I'm looking for recommendations of planes very similar to a Kitfox.

Considerations:
1.) Cheap upfront cost
2.) Fuel efficient (Kitfox is ~3.5 gph in cruise)
3.) Cruise around 100 mph or more
4.) Good backcountry performance

No frills necessary!

Thanks,
Stephen

Not too sure what you are looking for, but FYI Kitfox is now now producing the Model 4 kits again. $15,995. http://kitfoxaircraft.com/ClassicIV.htm

I used to own a Model IV Speedster and loved the back country performance, even with the Rotax 80hp. Throw in a 100hp Rotax and it will be a super back country performer.

Kitfox, Highlander,Rans S6 & S7- all currently available new in kit and/or flying form, Rotax or jabiru powered. But I wouldn't say they're cheap upfront. For that, scout around for an older Rotax 582 powered Kitfox or Avid.

The 85 or 100 HP Taylorcraft is a larger, safer, more well engineered airplane, with several advantages and a few disadvantages compared to the Kitfox. and one HUGE advantage in the back country.

But T-crafts are in use by real back country types in the "real world" and Kitfoxes are not. There's a reason.

The T-craft is a VERY capable airplane with 85HP. 100 mph cruise, 400 foot STOL, better glide, nearly as good fuel efficiency, bigger steel tubes surrounding your arse, and the safety/reliability/repairability of the Continental engine. I have to believe we'd all agree that's HUGE in real back country flying.

They are also HALF the money of most Kitfoxes.

The Highlander appears to be a heavier duty, larger version of a Kitfox. One of our EAA chapter members is building one and the kit appears to be very well designed and built, reasonably heavy duty. He will be using the Jabiru engine which also seems to be reasonable.

We just had a Kitfox 4 / Rotax 912 go through 6 months of engine problems, engine adjustments, thousands in new parts, more problems, more issues dealing with the engine manufacturer, more problems, more adjustments, and then finally it started to run right. On the first or second flight with everything running right, the propeller failed and the airplane landed off field and was damaged.

I know the whole world seems to love the Rotax 912 series but I would not trust my safety in the back country to one of those on a BET.

For $18-22K you can buy a Taylorcraft with 85HP, get in and fly off into the back country TODAY with full confidence. Compare that to all your other options. I know all about the joy of wing folding and trailering the airplane home, but the risks you take in order to accomplish that are fairly significant if it comes with the Rotax 912.

The Taylorcraft is not perfect either by any means. The biggest single problem with the T-craft is that it is TOO efficient and has no precision glidepath control. You have to overcome that with huge sideslip / forward slip maneuvers but it can and is done all the time.

Make sure you go FLY with someone in a Kitfox and then in a T-craft... then make your decision using that experience and whatever useful advice you get here in this forum. If you are interested in a T-craft, let me know and I will find someone in your area who will fly with you. I am a 4 time T-craft owner, with a 5th carcass hanging up waiting for restoration.

You are preaching to the choir brother EZflap!

Three additional points I'd like to make in favor of the good old T-craft:

1) the Vortex Generator STC works and does a few important things on the T-cart. You will get better climb and STOL performance, better aileron control at low speeds, etc. To get good STOL out of a T-craft you HAVE to fly it slow. Meaning 50 MPH on final and less than 60 on climbout. Real world gusts and eddy currents in the back country can make that dangerous at low altitude. Having that extra aileron authority and delayed stall is worthwhile and can save your bacon.

2) the T-craft is certified. Lower insurance cost. SOME of the 85HP upgraded versions CAN also meet the LSA rules as long as they did not increase the gross weight to 1500 pounds when doing the STC (it's an option). The T-craft is ready to fly today at less than what you will pay for the kit, engine and instruments for a Kitfox or Avid or Highlander... not counting the time and/or cost to complete it.

3) If you do not need an LSA compliant airplane, you can get the F-19 or equivalent upgraded T-craft with 90 or 100 HP, full electrics, avionics, 600+ pound useful load, and the big baggage compartment... and have a real load hauler and back country pickup truck for a LOT less than the competition.

I have toyed with getting a cheap second plane for ski use only. I am 6ft 3, have owned a Super Cub and it was tight, but worked. How does a T Craft compare? Steve

The supercub is going to be the top performer for two place in the back country of all the legacy aircraft. No doubt. But it is not in the running on the low cost under 20 grand planes. Expect to pay double or more for entry into that market. The Tcraft is a good plane and you will learn some good manueuvers like slipping and that does have some advantages over pulling flaps. On final after slipping to drop altitude all you have to do to is let the aircraft come back to aligned flight to regain your go around settings with out increased airspeed or just finish out your flare and land. Slipping is just good flying. Full flaps on some planes can make you more committed to the landing when you have lowered your airspeed too much. One more thought on the Tcraft. A friend bought one last year and it had been flown with skiis in a previous life and one spindle was bent to a toe in. Back on wheels it really took him for a ride when he cut power on landing. Be sure to check for proper wheel alignment on anything you look at.

