a flat workbench, and then simply ‘boxed’
together to form the rear fuselage. The forward fuselage section (cabin area) is build
separately, and then joined to the rear fuselage section. The aircraft wings are designed for
quick and easy attachment and removal from the fuselage.

Modular Construction: Throughout, construction of the STOL CH 801 kit aircraft is

‘modular’ – each section of the aircraft is built separately on the workbench. Many

builders thus choose to buy ‘component kits,’ purchasing kit sections as they progress
through the project. The modular construction of the kit means that required workshop
space is minimal – most builders construct the kit in a single-car garage or basement
workshop.

Once all the airframe sections have been assembled, the wing and tail sections are bolted
to the fuselage and the landing gear, controls, and fuel system are installed.

LANDING GEAR DESIGN: The standard tricycle gear also allows for excellent
forward visibility while taxiing - an important consideration when operating the
aircraft in off-airport environments. The heavy-duty tricycle gear system was
 chosen as the standard gear configuration for
the STOL CH 801 to meet the needs of
today’s pilots: Most pilots are not

experienced ‘taildragger’ pilots, and a

tricycle gear provides better stability and
control on the ground.

The STOL CH 801 uses a high tail

configuration to allow easy rotation of the
aircraft to achieve high lift during take-offs and
landings. In a tailwheel configuration this
requires a tall and awkward main gear to
achieve the same high angle of attack (see
illustration).

Furthermore, the tricycle gear allows for a

level cabin area – this makes loading and
unloading the aircraft much easier than with an inclined cabin.

In a tricycle gear configuration, the wing is at a neutral angle of attack while the
aircraft is on the ground, as opposed to a maximum lift angle with a taildragger.
Tailwheel airplanes are thus more susceptible to ground wind conditions while
taxiing or even while parked outdoors.

The rugged gear system is inspired by Heintz' ZENITH CH 2000 design, an

aircraft developed as a trainer.

The STOL CH 801 utilizes a heavy duty gear system

developed specifically for off-airport operation. The main gear
comprises of a simple single-piece aluminum spring leaf
which is bolted to the bottom of the fuselage. The single
carry-through main gear provides double cantilever
deflection. The main gear is fitted with large treaded tundra
tires, with independent hydraulic disk brakes.
 • Video Clip: Spring Landing Gear Drop Test (2.3 MB)

While it’s not the lightest gear system around, it provides excellent rough-field
capability when combined with large tires, and is very durable, simple and
virtually maintenance-free.

The nosewheel strut uses a single heavy-duty bungee for

shock absorbency. The nosewheel is steerable, with direct
linkage to the rudder pedals for very effective and
responsive ground handling and tight turns. The main
wheels are equipped with independent hydraulic disk
brakes.

The STOL CH 801's gear has been developed specifically

for off-airport use. The direct linkage steerable nosewheel, plus differential
braking, provide remarkably precise ground handling and steering.
Figure 14 – Landing Gear

With my STOL designs, I have used a simple single-piece double cantilever spring leaf for
the main gear. While it’s not the lightest gear system around, it provides excellent rough-
field capability when combined with large tires, and is very durable, simple and virtually
maintenance-free. The nosewheel strut is steerable, with direct linkage to the rudder pedals,
and uses a single heavy-duty bungee for shock absorbency. The STOL CH 801 borrows the
nosegear assembly from the ZENITH CH 2000, my type-certificated production trainer design.
The main wheels are also equipped with individual hydraulic disk brakes (activated with toe
brake pedals) for exceptional ground handling. Experience has shown these landing gear
systems to be well-suited for grass field operation, while being appropriate for low-time pilots.
(Nosewheel system wear is minimized by reducing the pressure on the nosegear by using
the appropriate elevator inputs – the effectiveness of the elevator makes this easy with my
STOL designs).

