He said he was on a budget of 20 to 30 k and would like to stay closer to 20k. Any kitfox 4 stroke in that price range will be less than impressive. I love the Kitfox, I wouldn't mind having one, but they ain't cheap when they are nice. You may find a Kitfox 4 with a high time 80 hp rotax for less than 30k, but you get what you pay for.

Kitfox5 wrote:I think your mission fits a Kitfox perfectly. The biggest advantage of an ELSA is that you can take a weekend course and receive a repairman certificate for your specific tail number. You can't do that with a certified airplane. This drastically lowers the annual cost of maintenance, if you are comfortable doing the maintenance. The other advantage of the LSA is the drivers license medical, but in March that will apply to larger aircraft so if that is the reason you are looking at LSA then you should possibly consider larger aircraft in your price range.
Back to the Kitfox, I would recommend looking for a IV or 5,6,7 or supersport. The earlier models I personally would avoid. Stick with 4 stroke engines, Rotax or Lycoming. The kit fox lands short, takes off short and has a good cruise speed. For all around performance I think it is one of the best compromises. If you have questions or need information for a pre-buy feel free to ask.

Bryan

Would like to stick to the experimental side of the house to be able to do some of my own work but it might not happen at my price point.

Taylorcraft. Every now and then you'll see a 1320 with the C—85/90

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Thanks for all the info. Think I will be hunting for a 85hp Tcraft that's not had a pile of electronics loaded on it try to keep it as light as posible. Not a deal breaker if I have to add a starter I think

Any airplane (and I do mean "any") can end up costing a whole lot more than the purchase price. As they say, stuff happens. So regardless of what you buy, be prepared for unexpected expenses.

On Kitfoxes, I've seen some that look like marvelous airplanes--well put together, and I'm told with good performance. I just talked with a Kitfox owner on Saturday who has flown his several times to Alaska and all over the lower 48. His has a 914 Rotax in it, which he says has been incredibly reliable. As I looked his airplane over, I was really impressed (although his 3 blade prop looked awfully fragile!).

Cary

Cary wrote:Any airplane (and I do mean "any") can end up costing a whole lot more than the purchase price. As they say, stuff happens. So regardless of what you buy, be prepared for unexpected expenses.

On Kitfoxes, I've seen some that look like marvelous airplanes--well put together, and I'm told with good performance. I just talked with a Kitfox owner on Saturday who has flown his several times to Alaska and all over the lower 48. His has a 914 Rotax in it, which he says has been incredibly reliable. As I looked his airplane over, I was really impressed (although his 3 blade prop looked awfully fragile!).

Cary

very much accounted for hence the rather low purchase price.

Swolf wrote:Thanks for all the info. Think I will be hunting for a 85hp Tcraft that's not had a pile of electronics loaded on it try to keep it as light as posible. Not a deal breaker if I have to add a starter I think

If it's got an 85-8 on it, it'll be a big deal-- no provision for a starter or a generator.
If you think you might want a starter (or full electrical system) someday, get one with an 85-12.

hotrod180 wrote:

Swolf wrote:Thanks for all the info. Think I will be hunting for a 85hp Tcraft that's not had a pile of electronics loaded on it try to keep it as light as posible. Not a deal breaker if I have to add a starter I think

If it's got an 85-8 on it, it'll be a big deal-- no provision for a starter or a generator.
If you think you might want a starter (or full electrical system) someday, get one with an 85-12.

Yes I was looking in to that yesterday. I think other options could be getting a higher time 65 hp for cheap and do the upgrade. The 85-12 are surprisingly affordable.

Did just read something interesting. Once I add a electrical system it makes a transponder mandatory?

Swolf wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

Swolf wrote:Thanks for all the info. Think I will be hunting for a 85hp Tcraft that's not had a pile of electronics loaded on it try to keep it as light as posible. Not a deal breaker if I have to add a starter I think

If it's got an 85-8 on it, it'll be a big deal-- no provision for a starter or a generator.
If you think you might want a starter (or full electrical system) someday, get one with an 85-12.

Yes I was looking in to that yesterday. I think other options could be getting a higher time 65 hp for cheap and do the upgrade. The 85-12 are surprisingly affordable.

Did just read something interesting. Once I add a electrical system it makes a transponder mandatory?

Yes, if you add an engine-driven generator/alternator. Battery powered lights, radio, starter, etc. doesn't count as an electrical system.

I believe wind-driven generators also do not count as an electrical system, but I'm not sure on that.

Swolf wrote:Did just read something interesting. Once I add a electrical system it makes a transponder mandatory?

The transponder rule (and ADS-B rule which kicks in January 1, 2020) exempt any airplane that has never been equipped with an engine driven generator/alternator from the requirement. Actually, the ADS-B rule uses slightly different terminology, but a recent FAA clarification says the intent is the same.

So, yes, if you add an engine driven generator or alternator to a T-Craft, the transponder rule MAY apply.

I say MAY apply, because transponders and ADS-B are ONLY required in Class A, B, C airspace and Class E airspace above 10000 feet, when the aircraft is more than 2500 feet above the surface.

So, unless you live in or really need to go to big metro areas with this plane, the transponder rule is no big deal.

On the other hand, if you do install an electrical system, having a mode c or s transponder is not a bad idea either.....though they're not cheap.