Another option for you guys is one of the bigger engined Champs. 85HP and up and they are a decent performer. The nice thing about a Champ is it has a lot of room compared to the S/S seating types. They can be found from the high teens to mid 20K range.
Keith

The T-craft is a problem for tall pilots. You get another few inches of headroom (and safety) when you put in the skylight, but 6 foot 3 will be tight. The seat is adjustable on a T-craft too but people don't know how. It is completely possible to have a tall guy in there but it will not be as comfortable as a Champ or a Super Cub.

The T-craft has better performance on the same power as a Champ however.

None of them will match a Super Cub in real raw STOL performance, even on the same power, unless you modify the T-craft with flaps.

The T-craft is the overall value winner because the performance is almost as good and the cost is a lot less.

steve wrote:I have toyed with getting a cheap second plane for ski use only. I am 6ft 3, have owned a Super Cub and it was tight, but worked. How does a T Craft compare? Steve

I owned a 65 Hp T-craft that I used once or twice on the Federal 1500s that came with it. Definitely underpowered for that combination, and I'm smaller than you describe yourself. 65 Hp took me lots of places, but to get real use out of skis (or floats) consensus seems to be that 100 Hp is the gold standard in a T-craft.

As a ski plane generally, consider that cabin heat is nil, cabin insulation is less, and cabin seals rate somewhere below that. It would take some creative rigging to have meaningful windscreen defrost capability. Then there is the additional workload of maintaining a 60 year-old fabric plane in a winter environment, unless of course you are fortunate enough to be able to hangar it.

As for being 6'-3", I would say that the view out the side window will require you to duck when you are performing clearing turns, etc. On the other hand, the side-by-side seating ought to enhance the legroom options a bit.

Most of the above shortcomings can be (and have been) addressed by devoted owners, but then you are no longer shopping in the sub-20K aisle.

Despite those caveats, I really enjoyed mine, flew it Alaska to New Hampshire round-trip, and consider that the time without flaps, an electric system, or even much power was good experience. I often wish I still had it, not the least reason being that if I really wadded it up and had to eat the hull value, it wouldn't set me back nearly as bad as the nice 170B that I now have.

Anyway, good luck finding a ski plane- Hard to top the fun that you can have in one of those.

-DP

SkyRaider has the Frontier that looks pretty interesting. No clue if any have been acutally built beyond the factory demo model.
Just Aircraft's Highlander is getting quite a following.

If you are interested in a Series 5 Outback that has been covered and painted but never completed. I'd be willing to sell it pretty cheap. Just don't have time to finish it. You can email me at [email protected] if interested.

Ahh, screw it, just get a 182.

Avid Flyer, Just Highlander, Rans Courier series, Ridge Runner. There might be a few others I'm not aware of.

I won't argue with a Taylorcraft, they are a good plane, as is a Super Cub, but these really are barely in the same class as the Kitfox and its analogs. They're heavier, certified, and more expensive. A Super Cub costs 4 times as much minimum, for a fair condition one. The Taylorcraft fleet is old, although many have gotten a new lease of life through skilled restoration. You're not going to pick one of those up in the teens or low 20K's. Not good answers to a guy looks for an alternative to a Kitfox,in my opinion.

Considering what these guys have told you, are you set on Amateur Home-built Experimental? If not, the Taylorcraft or Champ might be a good choice. They are certified and with that bring all the maintenance requirements and DIY limitations of the category, but also the statistics of safety given the constraints of modification allowed by the FAA. Is it important that it qualify for LSA? Max gross must be less than 1,320 lbs, or 1,430 lbs for float ops.

I think what it comes down to is: Are you a hands-on guy? Do you want to build? Do you know engines well and feel comfortable tuning them? Are you trying to save money by going Experimental? Or do you want the freedom?

It's my belief that problems reported with any Rotax engine have more to do with the thumbs fondling the thing than the build quality or design. For every Rotax problem story that gets passed on, there's a matching story of a Continental or Lycoming having problems, mostly because there are more of them out there. They [Conti and Lyc] are stout, simple engines for sure. Detuned with higher tolerances for maximum reliability and longevity. They run at lower rpm and compression ratios, and get much longer TBO, but are slightly heaver and more expensive.

Another reason they enjoy a better reputation is because they tend to be used in certified aircraft, and therefore maintained by certificated A&P's and IA's. The knowledge pool on O-200's and O-240's is deep and wide. It's too often the case that you have home builders tweaking and tuning their Rotaxes using their old motorcycle racing knowledge as a background, with who knows what kind of maintenance regimen or attention to specification.

The 912 is a good engine, and there are many people out there, who've used every engine under the sun, and would give you a positive testimonial. It makes max power at 5800 rpm with a higher compression ratio, which makes for a shorter TBO, but it weighs 40 lbs less. Find someone with some Rotax experience, and you can have a smooth running, reliable engine.

Then you also have the question of whether it's important to you to have an American product or not.

EZFlap wrote:The 85 or 100 HP Taylorcraft is a larger, safer, more well engineered airplane, with several advantages and a few disadvantages compared to the Kitfox. and one HUGE advantage in the back country.

The T-Craft is larger??? A bigger wing for sure, (at least in span, chord is similar to a S-7), but the cockpit is cramped compared to my Rans S7-S, (though comparing any tandem to a side by side is apples to oranges) no overhead viz either (no skylight), out to the side a taller pilot is looking at the wing root, I'm looking out the window, over the front is also better in the S7-S. Gross weight is 132 lbs more then my old BC12-D (65 hp). I built an '88 Model 1 Kitfox, and had a ball for 650 trouble frees hours, a two stroke no less. My T-Craft, after I built new wings for it, was also a joy. It was my first, only, and last certified airplane, I've experienced the total freedom of building and flying experimentals too long. I flew my first Rans S-7 (short tail), 1300 hrs all over the Idaho back country and the western US, all trouble free, with a frigging Subaru conversion no less. I am now 300 hours into my 912S in my second Rans, and it is very similar (but better) to what a T-Craft with a O-200 is performance wise, a buddy from the Burley area had one and we flew together quite a bit when I had the Soob S-7. I would outperform him in takeoff and climb, he'd out cruise me but used 1 1/2 to 2 GPH more fuel, I can't remember if he had to use av gas or not, I used regular mo gas. Tubing sizes on the S-7 are very similar to the T Cart, I've seen them both naked, and its brand new tubing not older then me.

I did feel very safe in my T-Craft, I figured, hell, it'd been in the air since '46, what're the odds its going to drop out of the sky today! Whether it was ACTUALLY safer is dependant on many factors, factors 50 plus year old. No question it is a proven design, but at this point both the Kitfox and its derivitives, and the Rans S-7 designs have been around for 20 plus years with a proven airframe history, and an excellcent one at that.

All of us flying the back country in our 912S powered aircraft are chuckling, you are a wee bit harsh in your assessment, it can't be ALL bad as it is the engine of choice for the Predator and other military drones, NOT the 0-200.

Enough defending homebuilts and the Rotax, that discussion will never end, you are either for 'em or against 'em: I DO agree the T-Craft may very well be the best bang for the buck, and will, due to the lack of flaps, sure teach a guy in a hurry accurate airspeed control and proper use of the rudder! I'd be looking for an F-19, they're out there, they won't out STOL a VG equipped 100 horse Rotax powered S-7S, and the operating cost will be a bit higher (high GPH and cert related requirements), but a great airplane for the cost, I was real impressed with what my 65 powered one could do, especially the rare time I had it at sea level. I DO like the fact that my S7-S does what it does with a 29' plus span as opposed to a 36' span, simply from a practical point, pushing it around the hanger, landing on fence lined dirt roads etc. Long live the T-Craft....!

I will take my 65hp tcart anywhere someone with a 100hp will take theirs (lightly loaded), especially on skis. You just need the right prop.

Well Courierguy, no offense intended at all, I'm not trying to knock the S7 because I have never been around one. I know nothing about the S7 other than there are a lot of pop rivets and gussets and tubes... IF I am correct about that, it is honestly a light duty structure for real back country banging around.

I have looked in the cockpit of a Kitfox 4 and it definitely felt smaller than the T-craft. The tube diameters appear noticeably smaller to me, but I have not measured them with calipers. The T-craft is a flawed design too, you are right about looking out into the wing root and bad visibility without the skylight. The skylight should be a @($*% mandatory AD on the T-craft IMHO!

I do think I'm on solid ground saying that a Taylorcraft is a more structurally "sound" and heavy duty airframe than a Kitfox. The S7 I cannot comment on. The Highlander seems pretty good, we've seen one bare bones being put together and it really looks well built.

However, the Highlander wing design is a direct descendant of the Kitfox and the dozens of ultralights that preceded it... and the one thing I do not like about the Highlander is the whole "leading and trailing edge tube/spar" thing. The one I saw appears to be well done and I will have no qualms about getting in and flying it. But let's be honest it ain't no Beech Bonanza and it ain't no T-craft

I have flown behind a 912 Rotax only once, in a Zenair 701, and it did not strike me as being that great, although the engine ran fine for the entire flight. I'd love to tell you all about the problems and difficulties that my friend and fellow EAA chapter member had with his 912/Kitfox installation... but I can't remember all the little things he mentioned.

There are some 2 strokes I would fly behind, but there are also certain restrictions and parameters that I would use to govern that. I'd happily fly a 2 stroke in an airplane that could be landed short and with low speeds.

None taken EZFlap. The S-7 fuselage is entirely comprised of 4130 chrome moly, and has been since its inception in 1987 (might be '88).
One of the things I liked about it was it rreminded me of my T-Craft, a nice mix between old and new technology.

I forgot about the skylight mod, mine was pretty original (but restored) so had none.

Knowing first hand how properly located/installed VG's can help, I can imagine the T would be awesome with same, mine had none. I bought mine in Caldwell Id., and at one point before the ferry flight home (it had chewed up spars, mice on one side, birds on the other) I was watching another one do touch and goes, and I realized: its a big ultralight and lands so slow some try to flare when it ain't near done flying! Patience is a virtue, and with the T-Craft (which I believe among some has a rep for "hard to land") it is true, the thing is so efficient it just wants to keep flying. Another thing about the S-7 I like, the airfoil eyeballs similar to a T-Craft, nothing to back me up here, it just looks about the same, very similar chord (very unlike the Kitfox and its offshoots in that respect) and even flys somewhat alike, and that is a compliment.

As to airframe tube sizing, you can use 2 smaller tubes to do the work of one large one. That is a gross simplification but I believe somewhat alllows the Kitfox type craft to achieve more then adequate strength, at this date time tested 20+ years (a whole lota fleet hours),with seemingly (to eyeballs used to 40's era cert planes,) too small of tubing size. The modern 4130 is also superior to the (can't recall the alloy) earlier similar steel used in the T-Craft and its ilk, correct me if I'm wrong on that.

EZFlap wrote:Well Courierguy, no offense intended at all, I'm not trying to knock the S7 because I have never been around one. I know nothing about the S7 other than there are a lot of pop rivets and gussets and tubes... IF I am correct about that, it is honestly a light duty structure for real back country banging around.

I have looked in the cockpit of a Kitfox 4 and it definitely felt smaller than the T-craft. The tube diameters appear noticeably smaller to me, but I have not measured them with calipers. The T-craft is a flawed design too, you are right about looking out into the wing root and bad visibility without the skylight. The skylight should be a @($*% mandatory AD on the T-craft IMHO!

I do think I'm on solid ground saying that a Taylorcraft is a more structurally "sound" and heavy duty airframe than a Kitfox. The S7 I cannot comment on. The Highlander seems pretty good, we've seen one bare bones being put together and it really looks well built.

However, the Highlander wing design is a direct descendant of the Kitfox and the dozens of ultralights that preceded it... and the one thing I do not like about the Highlander is the whole "leading and trailing edge tube/spar" thing. The one I saw appears to be well done and I will have no qualms about getting in and flying it. But let's be honest it ain't no Beech Bonanza and it ain't no T-craft

I have flown behind a 912 Rotax only once, in a Zenair 701, and it did not strike me as being that great, although the engine ran fine for the entire flight. I'd love to tell you all about the problems and difficulties that my friend and fellow EAA chapter member had with his 912/Kitfox installation... but I can't remember all the little things he mentioned.

There are some 2 strokes I would fly behind, but there are also certain restrictions and parameters that I would use to govern that. I'd happily fly a 2 stroke in an airplane that could be landed short and with low speeds.

Check out Rocky Mountain Wings, the Ridge Runner models. The most popular one, according to Stace Shrader, the guy that owns/runs the place, runs on a rotax 503 and gets great performance. They are located in Nampa, Idaho. I just started building one of the model 3 aircraft. I stopped by the factory about a month ago, and liked what I saw. He has a newer model, the model 4, which is a side by side instead of the tandem. It looked like a pretty cool setup, as it had a very large rear baggage area, large side door to access it, and the baggage area can accomodate a third seat. The price is perfect for me, with the model 3 airframe running right around 14k. Throw in a 503 and the panel, and it should be a relatively inexpensive aircraft. http://www.realflying.com is the website. The site itself is a bit dated, but give them a call and Stace can tell you everything you need to know. I'm just waiting for this TDY to end so I can swing back by on the way home and get my next part!

EZFlap wrote:......... I'm not trying to knock the S7 because I have never been around one. I know nothing about the S7 other than there are a lot of pop rivets and gussets and tubes... IF I am correct about that, it is honestly a light duty structure for real back country banging around.........

I think the S7 fuselage is all steel tubing. But I believe that the S6 Coyote or some version thereof might have some aluminum structure aft of the cabin, maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Eric