FUSELAGE

The rectangular cabin offers maximum usable space for occupants and cargo. The 4-seat
STOL CH 801 cabin is long enough to fit a stretcher along the right side of the aircraft across
the folded co-pilot seat, while still providing adequate space for the pilot and one passenger,
or two 50-gallons drums can be carried in the rear. Of course, for those using the STOL CH
801 as a sport utility plane, there’s enough room inside for two to camp in, and more than
enough baggage area for extended cross-country trips. The two-seat STOL CH 701 is
surprisingly roomy for an aircraft it’s size and weight.

The large doors offer easy access to the cabin for occupants and bulky baggage, and the
aircraft can be operated with the doors removed for maximum visibility and ‘outdoor’ feel.

While it’s maybe not the most aesthetically pleasing, the square fuselage is very simple to
build and helps to provide good yaw stability and spin dampening (resistance) due to its flat
sides and distinct corners.

CABIN / VISIBILITY

Pilot and passenger visibility is an important element of aircraft design, and is often
overlooked by designers. Good visibility is especially important in a STOL aircraft – where
the pilot needs to be able to see obstacles when "bush" flying. Passengers also need good
visibility to enjoy "low and slow" flying – they don’t want a small window the same size as
in a commercial jetliner.

While an open cockpit provides unobstructed visibility, bugs, wind, and cold air all dictate an
enclosed cockpit for a modern aircraft - to provide a minimum level of comfort that we’ve
grown accustomed to. An enclosed cabin also allows for good ventilation and heat, and
protects avionics and baggage. Large doors provide easy access to the cockpit (and can be
removed for better visibility and "ventilation")

A high-wing configuration provides the best downward visibility to enjoy the views provided
by low and slow flying, and provides the pilot with the required visibility to be able to safely
operate into unimproved areas – to be able to see and avoid obstacles. With my STOL

designs, I’ve used an "above-cab" wing position, where the wing is located above the cabin.
This design feature maximizes visibility for a high-wing configuration: Horizontal visibility is
augmented by raising the wing over the pilot’s head, and upward visibility is achieved by
decreasing the wing thickness at the inboard end where it meets the cabin, and the top of the
cabin can thus be fitted with a full window. A ‘skylight’ provides important visibility to the
pilot in a highly maneuverable aircraft.

Figure 15 - Visibility
The tapered wing root and top window provide good visibility in turns. The wing design minimizes the frontal
area in the propeller slipstream for increased performance, and also provides direct prop blast to the tail sections
for superior controllability in slow flight.

The additional benefit of this tapered "above cab" wing configuration chosen for visibility is
also its smaller frontal area, which means less drag (a faster airplane with the same amount
of power) and excellent controllability at low speeds because the air is directed without
disturbance from the propeller to the tail.
Side-by-side seating: Forward Visibility

As with most modern aircraft, I’ve chosen a side-by-side seating arrangement to maximize
pilot and passenger comfort. Throughout, the cabin is ergonomically designed for pilot
productivity, comfort and flexibility. The STOL CH 801 cabin interior is designed to provide
comfort for four large adults, while being easy to convert for cargo-carrying applications.
Large doors on either side allow easy access to the cabin from both sides. The adjustable
front seats fold forward for easy access to the rear seats / cargo area. With anticipated
applications for mission use, the rear seat area can be converted for cargo use (included 50
gallon drums), or the cabin can be reconfigured for a berth (patient on a stretcher) across the
front and back right-hand seats, with the pilot in the front left seat and a doctor or nurse in
the left rear seat. Recreational pilots can literally camp out of the STOL CH 801.

All-Metal Durability

Bush planes need to be rugged, reliable and simple to maintain. "Field maintenance" takes
on a new meaning where the pilot literally needs to be able to perform basic maintenance
and repair functions in the field.

