Would like to get your opinions on the pros and cons of both planes.
Printable View
Would like to get your opinions on the pros and cons of both planes.
There is some info in this thread:
http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/sho...ght=Highlander
Keep in mind you are posting on a Kitfox board and I would venture to say 99% of us are very pleased with our Kitfox's. I know I am so I'd say the Kitfox is the better plane:)
Since HD asked for opinions I guess we are allowed to respond. I'll take the Kitfox hands down. I've flown them both. Kitfox is much more responsive in all control axis which makes it much more fun to fly. Kitfox is faster. Kitfox has a stronger fuselage. Also the STOL gets thrown in our face all the time but I flew a short wing Kitfox from Phoenix to the factory fly in and back that would give the Highlanders some pause in that dept too besides being extremely fast. Build em light guys and no one can hold a candle to the Kitfox. All that being said, if the Kitfox never existed I could get by with a Highlander. But with the Kitfox we don't have to settle now do we?;)
Yes this is a Kitfox forum and yes most folks are extremely happy or they wouldn't be here enjoying each others company and sharing the fun. We are also happy with the factory support that comes along with every Kitfox purchase. Kitfox has sold over 5,000 kits. Highlander what, maybe 170?
That's 5,000 potential new friends if you choose a Kitfox and they come at no additional charge. That is a lot of combined flight experience ready and willing to lend support at every step of the build and after the build as witnessed by the generosity of our membership over TeamKitfox.com's few short years on line.
Course you could fly them both and decide for yourself.:D
I think it probably has to do with what you want to do with the aircraft. If you operate out of short rough fields most of the time I think I would opt for the Highlander. If speed is more important then the Kitfox. They are both great aircraft.
Dick
I was just thinking that someone should have a fly off between a 912S Highlander and a 912S Kitfox SS but since this is not likely the next best thing is to look at the manufactures performance claims. I was surprised that the take-off and landing distances were very similar, 300 feet for both take-off and landing roll for the Highlander and 290 feet take-off and 270 feet landing roll for the Kitfox SS. Take into account that manufacture's claims are usually a little on the optimistic side and are often hard to match in real world conditions. I would assume the Highlander's take-off and landing distances would actually be much less than the Kitfox for 1 simple reason, stall speed. Highlander list's stall at 32 mph, Kitfox at 41 mph. Also the Highlander's empty weight is a good bit lower so in a short take-off contest between 2 lightly loaded planes, the Highlander should be the big winner. I assume the manufactures claims were planes at full gross so the performance differences may pretty close in real world conditions. Even if the Highlander were the big winner in the short take-off and landing contest, what sacrifice is it worth in cruise speed? Highlander claims 110 mph or 10 mph or so slower than the Kitfox. This may be the real "stretch". The only Highlander in my area cruises about 90. This is more in line with a CH 701 than a Kitfox SS. Considering the Highlander wing is more like a Model 3 Kitfox than a SS, I'm not surprised at these speed numbers. From what I hear, the Kitfox SS owners are getting 110 to 125 cruise speeds. You can check with the Highlander sites and you might get a better picture of what kind of cruise speeds they are actually getting. It all comes down to what you want and what you're willing to compromise to get it. To get a very low stall speed you'll have to give up some cruise speed. (90 foot take-offs are impressive but I've never been anywhere I needed to do one) James Thomas
This is an urban "back country" legend that gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true. The Highlander image has been, for lack of a better word, manipulated to make folks think it is more rugged than the Kitfox. Every photograph is of one with huge tires and an aggressive stance. Makes you think it is better for rough fields and short strips. Not so fast. Kitfox owned that territory for decades before the Highlander was ever conceived. The Kitfox still retains all those capabilities from days past yet has evolved into a very refined and comfortable aircraft with zero compromises. The Highlander image has been presented as the answer to the folks dreaming of being "bush pilots". Why fall for the marketing angle.Quote:
If you operate out of short rough fields most of the time I think I would opt for the Highlander.
Don't let the Youtube videos showing dead stick take offs from mountain tops or tail up turns on top of rocky mountains fool you. You know the video's I'm speaking of.
