Folding wings

[big jim]

when folding the wings on a ss7 do you need to drain the gas tanks. Also does anyone on the forum have any experience with the zenith stohl 750 as far as how it compares with the ss7, I keep going back and fourth on both planes and will be looking them both over at the big flyin next month but any opinions on this subject would be helpful. Also I am wondering about the difference between a tail dragger and tricycle gear as far as back county flying and landing on rough fields. I don't have my license yet so I have no flying experience so again all opinions will be help full. Thanks guys

[Esser]

Folding the wings you have to have the tanks below half. As for the Zenith, my buddy has one and he takes it some pretty hairy places. He loves the thing but it is much slower than a Kitfox. I would rather cruise 35mph fast in the kitfox and land 200' longer.

Building a kitfox and seeing the Zenith I would say the Kitfox is a nicer built machine. Just my opinion

[N981MS]

I built and own a Kitfox Series 6 with a Continental IO240 and in a group built and own a 750 STOL with a Continental O200. Either can be built with similar skill level. But you will learn different skills. Basically if you have any aptitude for building and can follow instructions you can build either.

The 750 will get off the ground in a shorter distance. Great fun to take off at high angle of attack.

Kitfox will outclimb and easily outrun our Zenith. Overall I prefer flying the Fox. It just flies better. Maybe our Zenith could perform better with a different prop although our prop is our second and was recommended by Sensenich. IMHO the Kitfox looks better too.

Both are great fun and you will love whichever one you build. But if you do not need extreme short take off I think the Fox wins.

I am happy to answer any questions.

I also prefer tailwheel. They look better to me. They look "right" in the bush.

[big jim]

Maxwell can you email me your phone number so I can call with some questions jim@iowametalfab.com Thanks

[Paul Z]

I would recommend two things. First the Kitfox versus the Zenith STOL 750, I would recommend you look into the Cruise Speed as well. I have to do Cross Countries to get to where I want to Fly. The north Texas area is FLAT farm lands, and if I want some entertaining flying I usually fly about an hour to the North the Arbuckle Mountains, or 2 hours South West of Dallas to get into the Hill Country. The Kitfox is extremely capable at Short Field Landings, and I cruse at about 110 to 115.

The Zenith STOL 750 is supposedly one of the best STOL aircraft kits, I just can not get past, the Ugly Baby syndrome. I don’t know what the Cruise is I never have seen what they tout as a Cruise Speed.

I really like the Just Aircraft Super STOL, but damned they are slow. In reading Posts it Cruises at 90 to maybe 100, it would make for extremely slow Cross Countries. I have considered building one. If you are going to Oshkosh, go to the Ultralight Field when they have the STOL Landings & Takeoffs. I am positive they will be there. They do some amazing the Take Offs & Landings. I’ll be there watching.

[av8rps]

A light 912 powered KF SS will get off the ground nearly as good as the 0200 750. Landing speed will be higher however in the SS, so landing distance will be longer than the 750, but not significantly. I think for back country bush operations the ability of the plane (if comparing the SS to the 750) is less important than the pilot's ability. So most important is to learn how to fly to get best short and rough field performance out of your plane imho.

I not only don't like how the 750 looks, but I also would much rather be in a Kitfox chromoly steel tube fuselage if I were to mess up while doing that challenging bush flying stuff. You'll not see 200 mph race cars (that hit walls at those speeds) being built out of riveted aluminum (like the 750 is). Nope, they use tubular steel like the Kitfox does. That feature alone really draws a line between a Kitfox and a 750, assuming safety is high on most everyone's list like it is to me?

I also agree with Paul Z, I like to be able to get somewhere reasonably quick if I need (or just want) to. If you have that "it never fails" 20 mph headwind, in the 750 you'll be wondering if driving might be as fast or faster (assuming 750 is the stol wing). In the Kitfox you will most likely be able to maintain 100 mph even with that headwind. So getting where you want to go will be quicker, and you'll burn less fuel. Plus, you'll find you can use your Kitfox to go places, rather than feeling like you have to stick around home because a couple hundred mile trip will feel like an eternity.

I'm really not bashing the 750 as overall I think it's a good airplane. But to compare it to a Kitfox, there really isn't much of a comparison in my opinion.

Oh, and because I own a Highlander (not the Super Stol version) and a Kitfox, and have flown the Zenairs, the Kitfox and the Highlander are comparable in most every area except for top speed (The Highlander is about 10 mph slower than the the average similar powered and streamined Kitfox).

The 750 however would be in a different category than either in my opinion. It might takeoff and/or land a bit shorter than the Kitfox (and maybe the Highlander? Note; A properly set up Highlander can get within 10 to 15% of what the Super Stol can do for landing, and actually takes off shorter), but in all other regards the 750 just isn't that comparable to the Kitfox, or the Highlander.

(For the record, my 95 hp 912s powered Highlander flies a real 108 mph at 5450 rpm, with an open tube draggy gear and big 850 tires on it, and climbs at 1800 fpm solo. A similar equipped Kitfox will typically have no trouble cracking the 120 mph mark at the same rpm with similar climb rates. Of course, the lighter they are the better they perform, so your results may vary )

[Micro Mong Bldr]

My 2 cents - if you really want to know what airplane fits you, get your license, fly the wings off every different kind of airplane you can, get that tailwheel sign off. Then you will know what you want. Before I got my ticket & flew a number of years I wanted a fast glass airplane. Once I experienced aviation in the flesh - I found that I like low & slow, and if I were to build a traveling airplane it would be a tube & rag Buttercup or a Tailwind - antithesis of what appealed to me before I had experience. If I'd started a project before I got my ticket, I'd have started the wrong thing. Maybe you'll be the guy who does end up wanting fast glass and if so that is OK, we'll still talk with you!

Cheers,

Larry

[big jim]

Maxwell if you catch this I did not receive your email. try lenco3@aol.com Thanks Big Jim

[Paul Z]

The factory visits & flying some aircraft is important. I mentioned I like the Just Aircraft SuperSTOL, there is a Canadian builder that took the time to build one. He finished it, flew it a little, and decided to sell it because it such a sow flier. I can not imagine putting that much time into the effort just to be dissatisfied. Last I looked he still has it for sale.

[av8rps]

I too really like the Just Super Stol, but I find their Highlander model a much better compromise. It will do most everything the Super Stol will do (and that's also according to S Henry - the dead stick takeoff guy that owns one of each and most definitely knows his airplanes, not just me) but cruises much faster, has better load carrying ability, and actually takes off shorter. But afterall, we all know weight is a critical component for aircraft performance, and a standard Highlander can be 150 lbs lighter than its new big brother the Super Stol. So when you factor that into the equation, it only makes sense that the Highlander performs so well.

But going back to the Kitfox; The Kitfox is in my opinion the most efficient of the entire LSA STOL group of aircraft, and is also probably the overall most versatile. Having the ability to get around much like the average Cessna or Piper does cross country, but yet be able to go where the Supercubs can go, all while having the ability to haul its own empty weight, and on about 1/2 the fuel of the Supercub or the Cessna, is really nothing short of amazing. Oh, and then throw in one of the best folding wing designs in the entire industry, excellent support from a great company, and you have an airplane that really has very little competition.

And personally that's why you find this forum so active... there are gobs of us that love our Kitfoxes! My wife teases that she's probably gonna have to bury me with my Kitfox.