I need a faster experimental back country airplane

[herman pahls 9]

My Model 1 Kitfox with a 582 and 27" ATV tires cruises at 80 mph at 5 gallon/hour.

How fast do the Model 4-7 Kitfoxes with 80 or 100 hp 912's cruise with 26 or 29" Airstreaks and at what fuel burn?

I would prefer a Highlander due to the open and larger baggage compartment but am concerned about slower cruise speed due to under cambered wing like my model 1 has.

The newer model 5-7 Kitfoxes seem to be quite heavy in comparison to Highlanders.

How much slower and shorter due the Highlanders land than the newer Kitfoxes.

I would like to buy a flying airplane but not many Highlanders for sale and if you find one they are $60K.

I will appreciate your advice.

Thanks Herman

[Av8r3400 1179]

Herman - I believe you posted a similar question on BCP.org. I replied to you there, but will repeat it here for this audience.

Here's what I can tell you first hand.

My 80hp Model IV Kitfox will cruise happily at 105-110 mph [i can see 120 if running flat out in smooth air]. 120+ would be very easy [cruise] with 100hp. My plane will keep up with the Rans S7 with 100hp and easily pass up the Highlander with 100hp that are owned and operated by friends in my EAA chapter.

Having flown both of these other planes I can say that my plane handles much lighter and quicker that either of the other two. I'd compare it to driving a Porsche versus a Buick. This is purely a function of push-pull tubes for control rather than cables, the flapperons being positioned in the high pressure area under and behind the wing and an excellent Riblett airfoil design. The model IV Kitfox was the first to use the current wing that is still being used by Kitfox on their current Super Sports.

STOL performance wise, I will take my Kitfox anywhere that these other two will go.

[it is obvious in the hands of an experienced pilot the Highlander should out perform the Kitfox. But IMO, that advantage is splitting hairs. Who really needs to land in 250' rather than 350'.]

As to production numbers, I will counter that there are more Kitfoxes flying than S7s and Highlanders combined.

My Airplane:

Kitfox Model IV-1050 (early model IV)

80hp Rotax 912UL

~3gph fuel burn

72" Warp 3-blade taper tip, nickel inlay

650# empty weight

21x800x6 tires

[EDMO 1078]

Herman,

As with most things in life, planes are a compromise and you just have to pick what suits you best and can afford. We would all like to have a plane that takes off and lands in a minimum distance, and also carries all the fuel and baggage we will need, and burns little fuel while cruising at the fastest speed possible.

All that said - There are lots of 80 mph cubs and Avid-Foxes flying in Alaska. I put 48 gallons of tanks in my Fox wings for those long flights, but dont need them much in the lower 48, unless I go back North across Canada.

Your plane will possibly get into places, and out of them, that faster planes may not do as well. I know that you want to make the long trip as quickly as possible, but a fast plane, like an RV is not a back-country plane, IMO.

The KF 4 or later, with the 912, or maybe an Avid with the newer (or Kitfox) wing, with extra tanks, may be your best compromise for the money. The Airdales have lots more baggage space.

Good Luck in your searches.

Give us the results when you are done.

Good Flying,

ED in MO

[herman pahls 9]

Thanks for responding Av8r3400 again on this forum and also Bob

Last night a googled Kitfox versus Highlander and learned a lot from threads regarding what you call splitting hairs.

Most seem to agree that the Kitfox model 4-7 airfoil is faster than the undercambered airfoil of older Foxes, Avids and Highlanders.

Most agree that the Highlander lands slower and shorter and baggage area is better.

One Kitfox 5 owner suggested that a Kitfox in the hands of Steve Henry could make a Kitfox land similar to a Highlander.

While doing my search I found the SkyRaider Frontier.

This seems to be a fairly new model with Highlander style open baggage area and it appears they chose to use the undercambered wing like Highlander did.

Seems to me the Kitfox wing with Highlander baggage would be ideal for me but this combination does not exist.

It was also mentioned that maybe why the Kitfox wing is faster other than not being undercambered is that the flaperons are airfoil shaped.

Maybe the Kitfoxes do not land as slow is because flaperons can not be lowered like flaps do to limiting aileron control.

I do not use the flaperons on my model I for that reason.

In order to have open baggage, cables instead of pushrods are used for the ailerons and flaps.

