Kitfox vs RANS, The Building Experience

[Av8r3400]

That brings up a point. I'm pretty sure the talk I heard of incomplete kits hearkens to a pre-McBean age. When did they take over? And can anyone speak to whether the kits have changed in that respect?

The McBeans have been in the left seat for the last 10 years (2006).

The problem with "pre-McBean" kits is most likely that they have been laying around so long and passed from owner to owner and place to place that components and parts have been lost.

[av8rps]

I don't believe that observation is meaningless. That passion comes from somewhere. As a PROSPECTIVE buyer, I feel it is reasonable to assume that the ardor is created by the aircraft itself. I have been giving serious consideration to KF, Rans and possibly even an Avid. At this point in time, my first choice is a Kitfox Model IV Classic or newer. Due, in part, to the enthusiasm that I see in the KF community.

My first airplane I bought was Dean Wilson's prototype Avid Flyer, N99AF. The airplane that started the whole movement of Avids, Kitfoxes, Sky Raiders, Ridge Runners, Highlander - Super STOL, Eurofox, Bushbaby, etc, etc. That was 30 years ago, and even though today I could buy pretty much any plane I want (within reason), every time I consider drifting off into another aviation direction, I always find myself back to where I started.

I've had the fortune in my life to fly a lot of different aircraft, and for sure there are some that really tripped my trigger (Glasair 3, Pitts S2, 300 hp Skybolt, Lake Amphibian, Grumman Goose, Dehavilland Beaver, etc, just to list a few), but none of those other aircraft are as versatile as my Kitfox 4, as inexpensive to own and operate, and as much fun. Well, ok. I have to admit my Lake amphib rivals my Kitfox for fun, but in the other areas it fails miserably (cost to operate mainly. But it also can demand a lot from the pilot - the Kitfox is absolutely a play toy by comparison, therefore much more relaxing to fly, more enjoyable).

I say all that just to confirm what was said about Kitfox owners being passionate about their planes. My wife teases about having to bury me with my Kitfox. She knows how much I like it. Many many times I've kicked around doing something else, but i just can't imagine giving up what to me is the perfect recreational airplane.

But for the record, I am still open minded. And like most all of us I am always looking around to see if there is something better that I might like? But thus far I haven't found anything. And frankly the only ones that interest me are just newer, more evolved versions of my Model 4. And thinking about all this, after 30 years being around these aircraft it says a lot that I'm still this passionate about them.

Your comment about the plane doing most of that is absolutely correct. The enthusiasm, the help, and the friendship that comes from the owners group is just a big bonus you get when you join this family...

[WWhunter]

Awesome post sir! I am in the same frame of mind....always looking for that 'next best thing', and it is hard to beat the KF or Rans.

[StuBob]

I really don't see it that way. I am on both sights since I own both brands (did not build either of them) and I see both sites very similar. Maybe a lot more activity on this site but I believe that might be do to their being way more KF than RANS owners. Both seem to be just as excited about their planes as most any 'type' forum. Heck, I own a 172 also and even those guys get excited! Guess what? I took up my 172 yesterday for an hour and everytime I fly it I remember why I have kept it for nearly 30 years. It is an honest reliable plane that has taken me all over the US. I can also fly it is much worse conditions than I would ever want to fly the light wing loading KF/RANS types.

That's fair. I regret thinking out loud about who's more enthusiastic, especially since I'm basing it mostly on forum participation.

[StuBob]

One more component of the building experience is the time required. Kitfox posts an estimated time of 1000 hours while RANS says 500-700 for the S-20.

Given that the welding is done and the fabric covering, engine and avionics installation should be the same, is it possible that both of those numbers are accurate?

[avidflyer]

I don't know if it's still the case, but older Rans aircraft used a premade sail cloth covering. Kind of like sliding on a sock. That alone would cut back on the hours needed to build a plane considerabley. It would also cut down on your options for paint schemes. JImChuk

[WWhunter]

I would take most brands build time with a grain of salt. Way too many variable. Are you mechanically inclined? Have you much build experience? Are you a perfectionists that spends a lot of time on getting things in show quality? All of these things add lots of time to a build.

Guys that have built something similar be it a car restoration or airplane, they learn 'tricks of the trade' that can vastly cut down on build times. A first time builder can spend as much or more time just studying the construction manual as they do with the actual hands on building.

Jim, I think it is only the pusher type RANS and the S-6SES that have the Dacron slip on type covers. Most of the time guys use the same process as the KF. I'm not so sure build time would be much different on the KF vs. the RANS. I do think the wings may be able to be built a little quicker on the RANS but I am only speaking from looking at the way they are constructed. Riveting seems quicker that alignment and then epoxy. Like I said, I really don't know, just a guess.

[PapuaPilot]

I would guess the build times would be close because they they have similar types of finishing work. Most of us building our KF's have spent 1500-2500 hours, so the times are just an estimate anyways. The Rans S-20 requires fabric, not a sleeve like other Rans models have.

I flew a trike Rans S-6 factory demo plane several years ago and found it had very nice handling. Normally the demo pilot wouldn't let the pilot do anything more than maneuvers at altitude, but he let me fly the pattern and land it. It was very easy to land too. It did feel lighter than my KF5 does.

The basic specs between the SS7 and S-20 are very similar.

One of the things I really like about the Kitfox is the the higher gross weight. The Rans S-20 is limited to 1320 lbs, but the KF can go up to 1550, if you want to.

Baggage weight is much better in a KF at 150 lbs vs. 80 lbs in the S-20. The Rans does claim a lot more baggage volume. It looks like you would have to stack the cargo to the ceiling, which would require a baggage net and maybe cargo straps to make it safe.

I know this thread is about the building experience and time. When it comes down to it, I think we should be more concerned about the type of aircraft that we want to fly after the build is done.

When I was considering building a plane it came down to the Rans S-6/S-7, Just Aircraft or Kitfox. In the end I chose the Kitfox due to its reputation, speed, higher gross weight and cargo carrying ability.

[Danzer1]

I think Keith is on the right track. The difference is primarily in the wing build. I have seen (mostly on here) reports that a few have spent just over 100 hours getting to the quick build stage (Tom Waid was one as I recall). Some around 300 hours (non quick build) to covering.

I know of at least 5 that have built complete s20 wings to covering stage in 100-120 hours.

I also know that if you oder Laker leading edge, bottom false ribs and Speedster tail you will also spend more time there.

I don't think you could go wrong with either, as Papua says, it's more of which you want to fly when you're done.

Greg

[StuBob]

If I were really smart, I'd buy a flying airplane and build floats for it.