Specifications for Modifications

54 posts in this topic

Posted

Hi Twister,

Welcome to the Forum. I have read all of the good advice you have recieved and your very thoughtful questions. The advice and information that has been given is very good and accurate but I think you might be worrying these planes more than necessary. In my opinion they are about the easiest and most forgiving birds you can fly. They have certain characteristics just like any planes so you have to get to know them but no more than any other plane. The light weight and high drag just means that they are good at STOL and slow flight. They are amazingly easy in a stall, in fact lock the stick in you stumock and leave it there and they will just mush and sink without falling off on a wing like the cesna's. As soon as the nose drops they fly again. When I first got my Avid MKIV it had tricycle gear on it and I always said you could throw it at the ground and it would land itself. The tail draggers take a little more attention and the first thing I would recommend on them is immediately change the gear to wide gear if you get one without it. With wide gear they are about as easy to land as any tail dragger.

The fun of having one is geting to know it and learning how to get teh most out of it. I use full flaps (26 degrees ) on mine for about every landing. I try to not pull on flaps unless I am below 80 mph just so I don't over stress the rib tails but I slip mine hard with full flaps and have never had any issues doing both at the same time. If you are coming over trees on a short strip you have to to get it down fast and they do a good job of it.

Ed, I have to agree that you can land the tricycle gear plane as short as the tail dragger and you can get off faster in my experience due to the ability to rotate to a greater degree, but I don't think they handle big rocks nearly as well and they are terrible about getting rock chips in the prop. When I had my MKIV on trycycle gear I would get half a dozen prop chips with every flight, even just on good gravel strips. The prop needs to be 20" or more from the ground or you will be constantly fixing chips. The other thing is if you want to use your bird on skis, you better stick to packed landing areas or very little snow. Besides, everyone knows that real men fly tail draggers. :stirthepot:

Folding the wings in these things is preatty fast; probably 15 minutes by yourself leasurely, if you know what you are doing. I trailered my MK IV all the time before I had a hangar and I trailered it to different places I wanted to fly from. The nice thing is, you can drive through the nasty weather and fly when youget to the good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed, I have to agree that you can land the tricycle gear plane as short as the tail dragger and you can get off faster in my experience due to the ability to rotate to a greater degree, but I don't think they handle big rocks nearly as well and they are terrible about getting rock chips in the prop. When I had my MKIV on trycycle gear I would get half a dozen prop chips with every flight, even just on good gravel strips. The prop needs to be 20" or more from the ground or you will be constantly fixing chips. The other thing is if you want to use your bird on skis, you better stick to packed landing areas or very little snow. Besides, everyone knows that real men fly tail draggers. :stirthepot:

SKIS? You mean those things that crunch on gravel and smoke on concrete? SNOW? You greedy Alaskans keep most of it - we are lucky to see the grass covered on Christmas!

ROCKS? I have heard of those - hard to find in our pastures, but keeping tailskid on ground until stopped keeps the prop out of most of them.

Jesting, of course - flown both types - just got a very stiff neck from old injuries and would rather look over the nose instead of out the side. Both types have their nich - yes, tail ski is better. Floats dont know which wheel is there.

I am just not a "bi-engine" pilot, but could be someday! :lol:

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, the old flyer just took his memory pill, which he forgot to take this morning!

I do have the remains of a Kitfox that landed in a tree on a departure scenario, which happened many years ago:

The builder put a "too-small" wire on his fuel pump and it burned out on takeoff - Could have happened with any engine.

He is still flying.

ED in MO

For what it's worth, I gleaned all the accident reports for the year-to-date from this site:

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=N

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=148131

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147613

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147496

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147273

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=146862

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=146862

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=146568

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=146541

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=145510

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=144639

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141985

They're not all that informative, but have some info in some cases; one has video of the event. Both survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Twister,

Although you have been given some good airspeed info, I hope you get the manual info from somewhere.