Both the STOL CH 701 and STOL CH 801 are built of all-metal construction. I have over 30
years experience designing and building all-metal aircraft, and there is more than 60 years
experience in the industry with stressed-skin, semi-monocoque construction. Far from being
obsolete, metal (aluminum alloy) construction continues to dominate as manufacturers’
choice of construction. Aluminum alloys provide the following benefits:

• Low weight / high strength relationship;

• Corrosion resistance, especially with newer alloys and modern primers;
• Low cost and widespread availability;
• Proven durability, and resistance to sun and moisture exposure
• Existence of vast amounts of empirical data on its properties
 • Easy to work with: requires simple tools and processes, and does not require a
temperature-controlled or dust-free environment, as with composites. Modern blind
rivet fasteners have greatly simplified all-metal kit aircraft construction;
• Malleability: easy to form into many shapes, with almost no limit to the shapes it can
be formed into;
• Environmentally friendly: no health hazards to worry about when working with sheet
metal; recyclable;
• Easy to inspect: construction or materials flaws are easily detected, as are defective
parts and damage.
• Simple to repair: rivets and fasteners can be easily removed to replace damaged parts
or sections, and individual parts can be replaced without having to replace or rework
an entire airframe section.

Thus, aluminum-alloy construction provides the best airframe for a bush plane: 1) Suitable
for continuous outdoor storage; 2) Durable and rugged, and; 3) Easy to inspect, maintain,
and perform field maintenance. For example, a simple sheet-metal patch can easily be blind
riveted onto a damaged area to fly the airplane home.

A well-designed sheet-metal aircraft also provides superior crashworthiness, as an impact’

s energy is absorbed by progressively collapsing (deforming) the metal structure, as opposed
to splintering or shattering upon impact. The landing gear of my STOL aircraft absorbs a lot
of energy. It then requires more energy to "rip" it out, and the aluminum stringer frame and
stressed-skin construction then need much more energy to start to bend, buckle and twist.
The sturdy "cabin frame" will protect the occupants even in an unlikely nose-over of a tricycle
gear airplane where the wings, positioned quite a bit higher than the occupants’ heads, will

absorb the impact’s energy. Another important advantage often overlooked is the inherent
lightning protection that a metal airframe offers.

As an aeronautical engineer, it’s easy for me to design a complicated aircraft, and much
more challenging to design a simple one. For a kit aircraft to be successful, it must be
relatively simple in terms of construction, assembly and systems: Not only is a simple design
easier and more affordable to build, but it will be well-constructed by the amateur builder, as
there will be less opportunity for errors or poor workmanship. With a simple design, building
time will be lower, and less tools and skills will be needed to put the aircraft together, equating
to much higher completion rates than complex projects, and once completed, the aircraft will
be easier to operate and maintain. Simple systems maximize reliability, while minimizing pilot
workload. With 24 years experience designing and making kit aircraft for amateur builders,
we’ve learned to develop aircraft specifically for the amateur builders and sport pilots,
offering them complete kits that are quick and easy to build, with minimal tools and skills.
With form following function, my two STOL aircraft designs have an inherent beauty that is
more than skin deep once one understands the aerodynamic and construction features that
have gone into these designs, making them highly effective short take-off and landing aircraft,
while being simple to build and maintain, and providing excellent durability and flexibility.

The original STOL CH 701 and the new STOL CH 750 offer excellent off-airport performance
in lightweight and very economical two-seat designs that are easy and fun to fly, while the
new STOL CH 801 is a true sport utility vehicle, with 1,000 lbs useful load.

Actual photo of a short take-off!

As a designer, it is truly rewarding to see how my designs have been put to use around the
world, whether for mission or relief work in remote areas, or a recreational pilot writing me
that the plane ‘takes off like a cork out of a champagne bottle!’

The following performance and specification figures are based on the production prototype
STOL CH 801 equipped with the Lycoming O-360-A engine (180 BHP: 400 lbs. with
accessories and fixed-pitch Sensenich 76-EM8-0-54 metal propeller).
SPECIFICATIONS STOL CH 801
LENGTH 24 Ft. 6 In. 7.5 m.

HEIGHT 10 Ft. 0 In. 3.0 m.

WING SPAN 31 Ft. 4 In. 9.55 m.