As everyone already knew, these airplanes are all compromises.

I need a folding wing airplane.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Glastar.

I understand the wing folding is not something you want to do everytime you fly like I do now.

Do they land slow enough to be a serious backcountry airplane or only in Steve Henry's hands?

Thanks Herman

[Av8r3400 1179]

A couple of questions for you, Herman:

• Are you looking to build or buy?
• What performance do you want/need for your desired mission?
• Have you had the chance to fly any of these designs?

And a couple of comments in regard to your stated points:

• The Frontier looked to be an interesting design. I haven't seen it at Airventure in several years. I have never heard of one (other than the factory prototype) that is flying, either. I think it's too close to the Highlander in design to overcome their head start.
• Kitfox does offer an extended baggage area that is comparable in volume to the Highlander, with exception of the control mixer and fixed seats blocking the front. I'm planning a HUGE baggage area in my project plane. My design goal is to fit a tent and two folding chairs in it, plus baggage.
• I land my IV with flaps all the time with never any "inversion" problems. I am rigged to get 26° of flap action. The flaps do not give a lot of drag, but they do enhance lift and lower the stall speed. I do run out of elevator with full flaps trying to flair, though. The plane performs kind of a "not quite" 3-point landing. Landing short is definitely an exercise in energy management. Come in too fast and it will float for ever! With flaps extended, my plane flies with full control, indicating 35 mph.
• There is a Glastar in our chapter as well. Nice airplane. Fast! But, you are looking at a Lycoming engine 150 or more hp. I've heard they do well off airport, but I don't believe them to be in the same class as the others you have noted, mostly because they are a larger, heavier aircraft. (Well beyond LSA)

The "Airdale" design is actually (no one will ever admit) a large part of the basis that Highlander/Escapade came from. It uses teleflex cables for the flapperons with the mixer under the (movable) seats. It is supposed to utilize the Avid wing and flapperons. I have often thought of building one of these, utilizing the far superior Kitfox wing and flapperons.

Edited 29 Nov 2012 by Av8r3400

[EDMO 1078]

More on the Airdale - John Larsen designed this modification to the Avid, so he could fold down the seats and sleep in the plane - and carry his guitar and camping equipment. With better wings, it should be a winner.

Believe there are photos of putting a 55 gallon barrel into the bagggage compartment.

They were sold with the Stratus EA81 110 hp engine - which is a good long lasting, cheaper than Rotax, engine.

IMO,

ED in MO

Edited 29 Nov 2012 by Ed In Missouri

[Av8r3400 1179]

Holy crap, Ed. 48 gallons?? What are you planning for an engine, a PT-6?

Edited 29 Nov 2012 by Av8r3400

[EDMO 1078]

Holy crap, Ed. 48 gallons?? What are you planning for an engine, a PT-6?

Nope - PT6 dont get good mileage - Was planning to fly longer flights around Alaska, and dont like water and dog piss in my tanks, so had to carry enough to get back. There are also 350 mile stretches without gas stops across Canada and Alaska, and if the pass is closed, you better have enough to get back to where you started.

Heck, I might decide to fly to some foreign places down here, like Idaho, or Washington, and if I can keep my bladder emptied, I dont have to stop so often - and might even get lost in the wilderness where there are no roads to follow..........Now, do you want to hear about this crazy pilot extending the leading edges, splitting the flaperons into flaps and ailerons, and making the tail stronger, bigger, and other wild things, like making the roof 6 inches higher so I can use Cabellas boat seats and be comfortable, or my $100 scrounged bicycle nose gear?

Thanks for asking - havent got to put my 2cents worth on here for a while and got bored waiting to talk to you nice flyers......

Someday I will post some photos.

ED in MO

P.S. A friend of mine in Alaska built a Glastar and found a runway too short, and flipped it on its back at the end - I told him I saw a photo of a plane with landing gear both below and on top of the wings, so that should solve his problem when he rebuilt it.....or look for longer landing places! He didnt think that was so funny.

Edited 29 Nov 2012 by Ed In Missouri

[horsepower 24]

Thanks for responding Av8r3400 again on this forum and also Bob

Last night a googled Kitfox versus Highlander and learned a lot from threads regarding what you call splitting hairs.

Most seem to agree that the Kitfox model 4-7 airfoil is faster than the undercambered airfoil of older Foxes, Avids and Highlanders.

Most agree that the Highlander lands slower and shorter and baggage area is better.

One Kitfox 5 owner suggested that a Kitfox in the hands of Steve Henry could make a Kitfox land similar to a Highlander.

While doing my search I found the SkyRaider Frontier.

This seems to be a fairly new model with Highlander style open baggage area and it appears they chose to use the undercambered wing like Highlander did.

Seems to me the Kitfox wing with Highlander baggage would be ideal for me but this combination does not exist.

It was also mentioned that maybe why the Kitfox wing is faster other than not being undercambered is that the flaperons are airfoil shaped.

Maybe the Kitfoxes do not land as slow is because flaperons can not be lowered like flaps do to limiting aileron control.

I do not use the flaperons on my model I for that reason.

In order to have open baggage, cables instead of pushrods are used for the ailerons and flaps.

As everyone already knew, these airplanes are all compromises.

I need a folding wing airplane.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Glastar.

I understand the wing folding is not something you want to do everytime you fly like I do now.

Do they land slow enough to be a serious backcountry airplane or only in Steve Henry's hands?

Thanks Herman

Herman,I heard Skyraider has the Frontier for sale that is pictured on website,it has a 0-290 Lycoming in it and it has the big luggage compartment.It does have the undercamber wing like the Highlander but should cruise in the 105 range.I saw it when I was at the factory and is real nice,not my favorite color but not too bad.May be worth calling on.Randy

[EDMO 1078]

Herman,I heard Skyraider has the Frontier for sale that is pictured on website,it has a 0-290 Lycoming in it and it has the big luggage compartment.It does have the undercamber wing like the Highlander but should cruise in the 105 range.I saw it when I was at the factory and is real nice,not my favorite color but not too bad.May be worth calling on.Randy

If this is like the skyraider - or was it skyranger? - I saw the builders prints for on line - I wouldnt touch it with a 100 foot pole - what I saw was a bunch of aluminum tubing connected by 1000 bolts and nuts - too danged many things to come loose, IMO. Maybe this is a different plane than the one I saw?

ED in MO

[horsepower 24]

If this is like the skyraider - or was it skyranger? - I saw the builders prints for on line - I wouldnt touch it with a 100 foot pole - what I saw was a bunch of aluminum tubing connected by 1000 bolts and nuts - too danged many things to come loose, IMO. Maybe this is a different plane than the one I saw?

ED in MO

Ed Skyraider is another spin off of Avid and Kitfox back in the 80's,they are chrome moly tube and fabric welded,been a sucessful airplane.Check um out.They are www.skyraiderllc.com

Randy

[herman pahls 9]

av8r

I want to buy.

I believe the model 4-7 with a 912S and 26" air streaks will meet my needs.

What speed will these Kitfoxes cruise at burning 5 g/h with 26" Air streaks?

I spoke with Sky raider regarding their Frontier and got the impression they are marketing the pilots that prefer Lycomings over 912's.

Their wing loading is higher than Kitfoxes and Highlander which I assume would feel more solid in turbulent air.

My model 1 feels like a toy airplane in anything but mild turbulence.

My wish would be a Highlander with a faster wing even if it gives up a little short field performance.

Or a Kitfox with adjustable seats and more open baggage area.

Any one know of 912 Kitfox's for sale?

Herman

[Av8r3400 1179]

av8r

I want to buy.

I believe the model 4-7 with a 912S and 26" air streaks will meet my needs.

What speed will these Kitfoxes cruise at burning 5 g/h with 26" Air streaks?

...

Herman - Get a hold of this guy, Paul Leadabrand. He operates a business called "Stick and Rudder" in Idaho. He's running a big tired SLSA Kitfox (Factory Built) as a flight school. He should be able to give you a bunch of information on performance.

I would guess that with 100 hp, you should still see 110-115 mph fairly easily.

Some day I'd really like to get out there and do some training with him...

Edited 29 Nov 2012 by Av8r3400

[EDMO 1078]

Ed Skyraider is another spin off of Avid and Kitfox back in the 80's,they are chrome moly tube and fabric welded,been a sucessful airplane.Check um out.They are www.skyraiderllc.com

Randy

Thanks for the info - will check it out - I have learned a lot from all of you on here - Keep it coming.

ED in MO