Look at your airspeed indicator - It has to be marked to be legal, and those marks will give you some indication of speeds. I know you were given 60,55,and 50 for approach, and those are fine - Kitfox recommends 65 in pattern until you get used to the plane.

Good Flying,

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Twister,

Although you have been given some good airspeed info, I hope you get the manual info from somewhere.

Look at your airspeed indicator - It has to be marked to be legal, and those marks will give you some indication of speeds. I know you were given 60,55,and 50 for approach, and those are fine - Kitfox recommends 65 in pattern until you get used to the plane.

Good Flying,

ED in MO

Again, sounds like good advice. I haven't got a manual, but then I haven't got a plane yet. When I do, I expect I will try to find a big, circular field or at least a wide and long runway for starters. I expect it will take me a good long time to get consistent enough to try narrow roads and the like . . . I want to be truly one with the airplane before I venture out on a real mission, and even then I will look for real airports if there are any in range.

Any comments about this engine? http://www.jabiru.net.au/engines/4-cylinder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

SKIS? You mean those things that crunch on gravel and smoke on concrete? SNOW? You greedy Alaskans keep most of it - we are lucky to see the grass covered on Christmas!

ROCKS? I have heard of those - hard to find in our pastures, but keeping tailskid on ground until stopped keeps the prop out of most of them.

Jesting, of course - flown both types - just got a very stiff neck from old injuries and would rather look over the nose instead of out the side. Both types have their nich - yes, tail ski is better. Floats dont know which wheel is there.

I am just not a "bi-engine" pilot, but could be someday! :lol:

ED in MO

Ed, are both of your Avids tricycle gear? If so, can you tell me a bit more about them? I am concerned with avoiding damaged props from sucking up gravel, etc.

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ed, are both of your Avids tricycle gear? If so, can you tell me a bit more about them? I am concerned with avoiding damaged props from sucking up gravel, etc.

Thanks again.

Sorry, but neither of mine are Avids - Just Avid clones, aka Kitfox. They were both tailwheelers, but I sold the one and am modifying the other to nosewheel since I have moved from "Flying Heaven" Alaska, back to "Mizry" where there arent many rocks in the pastures and not enough snow for skis. I havent found a gravel runway down here yet. You can suck up a rock with either, but the nose gear is a little more prone to it until you get the tail down, which happens as soon as you give it full throttle with elevator up, just like a soft field takeoff. With practice, you can taxi that way too, but sure limits your visability. I have been known to wear out tail skids, A LOT!! I'm thinking about putting a swivel roller on the next one, or just leave the tailwheel on it!

My wings were built the "old style" with undercamber and too much twist - good for short takeoffs, but not speed.

I am also using the Grove aluminum main gear which dont stand as tall as the modified Avid gear, but about same height as standard gear unless you put on the big tires. I only use the 600-6 tires here.

Flying in Idaho and Alaska is a whole different ballgame than in the midwest or south.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Twister,

Although you have been given some good airspeed info, I hope you get the manual info from somewhere.

Look at your airspeed indicator - It has to be marked to be legal, and those marks will give you some indication of speeds. I know you were given 60,55,and 50 for approach, and those are fine - Kitfox recommends 65 in pattern until you get used to the plane.

Good Flying,

ED in MO

Sorry, this was meant for Brian - both of you talking about the Avids, and I got mixed up.

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My mission is primarily operating off back-country roads (IF I can realistically trailer it and fold/unfold the wings in minutes rather than hours--also a gimpy one-man operation, with a little assistance from my wife sometimes), but I would like to fly it in and out of airports if necessary, and do some x-country in a pinch.

I'm also wondering just how much STOL performance I would be suffering with the Rotax 912 and a ground-adjustable prop?

Thanks much!

I have a Avid Bandit with the 503 with over 900hrs on it. Takeoff in around 170', land in 200'- 300' area. Check out my video " Takeoff, circle and land in 50 seconds", that was with wheel ski's on, could have cut time off that with straight wheels. Go with the tall wide spring gear and Matco tailwheel. Keep it light and simple. Don't need all that technical crap. Like Joey said we only have around $15,000 in ours, not $80,000. I can fold the wings in 6 minutes at 10 degrees.

