Learning to Fly... all over again...

[Andrew G]

My story first... and then a question... thanks for taking the time to read this:

I worked at the Plymouth Mass airport as a kid in the 1970's... washed and waxed all kinds of aircraft for money, which I would promptly invest in flying lessons. Solo'd in a Grumman American AA 1B, which had the shopping cart nose wheel... and received my license flying a Pile Cherokee 140, with the big ol stubby wing... and eventually settled on renting 152's and 172's... I preferred the high wing airplanes.

Flying in coastal New England was a blast... the old guys used to tell me to "keep the United States to your right"... being not too smart and lacking in athletic ability, I could always get dates one evening on the way back from a quick dinner on Martha's Vineyard... we started smooching and after 10 minutes or so... Otis Airbase asked if I was "Going to Poland"... i.e. I was heading in the wrong compass direction. Suffice it to say, I loved flying in those days... and ended up with a bunch of time in an Enstrom helicopter too (I washed and waxed my little head off for those lessons)... flying was my life.

Then after school I went to work... and got married and had kids and remained somewhat respectable, which is code for flying took a back seat.

I'm approaching 50 this year and I never lost my love for flying... would drive around airports and before the 09-11 perimeter fencing, would roam the aerodromes, peak in the windows of the old Cessnas and Pipers and many fond memories would come barreling back.

So I'm at a point in my life that I want to begin flying again. I found my first logbook (lost my second logbook) and my private pilots license... and visited a local airport and familiarized myself with the cost of getting legal... but more important, re-learning all the new rules and skills of piloting in 2010...

I'm astonished how flying has NOT changed from an equipment perspective... the airports I visit still have the old planes tethered to the ground... however, in my day, there were no Kitfoxes or LSA's around... it's a good thing they are around because I don't have an interest in owning any of these conventional planes...

I've discovered that it's the journey that I'm attracted to... I am interested in flying low and slow and taking some cool trips with a family member. Flying to a grass strip and pitching a tent for a weekend and meeting other pilots sounds like a great time to me.

I've spent countless hours on the internet searching for the perfect plane for my interest. I believe it is the Kitfox. I don't have the time to build it... I built a small boat 7 years ago and invested 600 hours... and my shop reserve in this life is pretty much spent... my oldest son has special needs and I'd rather pay more $, and spend quality traveling/camping time with him than sitting in the dusty moaning chair with two wires in one hand and a fitting in the other wondering what the heck to do with them...

So now the question: Conventional vs Tricycle gear... I've read up on it a little bit and it looks like the big deal is crosswind handling... i.e. focus and agility during landings and takeoffs... ground loop potential is always there... but it looks like fun. I've gotta believe that the plane goes faster and burns less fuel setup as a tail dragger than the tricycle configuration... true?

Thanks in advance for any advice on conventional vs tricycle...

Meanwhile, Deb McBean is sending some information on their latest "factory built" series.

[DesertFox4]

Andrew, first off. Welcome to TeamKitfox.com. Lots of good info. and great people. The story is great and familiar. Glad you're moving flying back to the front burner. The Kitfox will be very kind to you financially and excitement wise.

I've gotta believe that the plane goes faster and burns less fuel setup as a tail dragger than the tricycle configuration... true?

False. Not a real measurable difference in fuel burn between the two or speed. My model 4 is a tri-gear and one of the fastest in our "group". Phil Laker's Super Sport 7 is as quick. The tri-gear is quite capable of going many places. I've been into several back country grass strips in Idaho and land frequently on "unimproved" dirt strips in the Arizona desert with my tri-gear. Phil took his tri-gear Vixen to Alaska and back some years ago with no problems. Ground handling is a non-issue with the tri-gear Kitfox it is that easy.
For extreme back country flying the tail wheel version really is king. If an aircraft can land there the Kitfox tail wheel version can. If the "extreme" back country flying is not the majority of your mission then you will be very satisfied with the tri-gear version.
P.S. The Kitfox factory builds a beautiful S-LSA version of the Super Sport 7 if building is something you're not interested in. Check out member PaulZ's factory built Super Sport http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/att...1&d=1264998207

[HighWing]

Andrew,

I enjoyed reading your post. In some ways it reminds me of myself as my flying history is similar. Learned in the 70s then refreshed in the late 90s to fly my model IV - but I do seriously enjoy the building. I have another in the works. I don't feel comfortable arguing the merits of tailwheel vs. the nose gear except to state my sincere belief that it is more pilot than airplane that is the difference. I was with a flight of six - five tailwheel and one nose wheel - that landed in a 90 degree cross wind that exceeded 25 kts. This was at Jackpot, Nevada for those that know the area. Call me lucky, but all the airplanes handled it fine. I see two names in the members list on this forum that were there as well. The four tailwheel airplanes were Model IV Kitfoxes and the nose wheel was on a Rans S-6. I suspect that with the slightly heavier wing loading, the SS would likely do a bit better. It was an adventure and I should confess that after all were safely at the pumps, it was unanimous that the next time we would use the 90 degree taxiway.

I learned in a C-170B and all but about 8 of my 1000+ hours are in Tailwheels so I have a prejudice there that won't help with your decision.

[Andrew G]

Thank you for the high quality replies...

DF4... the "official" grass strips in the Northeast accomodate tri-gear quite well, I used to fly into them with 152's and 172's when I was flying... and no, I'm not going to be landing on sandbars or mountaintops - at least in this life... and God forbid my younger son takes an interest in flying, I wouldn't want to give him the tools to try it ; )

Flying a conventional-geared airplane looks like tons of fun, and one of the major justification reasons was the improved speed/gas mileage... I saw a post somewhere that stated that conventional buys another 5 knots... I thought that was significant... but after reading your countless posts on varying subjects on this forum, your opinion has a lot of credibility... and the speed argument is moot.

