Kitfox vs highlander stol performance

[Dead Roman]

So, Im still shopping for a kit to buy. I have been on the kitfox bandwagon for sometime now and have just been trying to find a used project fox at the right price. I know the kitfox supersport has a 1500lb gross weight which definately appeals to me. The highlander on the other hand only has a 1300lb gross, but the STOL performance is out of this world. I plan to fly my plane to my parents hometown and the landing strip there is a 700ft grass strip for rc planes(abt 40ft wide). From videos I have seen the highlander can land and takeoff from that with room to spare. How would the supersport fare on a strip like that? While I like the highlander for STOL performance I like the kitfox for its sleek looks and high gross. Although the fact that the kitfox kit is roughly 10k cheaper is also a big factor.Either airframe I go with will be powered by a corvair with 120-130HP available for takeoff. A model 4 is also in running in spite of the low gross weight, having seen kits going in the 8k range on barnstormers its very tempting



I apologize if bringing the highlander up on the kitfox site is sacrelige lol

[HighWing]

Roman,

I have a friend that had a 1000 ft. strip at his place until he measured it. It was 700 ft. He was in and out often, mostly daily, in his 604 lb. Model IV with 80 hp. He had the same wing the 7 has. Taking off I doubt would be the problem. HP won't help land short, unless you are comfortble flying final behind the power curve. Heavier usually means faster on final. Also consider the elevation. My friend's place was at about 130 ft.

The 7 is a great airplane and has some features I will be without in my present project, but considering the mission, as you are doing, is very prudent. Have you considered the IV? That's what's working for me.

Lowell

[Dead Roman]

I am actually considering the IV as well. The price I see unfinished kits going for seems almost too good to be true. Im also considering scratch building my own aircraft. If I was gonna buy a kit right now I would most likely go for the SS/7. The 1200lb gross weight on the IV is the one major thing holding me back on it. I plan to use a corvair powerplant and the added gross weight of the SS sure would be nice.

[Dead Roman]

Im comparing 3 planes and I dont see how it is apples to oranges. All three planes are kit-builts of the same construction, use the same powerplants, and are spec'd at nearly identical empty weights. This is CLEARLY and apples to apples comparison.

[Av8r3400]

No, you are not comparing apples to apples.

The STOL performance of the Highlander with the same engine will be far superior to the Kitfox due to the wing design. The Highlander uses Dean Wilson's Avid (and I-III Kitfox) undercambered airfoil. It has much higher lift profile at low speed, compared to the Model IV and later Kitfox wing.

Not only is weight important, but wing design is, too.

One of these 900# fat Supersports is not going to come anywhere near as good as a 550# Model IV, or better yet a Highlander, in STOL performance.

At speed, the Kitfox (even a heavy one) will kick butt, though. The Kitfox is a good plane for STOL performance, but the Avids and Highlanders are better, due to their wing design. Sorry.

[Slyfox]

C5engineer that was great, thanks for posting.

[Dead Roman]

C5 i apologise if i came off as over aggrssive.

Thank you av8r i was unaware of the difference in airfoils.




Could a model iv be made to perform similarly or would it be better to just go with the highlander?

[jonbakerok]

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.

[Dead Roman]

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.

[Av8r3400]

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...