Talk:Zenith STOL CH 701

Slats vs. Slots
The debate here on whether the 701 has "slats" or "slots" is largely a semantic one. The company website refers to them as "fixed leading edge slats" which is a bit of an oxymoron. By definition "slats" are fixed devices and "slats" are movable surfaces. In the case of the CH 701 they look like moveable "slats" but they are fixed "slots". In a discussion I had with the designer Chris Heintz two years ago on this subject he referred to them as "slots" and said that he wouldn't design an aircraft with air-driven "slats" as he thought they were a safety hazard as sooner or later one side would fail to deploy at low speed. I would suggest that if it is insisted that these leading edge devices be referred to as "slats" then it has to be specified that they are fixed, non-moving surfaces, which are also called "slots"  Ahunt 10:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but your statement above seems to confuse the issue even more. By definition "slats" are fixed devices and "slats" are movable surfaces, and other times both you and Chris Heintz seem to use the words interchangeably. Personally, when there is a question of definition, I tend to go with whatever Wikipedia has currently defined.
 * Slats - small aerodynamic surfaces on the leading edge of the wings of fixed-wing aircraft
 * Further investigation at slats shows the same definition of slats.
 * Slots - redirect to Slot machine, with no history of being anything other than a redirect. The slot machine page also makes no mention of any aerodynamic naming.
 * Further investigation at slots shows the only aerospace references are to the aerobatic position of "slot" and an airport departure or arrival "slot".
 * The only meaning that the two words have in common are "A thin, narrow strip or bar of wood or metal".
 * Due to cultural inflections of the word, it is possible for someone saying "slats" to pronounce it "slots", and vice versa.
 * At this point, I'd have to say that the article should reflect "fixed, full span, leading edge slats" and any references to "slots" should be cleaned up in general. McNeight 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on slots is at Leading edge slot Ahunt 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Missed that. Seems as though there was already a discussion about merging the two articles, and the result was to keep them separate. There could probably be a little bit of work done disentangling the two definitions, since it appears that slots are considered a specific subset of slats? Perhaps clarifying that in the opening paragraph of leading edge slot is called for? Also, changing the slots page to a disambiguation page might be a good idea. McNeight 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think those are both excellent suggestions that will go a long way to reducing the confusion! Give me a day or two to take a try at doing just that and then see what you think/add your own thoughts at that point. It helps to have someone else check it all to see if it makes sense to them! Ahunt 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay - I have tuned the page at slots into a disambuguation page instead of a simple redirect to slot machine. I have also attempted to make both the Leading edge slot and Slats articles a lot clearer about the two devices and how they are similar and how they are different. Please do have a look for yourself and see what you think. And by all means make any changes if you think further clarity can be achieved. Ahunt 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Slats and Slots is clear. Slat is an airfoil (fixed or not) positioned in front of the Leading Edge of an existing airfoil. Slot is an opening on a single airfoil. For further reading I propose to refer to one of the standard hanbooks on aerodynamics (e.g. THEORY OF WING SECTIONS by I.H Abbot and E. von Doenhoff (pages. 225 - 27)).   The CH701 has a fixed slat, similar to the German WWII plane Fiessler Storch (http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=371267).georgepehli (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Article name
On a completely different subject: I have noticed that this article doesn't follow the normal naming convention for aircraft articles set out in the Wiki Project Aircraft guidelines. This suggests that articles should be named as follows: "most aircraft articles are named by their manufacturer, then by name and/or designation number". In Canada (the country of origin of the design) this aircraft is usually called a Zenair STOL CH 701. In the USA where the kits are now made it is called a Zenith STOL CH 701. I would like to suggest that this article should be moved to Zenith STOL CH 701. Any thoughts? Ahunt 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lacking any objections over the past five days I have moved the page to better fit with Wiki Project Aircraft recommendations Ahunt 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CH 750 related but...
The CH750 is a different aircraft from the 701 and this content should be split into a different article. It seems to have more in common with the larger 801. Altaphon (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably makes sense to split it into its own article as the two are different enough aircraft to justify that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think there should be a separate article for the 750. For now I will just edit this one to provide some more detail on the Cruzer, as I am in the middle of building one. Altaphon (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I don't have a problem if you want to split it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * An now there's a Super Duty CH-750. It adds a third seat. It's designed to use a Lycoming O-320.  There's numerous structural differences, although the external dimensions are very similar.  TimothyMN (talk) 27 March 2019  —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref? - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not seeing that on the company website. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * company website link to Super Duty CH-750 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyMN (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll see about adding that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)