Kitfox vs. Highlander

[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!

[DanB]

If I'm not mistaken there was a time that Kitfox looked into supporting and or selling an extended baggage compartment. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it was decided not to do this for safety reasons. Yes, if one keeps a very close eye on where the weight is at...sure you can "get away with it". But how many pilots have been killed due to that one last oops"? If it is built with the potential of too much weight placed aft, we all know it will be just a matter of time before we hear about it. I would rather be leaning towards a margin of safety than the other end of the stick, but then again...that is personal preference. My opinion is if you are going to be hauling the kitchen sink, then go get the right tool for the job.

[bandit]

Hi all,
I have been trying to decide between these 2 planes for over 6 months and committed to making purchase this fall as planned! I have spoken with the guys at Highlander as well as many Highlander forum members! From what I have learned the Highlander can be a 110 mph plane, but most are in 100 mph range. On floats, 90-95 is average and 100 achievable if its clean and light! Both planes have there obvious advantages in speed and stall! The large baggage area in the Highlander is for me a huge deciding factor for camping etc. The speed of the Kitfox is so appealing though! I agree with all on both sites that you cant go wrong with either decision, just have to decide what is more important!

Regarding the SS 7, does anyone have any realistic cruise speeds on Floats/amphibs? This could be a huge deciding factor to a Kitfox for me!

Thank You,

Bandit

[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