Edited by Bandit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Twister welcome to the Forum! I'll do my best at answering your questions. First and foremost a lot of your questions are opinion based and not fully factual. My answers my very well differ entirely from say Larry's who will tell you that 2 strokes are deathtraps :angeldevil: J/K Larry!!

1. I haven't met anyone yet who was happy with standard length speed wings. The main difference is speed wings have a flat bottom and STOL wings are undercambered. The speed wing can be lengthened though and I hear that helps alot. If your wanting to get in and out short look for a STOL wing. I am not a huge fan of slats. A guy in Australia has a Zenith 701 that he removed the slats and added VG's with not much difference in performance. VG's and their results is a highly debateable topic on these high lift slow flying wings.

1A. Most STOL airplanes glide like a rock. An old book titled "How to fly a Kitfox" compares these airplanes to a heavy Cessna by way of a Badminton Birdie compared to a Tennis Ball. They are light and draggy like a birdie. and when the fan quits blowing you had better point the nose at the ground like NOW or you will stall. They will decellerate extremely quickly! I lost 3 good friends in the past year and ALL of them were departure engine failures followed by a stall. With that said if you manage your airspeed and glide properly you can set down at around 40-50mph. This is a very surviveable speed no matter what you hit as long as it's controlled and your wings level. I would much rather be in the welded, triagulated chromoly fuse of a Kitfox/Avid than a metal box like a Zenith anyday during a crash situation.

2. There is several options for landing gear that is 10" wider over stock. Makes ground handling a night and day difference. I had 500 landings and 250 hours on the stock gear before I switched. It's just fine but it requires your attention on pavement.

3. The main reason people stretch the fuse is accomodate heavier engines on the nose such as auto conversions or the Rotax 912.

4. If money is no option look for a Rotax 912. They are a bit heavier but a sweet little engine. Some guys have had great luck with Subaru Conversions but they can get heavy if not careful. These airplanes were originally designed very light with a two stroke motor. They evolved from there and gradually got heavier and faster with bigger engines and became more of a well performing cruiser than a true STOL airplane. If you really want to get in and out short you can't hardly beat a 550lb or less early model with a two stroke!!

The downsides that you'll hear about two strokes is fuel burn, low TBO times, and reliability. With that said I love mine and I have flown behind it over some of the most inhospitable terrain the Western US has to offer. If I had an extra 20 grand laying around I would probably go with a 912 but I don't so therefore I fly and enjoy what I have to the fullest.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions.

My 535lb two stroke powered Avid doing what it does best..

IMG_3730_zpsdefbaf9b.jpg

Thanks again for your very useful comments. My head is still spinning, but I hope to accumulate enough knowledge to avoid the bigger mistakes.

I've got my eye on an Avid 4 with a speed wing. I wonder if I should swap it out for a STOL wing or a Riblett, and add the wider gear. I'm wondering what this might cost me, as the Riblett is going to cost a fair piece of change, and I would end up with a nice pair of speed wings that I might not be able to sell if other Avid/Fox owners are making the same shift. Lengthening the speed wing seems to be an option, but I don't know how that will affect STOL performance or compare to the Riblett. If I understand correctly, the Riblett doesn't sacrifice much "at the low end" (STOL performance) but adds quite a bit to cruise speed and improves handling (stall characteristics, etc.). While I'd rather build than buy, I'm pretty much forced to buy due to a hitch in my gitalong. Where's the best place to buy the finished Riblett and the wider gear? The only laminar wing I've ever flown was a Cessna 177 years ago.

Thanks again for any comments.

I'm also thinking of putting the wider gear on, and wonder how that would work out financially too. The price on the plane is pretty close to my budget, and I have to think about every angle I can and end up with a plane that suits my needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'd be interested in anything y'all have to say about this video:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's Steve Henry aka taildrgfun, aka the dead stick takeoff guy.

