Kitfox Aircraft Stick and Rudder Stein Air Grove Aircraft TCW Technologies Dynon Avionics AeroLED MGL Avionics Leading Edge Airfoils Desser EarthX Batteries Garmin G3X Touch
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

  1. #11
    Senior Member Slyfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    felts field, spokane
    Posts
    1,327

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    Just remember one thing, you can have the best airplane, but it takes a good pilot to make that airplane perform.
    steve
    slyfox
    model IV 1200-flying
    912uls
    IVO medium in-flight
    RV7A-flying
    IO-360
    constant speed prop

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Maries, Idaho
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    Im with you Slyfox, I would have to have a lot of hours and shortfield time before attempting to do what the guy in video does.I saw the dead stick takeoff that Joey is talking about, if I ever did that with my wife in there she would club me over the head.Plus not to sure I would want to pound on my airplane like that, although it did look like a kick in the butt.
    Randy

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    Pick a mission. You can't have it all. You said you want a cheap plane that can use a 500' field.

    But you also want:
    -- 1500 pound gross
    -- Corvair power
    -- Usable cross-country performance

    If you really want the first, forget other three. Look for a used Kitfox 3 with a 582 rotax. I see them all the time on Barnstormers under $20K. Otherwise, pick the latest Kitfox you can afford and practice your short field technique. Any of them will technically land in 500' (for that matter, so will an RV!), but nothing over 1200 pounds with a decent cruise is really going to be SAFE on that short of a field unless you're a helluva pilot. When you can routinely land in 250 feet, then you're ready for a 500 ft runway.

  4. #14

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    I reckon ill end up going with a mod IV or higher then. I dont wanna run a 2 stroke if i dont have to and the corvair is pretty much set in stone. I suppose useable cross country performance is more important than short field performance. I just want to be able to get in and out of grass strips easily. I suppose i could get the local runway extended to abt 1000ft. I reckon it just depends on which kit comes up on barnstormers. I sure would like to get an unfinished 5 or higher. Than you everyone for your insights.

  5. #15
    Super Moderator Av8r3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Merrill, WI
    Posts
    3,044

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    If the Corvair is set in stone, be prepared for lead in the tail to get it close on the CG envelope.

    These motors, like the Subaru weigh 220+ pounds installed. That's a lot for the nose of a IV. One of my chapter mates has a Suby on a IV. Between the weight of the motor and the lead in the tail, it is now for all intents, a single seat plane...
    Av8r3400
    Kitfox Model IV
    The Mangy Fox
    912UL 105hp Zipper
    YouTube Videos

  6. #16

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    I should be able to get the corvair down to 200 flat without electric start(which is the plan). The rest of the aircraft will be built ultralight. Basic panel... No frills at all. But ideally an un started/un finished 5+ is what im looking for.
    Last edited by Dead Roman; 03-10-2010 at 06:11 PM.

  7. #17

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    1. The corvair has been flying for over 30 year in pietenpols and is currently flying in many different airframes. It has a proven track record and is proving to be a great aircraft engine. I would be willing to bet that the corvair engines rate of completion is close to any other powerplants. William wynne has developed the corvair into a fine aircraft engine. If you do the research on this powerplant as I have you would know this.

    2. People have been hand propping aircraft for YEARS, many still do. Sure electric start is alot more convenient, but i can build without and add later if i dont like hand propping. It not like no-electric start is set in stone.

    3. I just wanted to compare the stol performance of the 2 airframes. STOL isnt the only criteria.


    If you want to discuss, MY thought process further feel free to PM me. But next time please consider what your are typing before you post. I dont

  8. #18
    Super Moderator Av8r3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Merrill, WI
    Posts
    3,044

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    It is obvious that you have some investment to the Corvair engine. I'm sure that this engine could be made into a viable aircraft engine. In the application you are looking for, why not go with a proven combination and build a Piet or one of the other "common" installations for your Corvair. Something designed for a 250# engine, not a 150# Rotax.