The Kitfox can do anything you've seen the Highlanders do with no apologies for the faster cruise speeds, better looks, sportier handling and superior factory support. Time for one "urban legend" to retire. Might be time for Myth Busters to do a fly off.
The people that build the Highlander are good folks. They build a good safe machine that performs well but it will never be a Kitfox.
Beauty and brawn.
Attachment 2615
Well said Steve
I for one am very skeptical of any and all videos for airplane performance. After all Superman leaps off tall buildings and flies but I really doubt that strapping on a cape will do the same for anyone in the real world.
My Kitfox is so old ( 1987 model 2 ) that my 16 years of Kitfox experience would not weigh into this discussion.
I also have questions regarding the comparison since my reason for flying these small homebuilts is exploring where most others have not.
I am sure there are many factors for the Highlanders reduced stall speeds assuming those are accurate numbers.
The difference between 41 and 32 mph stall is huge on a 300-400 foot gravel bar.
Is the use of conventional flaps allowing the major reduction in stall speed?
The wide open baggage area of the Highlander is appealing.
Herman
nothing wrong with the ole model 2's herman,..wish I never sold mine ,..built by Dennis Sawyer N-73DS ,..I landed my model 2 on a 75 foot sand bar off the coast of Cape Cod Mass,and had room to spare,..then I took off from that sand bar when the tide started coming in (after a couple little black jeeps had come out to "inspect" my plane ha ha ),..which made it shorter,..yes I did have a head wind,..maybe 15 mph,cant remember to be honest,..it was just another awesome take off in an awesome plane .. the ole model 2 didnt grunt ,..she lifted off with room to spare as well,.
Sure miss that plane ,..tried to buy it back ,..but the new owner wont part with her,..cant say as I blame him.
What makes me chuckle are the various manufacturers who have come up with a variety of airframes that they claim beats the KF. There are several in Europe.
They make claims of "exceeding Kitfox performance" very time. This proves that KF is still the original and the standard that others strive to meet. Until now, I'm not convinced that any manufacturer has met the same standard.
A question: is the Highlander really comparable to a 7? Surely it's a similar size to the 4?
Has anyone seen the Skyraider Frontier first hand? It looks interesting. The Empty weight is higher (I would assume due to use of Lycoming) but carries a high gross weight and very large baggage area. Seems like getting closer to Super Cub territory but looks like it could qualify as ELSA.
Dave
Considering I routinely run with 12 pounds strapped to the tail wheel spring (and this is with a 582) that I can take off when I load up my "extended baggage" having a big cargo area is very nice! My cargo goes from the back of the seat to the front of the vertical fin. I have had it loaded up with 60-80 pounds rountinely and no ill handling issues. Of course, I put as much weight as far forward as I can, but it is a great place for my sleeping bag and other emergency gear that is left in the plane at all times. I for one think that you can never have enough cargo space and it is up to the pilot to secure the load properly!
If I'm not mistaken there was a time that Kitfox looked into supporting and or selling an extended baggage compartment. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it was decided not to do this for safety reasons. Yes, if one keeps a very close eye on where the weight is at...sure you can "get away with it". But how many pilots have been killed due to that one last oops"? If it is built with the potential of too much weight placed aft, we all know it will be just a matter of time before we hear about it. I would rather be leaning towards a margin of safety than the other end of the stick, but then again...that is personal preference. My opinion is if you are going to be hauling the kitchen sink, then go get the right tool for the job.
Hi all,
I have been trying to decide between these 2 planes for over 6 months and committed to making purchase this fall as planned! I have spoken with the guys at Highlander as well as many Highlander forum members! From what I have learned the Highlander can be a 110 mph plane, but most are in 100 mph range. On floats, 90-95 is average and 100 achievable if its clean and light! Both planes have there obvious advantages in speed and stall! The large baggage area in the Highlander is for me a huge deciding factor for camping etc. The speed of the Kitfox is so appealing though! I agree with all on both sites that you cant go wrong with either decision, just have to decide what is more important!
Regarding the SS 7, does anyone have any realistic cruise speeds on Floats/amphibs? This could be a huge deciding factor to a Kitfox for me!
Thank You,
Bandit
If you really want to compare aircraft, go to the factories or visit builders and look at the aircraft without covering. Look at the following:
Quality of welds and level of finish
Controls, are they push rods or cables?
Drag and anti-drag bracing in the wings. Do the tubes terminate in weldments or are they simply crimped ends.
Plywood used for ribs. Is it aircraft quality spruce ply or something else? How many laminations?
Floorboards… plywood or OSB?
Can aircraft be built as a tricycle gear or only as a taildragger?
How complete is the kit? What “options” must you buy to get a “basic” airplane?
How many aircraft are flying? Hundreds or thousands?
I've seen the brand "H" videos. They have expensive balloon tires mounted just to do whoopee take offs and landings. I'll bet the aircraft doesn't do anywhere near the advertised 110 mph with all that rubber hanging in the breeze.
John Pitkin
If you go and read, owners are saying they are losing only a few miles an hour with the big bush wheels, (which surprised me also)., but that is not what I am trying to compare. If I want big tires I will buy them, and no matter what plane I choose I think it will affect either plane equally. And as far as how the planes are built, I do not know yet, but, Both Kitfox and Highlander owners are confident in showing strength and quality of construction, and I will assume for now, that that is correct and will visit the factory before the purchase. My main things is the trade off with cruise to STOL given equal pilot skills, and maybe baggage area.
I would love to hear some actual cruise speeds on floats or amphibs!
Thanks,
Bandit
I would appreciate any response from people who have personally compared the 2!
(Bandit, my apologies, I edited your post rather than quoting it. I will try to get it restored ASAP.)
I've flown along side Steve Henry, the dead stick take off guy, a couple of times. I was more impressed with his skills than the airplane's. Highlanders have a smaller wing than the Kitfox and his weighed near 800 pounds empty, so it wasn't anything that blew my skirt up when it came to performance. If you know your plane, like Steve, you can make it do almost anything, but it takes a lot of hours. Just has done a good job of marketing their plane as the ultimate backwoods machine, but it really isn't anything super special, at least to me.
I first saw the Highlander at the Franklin,NC airport which is about 20 minutes from my mountain cabin. I was very impressed with the performance of the plane. It was a STOL's STOL.
As the factory was only about an hour away in Wahalla,SC I decided to go see where it was made. After driving down Duck Pond road in the middle of fields and mountains I could not imagine an aircraft factory located here. I saw a large building marked Just Aircraft so pulled in. It is located on the edge of a lake with a short gravel boat ramp extending at about a 30 degree angle into the lake. I later found out that this was their airstrip !....WOW !
I met Troy at the factory and he gave me a very nice tour of the plant.In a nutshell I thought this was a well made quality aircraft. I really wanted one. It had lots of room,made of 4130,conventional flight controls and looked nice. However, there was one problem for me...price. At my age I just didn't want to build AND there are few used Highlanders available and they carry a high price.
I had first seen the Kitfox at Sun and Fun when the aircraft first premiered. I liked it then and thought this might be a nice option for me as there are a lot of them out there.
I found a very nice 4 thanks to John McBean and have had the aircraft for a number of years now. I am very happy with it and have made a number of mods to suit me even better.
Would I still like to have a Highlander...you bet ! BUT the bottom line for me is having an airplane you can live with that does not cost a fortune and you enjoy flying . It has to fit in with the rest of your life !
The Kitfox is the 14th aircraft I have owned. I like it. Is it the best of all the others...No. Does it suit my needs at this time...absolutely ! It is cheap to fly,fun, takes off on a dime (100 hp would be nice though)
So, as I said before, it depends onwhat you want to do with the aircraft. They are all good.(or at least most)
Dick
Fox 4
912UL
Bandit,
When someone posts a question such as, “Which is better, the Kitfox or the [insert name here].” I take that as an invitation to voice an opinion. But I do so with caution.
I didn’t buy the first airplane kit I saw. Like many others I did my homework and compared different kits. I visited builders to see airplanes in various stages of construction. I looked at the manuals and poked around inside the aircraft. I finagled flights in completed aircraft.
For me, it came down to my comfort level with the kit components? Did I like the construction manual? Would I feel comfortable flying the completed aircraft? What is the track record of the kit producer for delivering the kit after you send them money? What do builders report about factory support? I saw subtle differences in the Kitfox that I found attractive such as the number of laminates in the plywood used for ribs (11) and cap strips (5). I liked the adjustable rudder pedals and pushrod controls.
As for performance, most of the aircraft I looked at were in the 90 mph to 120 mph class. All of them could operate in and out of 1000 foot runways which are about as short as I find in East Texas. Although it’s fun to leap in the air in just 150 feet and land in 300, it wasn’t my primary goal. I don’t need LSA so it was never a consideration. I did find the manufacturer’s performance numbers to be quite revealing. The Kitfox published figures are very close to what I saw in the airplane.
Some things are hard to compare when a kit manufacturer doesn’t specify a feature. For example, I see many comments about the huge Highlander baggage area at 32 cu. ft. You can build a huge baggage area in the Kitfox if you want to. The mounting tabs are pre-welded in the fuselage to employ most of the tailcone space if desired. Some builders use the extended area. I suspect most use the standard compartment.
Is the above posting an opinion? Absolutely. Is the opinion based on actual comparison? Yup! Does it convince you to buy one airplane or another? Haven’t got a clue.
For me, there is nothing like a hands on inspection before the covering goes on. You get an intimate feel for the aircraft when you can look at all the controls, rods, tubes and wires. I recommend you do the same, then form your own opinion. You decide what’s important to you.
In the end, I decided to purchase the Kitfox.
Enjoy your research project.
John Pitkin
There is a member, here on this list, with the handle Av8rPS. Paul owns several aircraft ranging from several Avid Flyers and Kitfoxes to most recently he has purchased a Just Highlander. He has flown them all on floats and wheels and is quite knowledgeable on this design class (the Avid descendants) of aircraft.
Contact Paul. He love to talk airplanes. Really...
My advice is to just get the plane you want, looks, performance, and most important, factory support. Than go out and fly the snot out of it, be one with the airplane, than you will have fun and not look back. I love my kitfox because it's easy to fly, the only adjustment is the prop. I use no flaps, just push pull the throttle. If I want to land short, I just pull back on the throttle all the way(idle set to 500rpm), this allows me to stand on the nose and land it, if I'm not going slow enough I level out and put a bunch of rudder in, I end up flying sideways, this is much better than any flaps, I get to 70 I straighten up and land the plane, most the time I can touch down and roll out about 300ft. Why do I need any of the complexities of flaps for. My plane flies and can do what I want it without the trouble. I am one with both my airplanes and can do things with them that no body else can, why, I fly them all the time and know what they can do.
I took off from a strip the other day and on take off a blue haron came out of the weeds and went right in my path, (I was in the RV) did I freak, no way, I stayed on the runway a little longer and got my speed up, just when I thought I was clear of the bird, it was about 10ft off, it turned around and went right in my path, what did I do, I lifted off and banked hard right, missed it by about 5 feet, did it scare me, no way, I just went on my way. I thought it was cool actually. You need to know your airplane and not get caught up in, this guy says this plane is best, or that plane is the only one to have, a plane is a plane, and you make it what it is. So go out and find the plane YOU want and build it or buy it and than fly the snot out of it and enjoy it.
It all depends on the mission.. If you dont use flaps, you are not as one with the plane as you may think. I can get in and stopped in under 150' consistantly... Each plane has a different mission. Define your mission, then look for the plane that best suits that mission.
Larry gave you great advice! Talk to Paul. I doubt there are many here (if any) who have as much time in the various models from the Avid A up to the present planes as Paul does. He will give you honest answers without any brand X hype.
I've never needed to come in and stop at 150ft. so why bother.
I thought about this one a bit and here goes. If I land and don't use the brakes, which I do. Does that mean I'm NOT one with the airplane. If I go to land and turn the engine off and land without the engine, does that mean I'm NOT one with the airplane. I think you should rethink your response
I think this is a good place to end this thread