He wears that Highlander like you wear your favorite pair of jeans. That's his old plane. He now has a new one with a 145 hp turbo 912S on it.

I have had the fortune to meet him at Oshkosh and talk with him for a while. Joey (c5engineer) is a good friend of his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have been fortunate to get to fly with Steve on several occasions. I can tell you he is NOT cocky, he is NOT a showoff, and he IS a DAMN fine pilot. He flew that Highlander 1400hrs and over 8000 off airport landings in the span of just under 4 years. Like Larry mentioned he wears that airplane like a glove. I flew in his new one back in June and it's totally insane. 145HP custom built Turboed 912S with an $8000 constant speed airmaster prop set up. He also recently seriously saved my bacon when I had some issues while 600 miles from home on my Idaho trip. He's an amazing guy and fellow pilot that I'm glad I have his cell number in my phone! Here's a pic of us flying in 2011 in Idaho. What an Epic day...we had 3 Rans S-7's, Steve's Highlander and Myself. That's Steve's airplane in the foreground. We were on top of the Mile Hi airstrip here, which is arguably one of the hardest strips in the Idaho Backcountry as well as the lower 48. For us it's easy peasy stuff most of the off airport stuff we all do is way more extreme but in something like a big metal spam can this one is sporty

IMG_2510.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't think I'd have this much fun until I got into the air again, so folks, hear this: Even if I don't get into the air again, I've had a good time reading all these messages. The more I hear, the more I want to know. Y'all are a very generous bunch, and it's a pleasure to "know" you.

But the more I know, the more I know what I don't know; I'm still dripping with ignorance--hell, I never heard of a "dead-stick takeoff" before, and I still don't know what it is.

And all these different airplanes make me question whether or not I'm even close to being ready to take the leap. Like the difference between Avids, Kitfoxes, Highlanders, Airdales, Zeniths, Murphys, some other Canadian bush planes, and the various models, powerplants, wings, gear, (turbocharged Rotaxes, yet?) and on and on has me in a whirl of confusion. I guess I'll get there eventually, but I only want to buy one airplane--and I want it to be the right one for me.

True, I would like to get by for $15 or 20K, but I'd rather wait a bit longer and get the bird that suits me to a T. I will have to stick to the sport pilot category, and I'm still stuck on the folding wing option, but other than that, I'm still open to suggestions, links, and references about what you folks who have done this a long time think my specifications (Manufacturer, wing type, gear type, engine, and performance etc.) ought to be.

Thanks again for all your responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think it's possible to have an airplane that fits every aspect of your mission perfectly. This is why those who are lucky enough to afford it have two or three. The best you can hope for is something that works well for you MOST of the time. The Rans, Highlanders, and newer Kitfoxes are all amazing airplanes that evolved from Dean Wilson's original design in the early 80's. Their price has followed the evolution accordingly though. Just a bare bones Kit and Rotax 912S for any those is going to be around $50K and then you still have to build it!

I sent you a Private message with some other info as well.

Joey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You might find ONE on here who likes the Jab engine - there have been problems with them and the prop is too small, IMO.

NOW, I WOULD BE BANNED ON ANY OTHER SITE, BUT MAY BE PUT ON THE "HIT LIST" FOR THE FOLLOWING:

I dont know where you are located, but I would like to hear that you checked out a RANS, at Hays, Kansas.

They are a neat little bird, and easy to build - and no danged flaperons - just standard wings. The seats are the most comfortable I have ever sat in - you can get tandem or side-by-side seating.

They even have an option of a "lace-on, already finished", fuselage covering, so you dont even have to paint.

IF I had not been led down this long Kitfox road, I would have been flying a RANS years ago.

ED in MO

P.S. You can get the RANS with a nose wheel too - why fight a tailwheel? (Now I know I'm in deep doo-doo!)

AND, YES, I will put a tri-gear anywhere you can put a tail-dragger - they both become 2-wheelers the second you hold brakes and open the throttle. (now that should start a ruckus!) BUT, I do wonder why I have to replace so many tail skids?

Ed, please forgive me if this question has been asked and answered: What is it about the Jabiru other than the prop, and what is it about the prop that is not good? Also, does the RANS have folding wings and what would it cost me to buy a flying one? What should I replace the Jab with on the Avid 4?

The jab is direct drive and it's hard to get a prop on there big enough to make the thrust a gear rotax engine will. The Rans wing will fold but not without a bunch of work compared to a Kitfox/Avid cables must disconnected ect ect. We just had a member who flew a Kitfox I for years behind a 532. He upgraded to Jab and went back to a Blue Head 582. On the total flip side the FWF on my airplane came from a guy who upgraded to a Jab. He went through two motors and a ton of prop set ups but finally found one that he says will out perform a 582 in every way and has flown a bunch behind it. If I was to spent that kind of money I'd skip straight a 912.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"BUT, I do wonder why I have to replace so many tail skids?"

They may be too short....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed, please forgive me if this question has been asked and answered: What is it about the Jabiru other than the prop, and what is it about the prop that is not good? Also, does the RANS have folding wings and what would it cost me to buy a flying one? What should I replace the Jab with on the Avid 4?

The jab is direct drive and it's hard to get a prop on there big enough to make the thrust a gear rotax engine will. The Rans wing will fold but not without a bunch of work compared to a Kitfox/Avid cables must disconnected ect ect. We just had a member who flew a Kitfox I for years behind a 532. He upgraded to Jab and went back to a Blue Head 582. On the total flip side the FWF on my airplane came from a guy who upgraded to a Jab. He went through two motors and a ton of prop set ups but finally found one that he says will out perform a 582 in every way and has flown a bunch behind it. If I was to spent that kind of money I'd skip straight a 912.

Thanks once again, Ed! This is a big step toward avoiding the very kind of trap you cite--spending a lot of money on a ship that isn't quite up to the job, then dumping a lot more cash into it to bring it up to snuff. I'd rather shop longer, draw to an inside straight, as it were, than to get into that cash-graveyard-spiral. I'm thinking I should just wait until an Avid or a Kitfox (preferably a roomier version--the older ones make me claustrophobic) comes along with a Riblett wing (or a STOL wing?) with a 582 comes along with the wide gear (tall or short?) Do I take it that your airplane has a Jab with some magical prop that will outperform a 582? My present budget is about 20K, but when I sell my expedition-type truck camper, I should be able to kick that up to about 30K. I would rather spend more up front and wait for a cream-puff that is purrfeckt than impatiently blow a lesser amount on something that will require a bunch of modification (and even more money?). I'd like to buy sooner, but it looks like I may have to wait for the EAA fly-in to make up my mind on my specs (or get even more confused?). I don't, however, require a lot of bells and whistles--I'm willing to settle for a basic panel; I'd rather put my money into the actual airplane.

Speaking of disconnecting cables, etc., etc., does that mean fuel lines too? The USAF version of the 172 had "break-away" fuel lines (some kind of automatically closing valve) at the wing root so that if you elected to let the wings take up some of the energy in a forced landing by going between two trees with a lower chance of burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks once again, Ed! This is a big step toward avoiding the very kind of trap you cite--spending a lot of money on a ship that isn't quite up to the job, then dumping a lot more cash into it to bring it up to snuff. I'd rather shop longer, draw to an inside straight, as it were, than to get into that cash-graveyard-spiral. I'm thinking I should just wait until an Avid or a Kitfox (preferably a roomier version--the older ones make me claustrophobic) comes along with a Riblett wing (or a STOL wing?) with a 582 comes along with the wide gear (tall or short?) Do I take it that your airplane has a Jab with some magical prop that will outperform a 582? My present budget is about 20K, but when I sell my expedition-type truck camper, I should be able to kick that up to about 30K. I would rather spend more up front and wait for a cream-puff that is purrfeckt than impatiently blow a lesser amount on something that will require a bunch of modification (and even more money?). I'd like to buy sooner, but it looks like I may have to wait for the EAA fly-in to make up my mind on my specs (or get even more confused?). I don't, however, require a lot of bells and whistles--I'm willing to settle for a basic panel; I'd rather put my money into the actual airplane.

