I have been flying a Model 2 Kitfox for 17 years.
My sons "Highroad" Pacer cruises at 100 and my Kitfox at 80mph.
I would like to keep up with him.
It seems from the video clips I have seen of the Idaho backcountry's more challenging airstrips, that the Highlander's and S-7's are more common than Kitfoxe's and Avid's.
Newer model Kitfox's claims higher cruise speeds than Highlander's or S-7's.
I realize the claimed cruise speeds do not account for Bushwheels or gallon/hour fuel burn at cruise.
I utilize the folding wing option every time I fly so the S-7 would not be prefered.
I prefer the Highlander's open baggage compartment and would prefer the Kitfox if it really cruises faster.
Are the newer Kitfox's as capable short field as the Highlander and S-7 if they are built light?
Thanks Herman Pahls

I talked to the Kitfox top dog (John Mcbean?) & eyeballed his airplane when he flew his "super sport" KF-7 in to my home airport last summer. Very nice looking, on 26" bushwheel airstreaks as I recall. Their website says it'll cruise at 123 mph with a 100hp Rotax 912. Looks to be pretty STOLie too- says landing roll of 330'.
I'm not completely sold on the flaperons vs flaps & ailerons, but they been doing it that way for many years so there must be something to it.

Here's what I can tell you first hand.

My 80hp Model IV Kitfox will cruise happily at 105-110 mph. 120+ would be very easy with 100hp. My plane will keep up with the Rans S7 with 100hp and easily pass up the Highlander with 100hp that are owned and operated by friends in my EAA chapter.

Having flown both of these other planes I can say that my plane handles much lighter and quicker that either of the other two. I'd compare it to driving a Porsche versus a Buick. This is purely a function of push-pull tubes for control rather than cables, the flapperons being positioned in the high pressure area under and behind the wing and an excellent Riblett airfoil design. The model IV Kitfox was the first to use the current wing that is still being used by Kitfox on their Super Sports.

STOL performance wise, I will take my Kitfox anywhere that these other two will go.

As to production numbers, I will counter that there are more Kitfoxes flying than S7s and Highlanders combined.


My Airplane:
Kitfox Model IV-1050 (early model IV)
80hp Rotax 912UL
~3gph fuel burn
72" Warp 3-blade taper tip, nickel inlay
650# empty weight
21x800x6 tires

More speed is probably going to mean more fuel burn, if you want a STOL design.

I you decided to move away from a Kitfox, you could consider a Bearhawk Patrol or Bob's new Bearhawk LSA. The LSA in particular is attracting a lot of attention. Here are some numbers, which by all accounts are the truth:

You're looking at a cruise speed of 140mph in the Patrol, with up to 165mph (Vne). With a Patrol you're hauling up to 1000lbs useful, and still the takeoff is only 250ft at MTOW and landing in about the same, landing speed is 35mph. Much less if you're lightly loaded. But that is with a more powerful engine, 200hp. With a more fuel efficient engine (115hp) you'd expect the speeds to come back a little bit, but so does your fuel bill. The useful load is bigger with a lighter engine too.

Now with the LSA, they are still working on the Quick Build kits, but I understand they're not far away.
You get 125mph cruise, Vne is 140, and the landing is even slower now at 30mph. They use a new aerofoil. Takeoff is 200ft with a light load and 400ft fully loaded. Gross can either be 1200lbs or 1500lbs depending on the category you're flying in, so useful load is between 450 and 750lbs. I dont know which engine mounts the factory will support, but I guess Rotax must be one of them. They are flying between 65-75hp engines right now, Bob was still working on it last we spoke. I bet you could put a 100ph Rotax in there if you wanted to really kick off the ground.

I guess it all depends on your mission, it might be a little more aeroplane that you're looking for at this stage? If you just want performance and waaay more speed, they'll do that.

Herman, good to hear from you. Are you planning on building? Or buying a used model?

I sat in John McBean's Series 7 at the BCP fly-in a few years ago and it was nice. The seats are more ergonomic that the Highlander, but they aren't adjustable-- the rudder pedals are. It had excellent visibility all around, and looked pretty cool overall on Airstreaks.

As for Kitfox vs Highlander handling and roll rate... I went flying with Steve Henry in Caldwell a few months back, and his new Highlander has aileron spades. It lacks nothing in roll rate, it was impressive. The cargo area is vastly superior to the Kitfox, and if you enjoy traditional flaps, it has those. Another consideration is whether you want Cub style gear, or the spring gear.

Kitfox 7 speed is definitely superior.