Kitfox vs. Highlander

[catz631]

I think it probably has to do with what you want to do with the aircraft. If you operate out of short rough fields most of the time I think I would opt for the Highlander. If speed is more important then the Kitfox. They are both great aircraft.
Dick

[jrthomas]

I was just thinking that someone should have a fly off between a 912S Highlander and a 912S Kitfox SS but since this is not likely the next best thing is to look at the manufactures performance claims. I was surprised that the take-off and landing distances were very similar, 300 feet for both take-off and landing roll for the Highlander and 290 feet take-off and 270 feet landing roll for the Kitfox SS. Take into account that manufacture's claims are usually a little on the optimistic side and are often hard to match in real world conditions. I would assume the Highlander's take-off and landing distances would actually be much less than the Kitfox for 1 simple reason, stall speed. Highlander list's stall at 32 mph, Kitfox at 41 mph. Also the Highlander's empty weight is a good bit lower so in a short take-off contest between 2 lightly loaded planes, the Highlander should be the big winner. I assume the manufactures claims were planes at full gross so the performance differences may pretty close in real world conditions. Even if the Highlander were the big winner in the short take-off and landing contest, what sacrifice is it worth in cruise speed? Highlander claims 110 mph or 10 mph or so slower than the Kitfox. This may be the real "stretch". The only Highlander in my area cruises about 90. This is more in line with a CH 701 than a Kitfox SS. Considering the Highlander wing is more like a Model 3 Kitfox than a SS, I'm not surprised at these speed numbers. From what I hear, the Kitfox SS owners are getting 110 to 125 cruise speeds. You can check with the Highlander sites and you might get a better picture of what kind of cruise speeds they are actually getting. It all comes down to what you want and what you're willing to compromise to get it. To get a very low stall speed you'll have to give up some cruise speed. (90 foot take-offs are impressive but I've never been anywhere I needed to do one) James Thomas

[DesertFox4]

If you operate out of short rough fields most of the time I think I would opt for the Highlander.

This is an urban "back country" legend that gets repeated until everyone thinks it's true. The Highlander image has been, for lack of a better word, manipulated to make folks think it is more rugged than the Kitfox. Every photograph is of one with huge tires and an aggressive stance. Makes you think it is better for rough fields and short strips. Not so fast. Kitfox owned that territory for decades before the Highlander was ever conceived. The Kitfox still retains all those capabilities from days past yet has evolved into a very refined and comfortable aircraft with zero compromises. The Highlander image has been presented as the answer to the folks dreaming of being "bush pilots". Why fall for the marketing angle.
Don't let the Youtube videos showing dead stick take offs from mountain tops or tail up turns on top of rocky mountains fool you. You know the video's I'm speaking of.
The Kitfox can do anything you've seen the Highlanders do with no apologies for the faster cruise speeds, better looks, sportier handling and superior factory support. Time for one "urban legend" to retire. Might be time for Myth Busters to do a fly off.
The people that build the Highlander are good folks. They build a good safe machine that performs well but it will never be a Kitfox.

Beauty and brawn.
P1060178.jpg

[Mnflyer]

Well said Steve
I for one am very skeptical of any and all videos for airplane performance. After all Superman leaps off tall buildings and flies but I really doubt that strapping on a cape will do the same for anyone in the real world.

[herman pahls]

My Kitfox is so old ( 1987 model 2 ) that my 16 years of Kitfox experience would not weigh into this discussion.
I also have questions regarding the comparison since my reason for flying these small homebuilts is exploring where most others have not.
I am sure there are many factors for the Highlanders reduced stall speeds assuming those are accurate numbers.
The difference between 41 and 32 mph stall is huge on a 300-400 foot gravel bar.
Is the use of conventional flaps allowing the major reduction in stall speed?
The wide open baggage area of the Highlander is appealing.
Herman

[SkyPirate]

nothing wrong with the ole model 2's herman,..wish I never sold mine ,..built by Dennis Sawyer N-73DS ,..I landed my model 2 on a 75 foot sand bar off the coast of Cape Cod Mass,and had room to spare,..then I took off from that sand bar when the tide started coming in (after a couple little black jeeps had come out to "inspect" my plane ha ha ),..which made it shorter,..yes I did have a head wind,..maybe 15 mph,cant remember to be honest,..it was just another awesome take off in an awesome plane .. the ole model 2 didnt grunt ,..she lifted off with room to spare as well,.
Sure miss that plane ,..tried to buy it back ,..but the new owner wont part with her,..cant say as I blame him.

[Monocock]

What makes me chuckle are the various manufacturers who have come up with a variety of airframes that they claim beats the KF. There are several in Europe.

They make claims of "exceeding Kitfox performance" very time. This proves that KF is still the original and the standard that others strive to meet. Until now, I'm not convinced that any manufacturer has met the same standard.

A question: is the Highlander really comparable to a 7? Surely it's a similar size to the 4?

[FoxDB]

Has anyone seen the Skyraider Frontier first hand? It looks interesting. The Empty weight is higher (I would assume due to use of Lycoming) but carries a high gross weight and very large baggage area. Seems like getting closer to Super Cub territory but looks like it could qualify as ELSA.
Dave

[akflyer]

Considering I routinely run with 12 pounds strapped to the tail wheel spring (and this is with a 582) that I can take off when I load up my "extended baggage" having a big cargo area is very nice! My cargo goes from the back of the seat to the front of the vertical fin. I have had it loaded up with 60-80 pounds rountinely and no ill handling issues. Of course, I put as much weight as far forward as I can, but it is a great place for my sleeping bag and other emergency gear that is left in the plane at all times. I for one think that you can never have enough cargo space and it is up to the pilot to secure the load properly!

[jtpitkin06]

If you really want to compare aircraft, go to the factories or visit builders and look at the aircraft without covering. Look at the following:
Quality of welds and level of finish
Controls, are they push rods or cables?
Drag and anti-drag bracing in the wings. Do the tubes terminate in weldments or are they simply crimped ends.
Plywood used for ribs. Is it aircraft quality spruce ply or something else? How many laminations?
Floorboards… plywood or OSB?
Can aircraft be built as a tricycle gear or only as a taildragger?
How complete is the kit? What “options” must you buy to get a “basic” airplane?
How many aircraft are flying? Hundreds or thousands?

I've seen the brand "H" videos. They have expensive balloon tires mounted just to do whoopee take offs and landings. I'll bet the aircraft doesn't do anywhere near the advertised 110 mph with all that rubber hanging in the breeze.


John Pitkin