Speaking of disconnecting cables, etc., etc., does that mean fuel lines too? The USAF version of the 172 had "break-away" fuel lines (some kind of automatically closing valve) at the wing root so that if you elected to let the wings take up some of the energy in a forced landing by going between two trees with a lower chance of burning.

I dont know who wrote the answer about the Jab, or the Rans, about two posts above - it wasnt me - and they didnt sign it.

I have heard of valve problems with the Jab - dont know much about them, except the prop is too small for getting you off the ground quickly.

I think you need to do more research, which is what you are doing here, and sooner or later you will make up your mind on what plane will suit your needs - NOTE: TIME doesnt last forever!

Another thing you have to consider when you go swapping engine types from the original, is that it will probably change the flying characterists and also the ground-handling balances.

That is another reason I have extended my wing leading edges and changed to nosewheel, as the heavy Subaru would be too nose heavy, and tail-light, and it would be necessary to move the main gear to keep from nosing over with braking or hitting a bump. I cant stand the thought of designing so poorly that you have to add ballast to the tail.

I am trying to take a vacation from here now that the pain of my torn rotary cuff has lessened, and get back to building - I am another year behind because of that injury.

I think you need to get back into the joy of flying, and quit worrying about going between two trees - I just try to keep mine between telephone poles! The flyer who landed my KF1 in a tree said the one fiberglass wing tank just disintergrated and the gas quickly went away in a cloud of vapor!

Check out the Rans site, and a used one with a 912-80 or 100, I think they are about same price as Kitfox, unless you find an older model KF or Avid.

Best wishes,

ED in MO

P.S. I have been studying aircraft design for nearly 20 years, and still learning - Thanks, AvidFoxFlyers for all the help.

I Will be looking, but not doing the profuse writing that I did during my recovery. GOOD FLYING.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think it's possible to have an airplane that fits every aspect of your mission perfectly. This is why those who are lucky enough to afford it have two or three. The best you can hope for is something that works well for you MOST of the time. The Rans, Highlanders, and newer Kitfoxes are all amazing airplanes that evolved from Dean Wilson's original design in the early 80's. Their price has followed the evolution accordingly though. Just a bare bones Kit and Rotax 912S for any those is going to be around $50K and then you still have to build it!

I sent you a Private message with some other info as well.

Joey

I agree that there's no one plane that will fit my mission perfectly. I've vacillated a lot due to my ignorance and fighting my way up the learning curve, but here's what I now think I want (it may be out of my price range, but I'm looking for a flying one anyway): Anything with folding wings that can be handled by one old crip of a man (Kitfox?) with a 912 that will get off the ground reasonably short with a good rate of climb and a decent service ceiling. I do not need a lot of instruments and bells and whistles--I'm looking for something really basic. I just now heard about the KF-4 -1050 and -1200 versions. Do you/y'all have any websites to recommend? I must be doing something wrong in my searching . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree that there's no one plane that will fit my mission perfectly. I've vacillated a lot due to my ignorance and fighting my way up the learning curve, but here's what I now think I want (it may be out of my price range, but I'm looking for a flying one anyway): Anything with folding wings that can be handled by one old crip of a man (Kitfox?) with a 912 that will get off the ground reasonably short with a good rate of climb and a decent service ceiling. I do not need a lot of instruments and bells and whistles--I'm looking for something really basic. I just now heard about the KF-4 -1050 and -1200 versions. Do you/y'all have any websites to recommend? I must be doing something wrong in my searching . . .