But, before you leap in that direction (buying the TCraft) you need to verify that there is indeed an STC for installation of a C-85-12 engine in the airplane. Just because a -8 is legal on an airplane does not mean that a -12 is. It may well be, just verify first.

I own a PA 11 with no electrical system, and I don't find hand propping to be a big deal. It would be nice to have a source of electrical energy, though, so I'm thinking of installing a wind turbine....: http://www.basicaircraft.com/turbo-alte ... bpe-14.asp

Good luck.

MTV

Just a thought on -8 change to -12. If you ever want to sell your Taylorcraft, Cub, Champ, Luscombe, or whatever, supply and demand might make the plane that never had an electrical system worth more. Stay low and you can go downtown so long as you don't enter the underlying class D. Lots of Midwest "Downtown " towerless airports have or are near good restaurants.

contactflying wrote:Just a thought on -8 change to -12. If you ever want to sell your Taylorcraft, Cub, Champ, Luscombe, or whatever, supply and demand might make the plane that never had an electrical system worth more. Stay low and you can go downtown so long as you don't enter the underlying class D. Lots of Midwest "Downtown " towerless airports have or are near good restaurants.

No transponder required in Class D airspace.

MTV

There is an electric starter that looks like it uses a cordless electric drill to start the 65hp and 85hp Continentals. It requires a large gear that mounts behind the prop on the prop flange. It looks like crap but seems to start those old engines very well. I don't know if there is an stc for a Taylorcraft. I have only seen them on Champs.

No radio required. Totally nonelectric. Grandfather C under B and outside D. We used to call ahead for tower clearance but probably non controlled airports best nowadays. Once -12 stc'd he can't go back. I don't know about 2020 but totally nonelectric has been saved through other airspace changes.

IFR safest but why go partial with a 7AC or similar?

contactflying wrote:No radio required. Totally nonelectric. Grandfather C under B and outside D. We used to call ahead for tower clearance but probably non controlled airports best nowadays. Once -12 stc'd he can't go back. I don't know about 2020 but totally nonelectric has been saved through other airspace changes.

IFR safest but why go partial with a 7AC or similar?

I could be wrong, but I don't think an engine STC like the -12 would require an electric system install. Then you could still be non electric and run a small battery to a radio or just plug a handheld to your headset.

hotrod180 wrote:...... The other advantage of the LSA is the drivers license medical, but in March that will apply to larger aircraft so if that is the reason you are looking at LSA then you should possibly consider larger aircraft in your price range. ......Bryan

Not really. Different &hopefully better than the old 3rd class medical, but not as carefree as the sport pilot drivers license standard.[/quote]

Yea.. still have to pass a medical if you haven't had one in the last (10 I think it was) years.


Check out the offerings from RANS.. might be just a little higher than your price range.. but an s6 or s7 could fit your mission very well. Great airplanes! Sometimes see them in the low 30's and fairly commonly in the upper 30's

I thought starter and generator (-12) was considered electric. Back when I called SAF on the phone from Gallup to get in for NG drill, they didn't worry about me getting low five out. I liked being down where I could see, avoid, and was less likely to be run over from behind. They were OK with that. I understand the concern with mixing it up with the faster moving talking crowd. I just avoided going up there.

Uncontrolled fields could be more problematic because some pilots are less tolerant. It takes very little time to give way and land behind them. What they don't hear generally doesn't exist for them. Turn off at the first taxiway and they seldom know you were there.

The advantage of the low altitude is that all higher aircraft are much easier to see. The disadvantage is that we must see all of them. No radio, no hear and avoid.

Here's the current STC holder's info regarding Taylorcraft engine and gross weight conversions (http://dc65stc.blogspot.com/2010/09/cer ... ffers.html). STC SA1-210.

Basically there's options for none, or two G/W changes that require modifications to the aircraft. Once accomplished the builder has the choice to apply the second G/W increase (to 1500# on conventional landing gear), or not to remain Sport Pilot legal despite the same structural and engine improvements.

C-85-8 (no engine electrical) or -12 (starter, generator, or both) upgrades from smaller engines are available via the STC combinations, as are the installation of a 6 gallon right fuel tank and associated main tank fuel gauge changes and tank venting.

The short factory engine mount reportedly flies differently than the 4" longer mount used initially on Taylorcraft's BC12D-4-85 and Model 19 with the C-85-12 series. The longer mount allows for a large baggage area behind the seat with some capacity. See TCDS A-696 and 1A9 for the various models and STC SA1-210 for baggage limitations. I've seen short mount aircraft with the large baggage but aft C/G potentially becomes an issue.

Bottom line: Buy it already done as the cost of engines, props, and mods can soon equal or exceed the original purchase price and potential resale value. Barnstormers usually has a few for sale.

Gary

contactflying wrote:I thought starter and generator (-12) was considered electric.

I thought -12 was an engine difference, like the E2D you see at the end of Lycomings, I didn't realize it was the installation of a starter and generator on an 85. Learned something new today!

CamTom12 wrote:

contactflying wrote:I thought starter and generator (-12) was considered electric.

I thought -12 was an engine difference, like the E2D you see at the end of Lycomings, I didn't realize it was the installation of a starter and generator on an 85. Learned something new today!

Cam,

The -12 is just a -8 with a different accessory case. I suppose you could block off the pad for the generator/starter, and would still meet the "never equipped" clause....maybe.

MTV