Kitfox vs RANS, The Building Experience

I can give a comparison between a scratch build and a Kitfox ss7. Really it's no comparison at all. The scratch build What I got was a set of paper plans on how to build the wooden structure and metal parts (landing gear, pedals stick struts). After that it was up to you to figure out what was needed and where to get it. Other than the plans there were no instructions. Then during construction I kept finding structural errors in the design that had to be corrected. After getting the airworthiness certificate three trips to the airport. Each trip something broke while taxing.. The third time I loaded it back on the trailer took it home and sawed off the tail behind the cockpit. The tail now graces the end wall of my shop as a monument to a project gone bad. That was 12 years work with no joy, but I did learn a lot about building an airplane.

The kitfox, a joy. There are very few hard decisions to make, (like how much money are you willing to spend ) everything you need is right there(you just have to find it), and step by step assembly INSTRUCTIONS!!! It's still going to take me two years of working to assemble it but the stress level is way down . I'm looking at flying in 2017 after 20 years of struggling to get there.

I have always liked the Kitfox series but I learned in a Champ and liked the tandem seating so I bought a Rans S-7. The build was straight forward but I did not like the method of using two build books to work out of. One for drawings, part numbers and the other with drawings and instructions. After a few months I got use to the flow of using both books. The factory support was always fine, Ed Swab is the main guy you will talk to about questions you have. I like the plane and the performance with the rotax 100hp.

As stated above I always liked the Kitfox so I bought a kit with the quick build wings, With my past build experiences having wings built in factory jigs is worth the price and time saved. Brandon builds wings very well, you can see his pride in every glue joint, kudos to Brandon. The parts received were very well packaged, numbered and boxed in logical order, Thanks Debra. The build manual is the best I have seen in kit planes, everything you need in one place with lots of good illustrations. The parts so far have fit very very well, all prebuilt items (struts for example) fit perfectly. I am just about done with the wings and looking forward to starting the fuselage. As for performance I can only compare John's blue/white factory plane as that is what I test flew in. Great performer, solid, responsive control, predictable, stalls straight forward no surprise, comfortable seats and just about no noise in the cockpit.

Both companies have been good for me however fit and finish goes hands down to Kitfox. If you go to Oshkosh both companies are across from each other, just compare the hardware, panel, seats, baggage compartments and of course under the hood for easy access.

Just my thoughts.

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rainbird

I can give a comparison between a scratch build and a Kitfox ss7. Really it's no comparison at all. The scratch build What I got was a set of paper plans on how to build the wooden structure and metal parts (landing gear, pedals stick struts). After that it was up to you to figure out what was needed and where to get it. Other than the plans there were no instructions. Then during construction I kept finding structural errors in the design that had to be corrected. After getting the airworthiness certificate three trips to the airport. Each trip something broke while taxing.. The third time I loaded it back on the trailer took it home and sawed off the tail behind the cockpit. The tail now graces the end wall of my shop as a monument to a project gone bad. That was 12 years work with no joy, but I did learn a lot about building an airplane.

The kitfox, a joy. There are very few hard decisions to make, (like how much money are you willing to spend ) everything you need is right there(you just have to find it), and step by step assembly INSTRUCTIONS!!! It's still going to take me two years of working to assemble it but the stress level is way down . I'm looking at flying in 2017 after 20 years of struggling to get there.

---

That sounds TERRIBLE! Just tell me the plans built wasn't a Falco or a GP4. I can't imagine throwing that much work away. But after that, anything with instructions would seem easy.

This business of instructions is a big deal. I'm working on an RV8. People say Van's has terrific plans and drawings. Personally, I don't see it. I've looked at the Kitfox instructions and they look like they'd keep me out of trouble. It isn't 100% clear to me that they're better than RANS -- the guys on ransclan.com don't seem to complain. But I'm sure they're better than Van's and they'd be good enough.

It was a rather obscure designer on the East Coast. Not a Falco or GP4..I would rather not say who the designer is because I don't like badmouthing anybody. Good advice is to pick a well known designer and a design that has been well proven. That is a big reason why I chose the Kitfox. It is so nice to not have to redesign the whole thing and to have predictable results. It is also a real neat plane that meets my needs.

StuBob
I'm in Carmel IN and have a Kitfox 5 project at Metro airport. The 5 is similar to the 7. I have the fuse covered and the wings are built but not covered. You are more than welcome to come take a look.
I also have a GP-4 at home in my garage if you want to take a look at that...

15 years ago I built an RV4 empennage. I honestly never recall having any questions while working with their instructions and I know I never called Vans for answers and I never had folks on line like this to lean on. I was very comfortable working with aluminum. Using the Kitfox manual has been very pleasant and I do lean on people here to glean some direction as well as the McBeans. They are very willing and encourage me to ask them for help when needed. I have made mistakes and thats what prompts my calls to Idaho. The build is moving along. I will complete this one. Im tired of seeing others fly their kitfox's but I will continue to watch them for inspiration. My favorites are the Youtube videos by Steve K "Kitfox flying Arizona Desert". I learned to fly in those deserts and have crewed many hours on UH 1H and Blackhawks in Steves backyard. Keep em coming Steve. Looking forward to having you show me around there in my own Kitfox someday.

A very interesting thread and entertaining as well. I have no experience building a Rans or a Series 7, but have some thoughts. I have to disagree with Jim regarding his "I have a hunch..." comment. The earlier Kitfoxes were easier to build as the project didn't include Trim Actuators or Telescoping Rudder Pedal torque tubes - frequent topics discussed here. I built two of the earlies one from Denny and one from Skystar.

My comment about the Rans I am most familiar with - and keep in mind it was a S-6 ca. 1999 or so. On our first group flight to Idaho to explore the back country our first fuel stop was Winnemucca, Nevada. The least fuel purchased of the six airplanes for a top off was 7.2 gallons - a Model IV Kitfox. The most was 14 gallons - the S-6. Most were in the 11 - 12 gallon range for the three hour trip. We flew many trips together - Idahp, Oregon, Washington,Wyoming and Montana plus our one trip to Oshkosh - and loved the S-6 along as having two 9 gallon wing tanks, our friend, the pilot was the best low fuel indicator possible. I see that the S-7 now has 26 gallons total. Don't know if that was the case with the early S-7 but doubt it - the S-6 still the same.

Winnemucca for fuel.

Quote:

---

The least fuel purchased of the six airplanes for a top off was 7.2 gallons - a Model IV Kitfox. The most was 14 gallons - the S-6. Most were in the 11 - 12 gallon range for the three hour trip.

---

Let me see if I've got this right.

KF IV - 7.2g / 3hr = 2.4 gph?
Others - 11.0g / 3hr = 3.66 gph
More others - 12 g / 3hr = 4.0 gph
Rans S6 - 14g / 3hr = 4.66 gph?

Really useless info unless acompanied by engine/gearbox/prop data, and loading. Was the KF IV going downhill all the way? Did the Rans start with 10 gallons in the tank? If all flying together at relatively the same speed and altitude, 2.4 gph seems a tad optimistic. Or the Rans was flying circles around you guys waiting for you to catch up. Surely not all were using the same engine.

So whats the point?

No dog in the fight here either but something definitely seems weird. I am currently flying a 1997 Rans S7 with a 912. When it had the 95 HP Extra Performance pistons, I ran it at max cruise RPM (55-5600 rpm if I remember correctly) on a cross country and used 4.3 gph. Basically WOT at this burn rate, my average cruising I only burn 3.5 gph +/-. It varies due to my never constant speeds.

I guess I might understand the confusion. I left out one piece of information. One of the guys flew behind a Rotax 582 – that was the one orange in a flight with 5 apples.

Then this might help. When building, some guys build what we once called when working in a print shop during college – “Quick and Dirty”. For us meaning a quick build resulting in an aerodynamically dirty airplane. The 7.2 gph guy put lift strut fairings that in recent posts suggests a 10 mph airspeed increase. Then this guy put fairings on the jury struts and horizontal stabilizer struts for another mph increase. He also put on the Speedster elevator trim tab to avoid the draggy trim using the flaps – another mph or two. Then he airfoiled both horizontal stabilizer/Elevator and vertical stabilizer/rudder with airfoiled gap seals in both – more mph. He even tried hubcaps to reduce the drag from the original factory 8” X 19” wheels. We talk a lot about speed increases with our fairings, but drag reduction also has a lot to do with fuel consumption – ask any airline.

Consider this; along with our policy to always fly as a flight of 6 or 8 as the case dictated, we took off as a flight of six and landed as a flight of six. If it was a three hour flight, it was a three hour flight for all. Then there was – as was suggested our individual flight tendencies. The Rans guy, Kirk, liked to see what he could find on the ground 20 ft. AGL was not unusual for him – tons of video to prove it. (Pic From Video)

Attachment 12041

The 582 guy, Wally, flew with a bit of altitude – makes perfect sense. Lenny flew conservatively maybe 1000 ft. Merv liked to find water to wash his wheels or maybe an irrigation sprinkler to wash his windshield – maybe you get the picture. But then put these guys with varying tendencies all with differently configured airplanes flying at the overall speed of a 582 powered Model IV (With the occasional side trip to chase the sprinklers or rattle snakes) fuel consumption will definitely go down – a lot for a clean airplane. My point was that the Rans S-6 burned the most fuel – with the possible exception of the 582. That was the apples and oranges comparison, or so I thought. Being factory built and sold as such, I felt the trip pretty much reflected what an off the shelf strictly instruction manual built S-6 would do.
A little math shows that I flew with these guys about 280 hours of my total 990 in my first Model IV. Some things you know through personal experience, Sorry if some find it mind boggling or difficult to swallow. I’ll be more careful what I post in the future.