Twister, Hi, I'm really new on here, but have been reading alot of the threads. Learned more about avids and kitfoxes here in two days than in weeks elsware. That said, I have bumped into some interesting tidbits along the way. keep trying different searches. Also, are you a Kitplanes subscriber? They have all their old articles online these days. Can search them by topic. Good soarce of info for all kinds of stuff. Good luck, I hope you find your dream bird soon! (keep an Eye on Barnstormers.com. They have at least a few birds like these on there, most of the time.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Update (of sorts). I'm still searching for the perfect bird for me, and while I doubt that it actually exists, I'm still confused about a lot of stuff. Right now, I would HOPE I could find a KF5 (mainly for shoulder room) I could afford--so many of them are sooo tricked out (I want a real basic panel in a first-rate airframe and engine) that the price is way above my budget. I've been convinced by the bulk of experts that the 912S is the best (only?) way to go, and that tricycle gear is better, even for rough field operations (I'm not so sure I agree with this one, but am open to good reasoning in support of the nose gear position. I do agree, however, that the difference in ground handling might be a worthwhile tradeoff.)

Since I don't know much of anything about Kitfoxes yet (even though I airport bummed a lot on a recent trip, I still haven't seen more than one Kitfox (years ago, and I think it was a KF1).

Is the 5 the only wider one? Are the 1's through the 4's all the same width?

Thanks for any comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure about ALL the measurements, like the crossover tubes may still be the same - but the elbow room has been expanded - for instance the KF2 is 3 1/2 inches wider there than the KF1. Easy mod to do there - I widened mine another 6 inches there. You dont just "sit" in these planes - you WEAR them! IMO.

Rough ground is another story - surely the taildraggers win out there - It takes a real "hard-head" and lots of practice to put - or not put - a nosedragger where the TW guys go - I went with the nose gear on mine because of the heavy Soob and of flying down here in flatland - Takes lots of skill to drive in the mountains and rocks and creeks. (Been there and done that - just relax and follow roads here!)

ED in MO

P.S. The highest "mountain" in Missouri is Tom Saulk and 17xx msl - electric company has a big reservoir on top where they pump water to it all night and release it in day time - or vise-versa - to make electric for the red-necks here living in the woods. I was raised in the flood plains of the Mississippi river, and was in the 1947 and 1957 floods there, and couldnt wait to leave and buy a house on the highest hill I could find where you could work at anything except picking cotton!

ED

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Update (of sorts). I'm still searching for the perfect bird for me, and while I doubt that it actually exists, I'm still confused about a lot of stuff. Right now, I would HOPE I could find a KF5 (mainly for shoulder room) I could afford--so many of them are sooo tricked out (I want a real basic panel in a first-rate airframe and engine) that the price is way above my budget. I've been convinced by the bulk of experts that the 912S is the best (only?) way to go, and that tricycle gear is better, even for rough field operations (I'm not so sure I agree with this one, but am open to good reasoning in support of the nose gear position. I do agree, however, that the difference in ground handling might be a worthwhile tradeoff.)

Since I don't know much of anything about Kitfoxes yet (even though I airport bummed a lot on a recent trip, I still haven't seen more than one Kitfox (years ago, and I think it was a KF1).

Is the 5 the only wider one? Are the 1's through the 4's all the same width?

Thanks for any comment.

I gather that you may have looked at the KF1 for sale? If you are not buying it, then someone else is looking - you could give the phone number and location where I had posted it in "For Sale".

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I gather that you may have looked at the KF1 for sale? If you are not buying it, then someone else is looking - you could give the phone number and location where I had posted it in "For Sale".

ED in MO

Ed, maybe I misinterpreted you, but I thought you said to avoid the 2-cycles. That one had a gray-head. I've had several interruptions to my life and travel plans; we had to take a very abbreviated trip, but the doc has just cleared me of the blood disorder he thought I had; seems it's "only" too many red blood cells, and I get a re-check in 6 months. I may get away on another trip, and if that one's still for sale, have a look at it. There's another guy in that part of the country who is willing to show me his Kitfox; I'd like to look at the different models. I'd need to know who was willing and how to find them.

Thanks again.

Anybody else want to comment about cabin room differences between the models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now