HWing... the 170 is the coolest sounding airplane out there... tons of power, one of my favorites watching take off.

Truth is, I've never been in a tailwheel, save for once when I had a ride in a Stearman when I was about 12 years old... so, I guess I should get some time in one and then make the decision...

I know what you mean about building... and the satisfaction one gets from doing so. I did it with a 16' boat as I posted earlier and I love that boat. My wife reminds me that it will help out with "final expenses" because she is going to bury me in it... but, I don't have the time/space to build a plane... I'm certain that the Kitfox design and the Kitfox company is fail-safe, but I have to prioritize... when I retire maybe... but that's a long ways away...

Either way, I am impressed with the Kitfox product. It fits my lifestyle needs perfectly.

Thanks again. Andrew

[Slyfox]

I started flying about 6 years ago, I'm now 52. I have a kitfox4 and an Rv7. I put about 300-400hrs a year in so I'm a 1500+ hr pilot. I started building the rv when I was 49 and took me 2.5 years to build. I go out to the airport and almost flip a coin to figure which airplane to fly, sometimes I fly one, land and grab the other. I'm living my dream, I always wanted to fly, but couldn't, no money, kids you know. Now I have the time and the money.

As far as building, you can do an ELSA kitfox with most of the construction done with quick build parts, takes away all the nasty things in building. That's the way I would do it. If done proper and you have a mechanical ability, I bet you could get it flying in a year. In the mean time you can go rent a 152 and get current. As far as the nose, tail wheel issue. I have both, it is better to fly the nose wheel (RV) when the weather is nasty, the kitfox stays in the hangar(tail wheel). I wouldn't change either one, I love them both and the configuration that each has. My flying is low and slow in both, I have no restriction really on either airplane. If I want to to something I do it. Although I will say the RV doesn't go into the back country, that's for the kitfox.

Have fun with whatever your decision is, my advice is stay with the factory recomendations, the build if you decide to do that will go faster, and the airplane will fly as designed.

[t j]

Andrew, go get a few lessons in a tail wheel airplane then you will know. Another person telling you which airplane you want is like telling you which woman to marry. It depends on what you like.

Here's my story on learning to fly again. Sense I wrote this I did all my own test flying in my kitfox and am enjoying flying it so much I can't hardly stand it.

Learning to fly again by Tom Jones

Eleven years ago a job transfer required me to relocate and sell my interest in a Cherokee. I had purchased a Kitfox kit a year earlier and slowly working on that was my sole involvement in aviation.

I completed the Kitfox six years ago. I had no tail wheel experience and looked around Central Oregon for an instructor with a tail wheel airplane they would be willing to give lessons in. That combination turned out to be nonexistent. Four years later…now 2004…my wife and I moved to Ellensburg. We had moved away from Central Washington 30 years earlier. Moving back to Ellensburg had been the plan for a long time. I graduated from Central Wash. State College in 1972 and we both really liked this valley.

I joined the local EAA Chapter and found that there was an instructor that would instruct in his J3 Cub in Yakima. On Nov. 1st this year…2006… I took my first tail wheel lesson…in a 1946 Stinson. My instructor had this plane also and wanted me to start in it.

The tail wheel airplane was uncontrollable for me for the first few takeoffs and landings but my instructor was always right on the rudder or brakes when I needed help. When in the air things were much easier but nothing was automatic for me after 11 years. I had to think about every input and while I was thinking about that, something else was getting away.

After ten hours in the Stinson I could handle it on takeoff and landing...most of the time…and my reactions were becoming somewhat automatic again when off the ground. It was time to graduate to the back seat of the Cub.

This was the first time I had ever been in a Cub of any kind. YOU CAN’T SEE SITTING BACK THERE! Looking over and around his shoulders to see the panel was interesting for me too. I kept chasing the airspeed on climb out and approach so he put his hand over the airspeed indicator. He kept his hand over the airspeed from lift off until we crossed the threshold on the landing approach and then removed his hand so that I could see the airspeed was right where it was supposed to be.

After a few more hours in the Cub he wrote a tail wheel endorsement and a biennial review in my log book. I need a couple more hours in the Cub to satisfy insurance. I have located an instructor that instructs in a Kitfox in San Jose and plan to travel down there after the first of the year to get ready to fly my Kitfox!

[Andrew G]

Thanks Tom... appreciate the advice. I will search for a tailwheel instructor as I'm very curious... it looks like a lot of fun.

Seems like there a lot of folks from out west and few (if any) Yankees on this site... hopefully someone from out here has a Kitfox I can see up close.

Andrew

[Dorsal]

Fellow Yank here, just finishing a series 7 (final inspection in the next few weeks). You are welcome to come up and take a look, can't give you a ride yet but happy to do so after I fly off my 40 hours.

[Andrew G]

Would love to see your plane... and congratulations on the build... I'm envious of you guys who can do it...

[Monocock]

The other downside to the tailwheel is that you will be much more limited in the amount of crosswind you can land in

I think quite a few people will disagree with you there. The Kitfox, handled proficiently during the flair (ie upwind main wheel and tailwheel "2 pointer") will allow a tailwheel pilot just as much control in a cross wind as a nosewheel pilot. Similarly, a wheeler landing for those who aren't comfortable with "two-pointers" are also an effective way to control cross winds.

Added to which, with such a low stall speed, a large proportion of any crosswind can be removed when landing a Kitfox, especially on paved runways as they tend to be quite wide.

Although I respect your views, I think they are rather biased away from the benefits of tailwheel aircraft (of which there are many).

I would be interested to see a poll on how many people think that Kitfoxes are far more attractive in tailwheel configuration!! Isn't putting a nosewheel on a Kitfox is like putting kiddies bicycle stabilizers on a road racing bike?!!!