WING AREA 167 SQ.FT. 15.5 m.sq.

WING CHORD 5 Ft. 3 In. 1.6 m.

HORIZONTAL TAIL SPAN 10 Ft. 1 In. 3.1 m.

HORIZONTAL TAIL AREA 30 SQ.FT. 2.8 m.sq..

EMPTY WEIGHT 1,150 LBS. 522 kg.

DESIGN GROSS WEIGHT 2,200 LBS. 1,000 kg.

USEFUL LOAD 1,050 LBS. 478 kg.

FUEL CAPACITY (Standard) 30 Gal. (2 x 15) 112 l. (2 x 56)

- Fuel weight (Standard) = 176 LBS. = 80 kg.

FUEL CAPACITY (Extended Range Option) 60 Gal. (4 x 15) 224 l. (4 x 56)

- Fuel weight (Extended Range Option) = 352 LBS. = 160 kg.

DESIGN PAYLOAD 800 LBS. 360 kg.

- Occupants + Baggage / Cargo = 200 lbs X 4 = 90 kg. X 4

WING LOADING 12.9 LBS/FT� 62.9 kg/m�

POWER LOADING 11.95 LBS/BHP 5.44 kg/BHP

CABIN WIDTH 44 INCHES 112 cm.

CABIN LENGTH 78 INCHES 198 cm.

DESIGN LIMITATIONS:

POWER 150 - 240 BHP.

MAX. INSTALLED POWERPLANT WEIGHT 440 lbs. 200 kg.

MAX. TAKE-OFF WEIGHT (MTOW) 2,200 lbs. 998 kg.

DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (ultimate) @ 2,200 lbs. + 5.7, - 2.8

MAX. WING LOADING (@ 2,200 lbs.) 13.2 PSF 64.4 kg/m�

MAX. FLAP EXTENDED SPEED 80 MPH 129 km/h

MAX. CRUISE SPEED - VC 120 MPH 193 km/h

NEVER EXCEED SPEED (VNE) 150 MPH 240 km/h

Technical data, specification and performance figures subject to change without notice. Alternative engines will affect performance, specifications

and flight characteristics of the aircraft. Also, the weight and balance of the aircraft may be adversely affected by alternative engines, and the
original fuel system may not be adequate or suitable for some engines. Most alternative engines will require a custom engine mount and engine

cowl. Zenith Aircraft Company does not manufacture or directly support engines.

Large Views: Side | Front | Top

PERFORMANCE Typical Load: 500 Lbs Gross Weight:

Lycoming O-360, 180-hp 1,650 Lbs.

TAKE-OFF ROLL 290 Ft. 88 m. 390 Ft. 119 m.

MAX LEVEL SPEED 112 MPH 181 km/h 110 MPH 178 km/h

CRUISE SPEED
106 MPH 170 km/h 105 MPH 169 km/h
(75% power @ 7,000 Ft.)

STALL SPEED (Flaps Down) 35 MPH 56 km/h 39 MPH 64 km/h

STALL SPEED (Flaps Up) 43 MPH 69 km/h 48 MPH 77 km/h

RATE OF CLIMB 1,200 FPM 6.1 m/s 720 FPM 3.7 m/s

SERVICE CEILING 16,000+ Ft. 4,875+ m. 14,000 Ft 4,267 m.

ENDURANCE (Standard) 3.0 Hrs. 3.0 Hrs.

ENDURANCE (Extended Range Option) 6.0 Hrs. 6.0 Hrs.

RANGE (Standard) 320 Miles 515 km. 315 Miles 507 km.

RANGE (Extended Range Option) 640 Miles 1,030 km. 630 Miles 1,015 km.

Above performance figures with the Lycoming O-360-A engine (180 BHP: 400 lbs. with
accessories and fixed-pitch Sensenich 76-EM8-0-54 metal propeller). Standard
atmosphere, sea level, no wind. All technical data, specification and performance figures
subject to change without notice.