    The Kitfox (and Highlander, Avid, SkyRaider, etc.) need a powerful and LIGHTWEIGHT engine to balance and perform they way they were intended. The Corvair engine just does not fit this application very well.

    Can it work? Sure. There are Subarus, Lycomings, Continentals, Rotecs and other heavy engines flying in these planes. It this optimum? Light weight is the key to performance in these planes, so probably not.

    Also, for the record, have you ever hand propped a 130 hp 6-cylinder engine? I would not suggest you do this with an engine like a C145 in a 170 or 172. Can it be done? Again, yes it can. Is it foolish? ---

    Food for thought...
    Av8r3400
    Kitfox Model IV
    The Mangy Fox
    912UL 105hp Zipper
    YouTube Videos

  9. #19
    Senior Member av8rps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Junction City, WI
    Posts
    680

    Default Re: Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

    Kitfox vs Highlander....hmmmmmmmm? I have time in both Highlanders and Kitfoxes, so let's see if I can help.

    Lets start by comparing a Model IV Kitfox to the Highlander.

    The Highlander uses a modified Avid Flyer airfoil which is world famous for its exceptional STOL characteristics. The airfoil makes gobs of lift at very low speeds, giving the Highlander (and the Avid) a very short takeoff at very slow speeds. But all that lift also creates gobs of drag. Fortunately that drag is useful in making incredibly steep descents at very slow speeds. So the Highlander lands as short as it takes off, just like the early Avid Flyers did.

    But what a lot of people don't know is that todays Kitfox started with essentially the same airfoil. Consequently the Kitfox enjoys SUPER STOL capabilities as well. But people wanted better cross country capabilities. So Kitfox hired a famous airfoil engineer by the name of Riblett to further refine the airfoil design. That resulted in a wing that kept most all the SUPER STOL characteristics while reducing the overall drag profile, which provided a significantly improved cruise speed. The new wing worked so well that Kitfox made this new wing the standard on every Kitfox starting with the Model IV. This new wing represents the largest difference between the Kitfox and the Highlander.

    All that said, the Highlander will still have a slight advantage in the bush. That old airfoil is pretty hard, if not impossible to beat in that environment. But if you want to still be able to do that STOL stuff, AND fly much faster and efficiently, the Kitfox has the distinct advantage. The Kitfox is also much more nimble to fly. Not that the Highlander is heavy on controls, but by comparison to the light super nimble characteristics of the Kitfox the Highlander feels much more "Cub like".

    I believe in the extreme off airport operations the difference between the Highlander and the Kitfox will be more limited by the pilot than the airplane as both designs are exceptional. It's kind of funny how we don't see the extreme videos featuring Kitfoxes, but I'm convinced there's no reason they can't do it if they want to. But hey to each their own.

    Fwiw, I just spoke with a gentleman last night flying a Model IV Kitfox with a 912uls and an IVO IFA prop. He operates regularly out of a 900 ft strip with powerlines at each end. And his field elevation is 3,000 ft. So that should tell you something. Oh yeah, he has large tires and minimal streamling on his plane and he admits that he has concerns about overspeeding his Fox, as he can easily redline it straight and level. I think his comments are a good represenatation of what a Kitfox can do. As i said earlier, it is probably more about the pilot.

    New Kitfoxes? The new Kitfoxes are much more refined than the IV's are, and appear almost "cushy" by comparison. that also makes alot of people think that makes them pavement-type aircraft. But that couldn't be further from the truth. They are every bit as capable in the bush as most anything you could buy anywhere. So just like the IV's, they are still probably one of the most versatile and capable aircraft out there. I really like Highlanders and would love to own one one day. But I wouldn't sell my Kitfox to do so.

    Speaking of STOL, check out this fun youtube clip of an early Avid Flyer demonstrating its SUPER STOL capabilities. Oh yeah, and when watching it remember that it takes a normal seaplane 2 to 3 times the lenghth of a land plane to take off...

    The seminal design of our modern day Kitfoxes and Highlanders all started with the Avid Flyer...Imho they redefined the term STOL.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjDSatUSoCY

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •