I am starting to think about building a kitplane and have looked at the Zenith 750 and the Kitfox S7 super sport but would like to get the collected wisdom of this group. Where can I go to get information about other kitplanes--EAA? and other forums. I own a C-182 but would like to learn more. Dan Boston

From a guy that has a couple under his belt, the first thing you need to do is decide what the mission will be, be realistic don't fool yourself into false dreams. Trust me you will save yourself countless hours of pain.

Once you decide that, then it becomes much easier to decide which kit is right for you.

I made the mistake of starting on the CH801. Great airplane, loved flying the demo bird, but it ended up being too much airplane for me to build. If I start again, I wouldn't shy away from the 750 though.

I like the rans s7. I looked pretty hard at getting a STOL 701/750 even went out and built the rudder at the factory. The 701 is a nice flying Plane but it is super slow if u want to go anywhere and the wind doesn't cooperate forget about it. The s7 has the extra bit of speed to make reasonable trips and still lands and takes off very short.

Disclaimer: I ended up getting a carbon cub and my only experience with the s7 is from watching others. But the s7 seems to offer a lot of bang for the buck. Of course if price is not a big consideration the carbon cub is best.

Price is always a consideration but not the limiting factor--I love the backcountry flying--the Zenith 750 is slow but so is the Kitfox--there are times even the C-182 seems like it is taking forever to get somewhere. My main mission would be to be able to fly in the Idaho backcountry knowing that it would take about 2 hours from where I am based to Smiley Creek. But after that time would not be a big concern as most are close by. I would use the C-182 if I was going into Class B areas, but I like the idea of getting a panel I would like and some of the advantages of experimental aircraft. I do not want a 4 place kitplane, but I do like the MacKay SQ but I would think the Zenith would be much easier to build. But keep the ideas coming--Thanks Dan

Now that they've done a bunch of the "hard" work, the Zenith kits are pretty easy now. Too bad my 801 rudder won't work on a 750.

Can't give a "one answer fits you" reply. Here's my 2 cents.
I've owned three and built the major portion of the last one. The first (Flaglor Scooter) was a rag and tube, the second (701) all aluminum, has pulled or blind rivets which one person can do from the outside of the skin. The third (Tundra) is solid rivets, more than 20,000. No single person, no matter how much a purist in home building, can do that without a equal partner holding the bucking bar while the other runs the rivet gun .

Decide if your primary mission is to build or fly. It's amazing how many just want to build.
If yours is to build and fly, narrow down the type of use you want to have from it. Then forget about every flying spec the company has published. Historically, the published numbers are really optimistic.
So go find one and fly it. Many people forget about that part and take the company line on performance, especially if they are not a pilot yet, but none of them would never consider buying a car without driving it first.

After you get it down to the short list talk to those who have built one. Good builder support from the factory is a make or break deal for every builder at some point in the build. Find out now. There are some horror stories out there.

The next thing will be to decide how much time you can give the project. If you can't dedicate regular worthwhile blocks of time your project will likely out last your marriage. No joke here, I flew mine this summer in the Homebuilt Review at Oshkosh with a fellow who had finished his Dyke Delta Wing after 30 years of on and off building and finally he finished.
Beyond that you will have to choose between the money thing vs time thing.
So then scratch built or Kit. Then choose between regular kit ( a piece at a time) or a fast build kit. Most fast build kits will be 40% done in the airframe leaving you safely above the 51% rule to finish and still call yourself the majority builder but you will pay for the head start.

I have pride in mine for what I have done but I did not drive every nail either. It was a fast build and I had professional help. I just say I cheated when asked. Still it is a unique plane as each homebuilt is. But beyond that of my family, which I also had 50% help with, it is one of my greatest accomplishments.

spacer wrote:Now that they've done a bunch of the "hard" work, the Zenith kits are pretty easy now. Too bad my 801 rudder won't work on a 750.

I built one of the first few 801 kits..... That was WAY before the quick build kits..........

I drilled all 14, 210 rivet holes and it wasn't all that bad.... YMMV.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

2 whole hours to get to Idaho?!? ... makes me smile incredulously.

I haven't built or flown anything of the sort so just some general info and observations. Take it for what it's worth.
Several airplanes in the "Kitfox" style that might be worth looking at. Highlander definitely worth a look if you haven't already. One thing I didn't like about the kitfox was the baggage space seemed to me a little cramped.

The 750 just upped the max allowable gross weight to something like 1480, I think. So you'd have some "wiggle room" beyond the LSA limit.

If my family situation were different I'd be building a Glastar Sportsman 2+2. I, however, have a wife and two growing children and we use our plane to travel so the Sportsman just doesn't have the room or useful load for us. My four year old does remind me about once a month that I told her we were going to build one though.

I don't know much, but I have watched Greg put over 1000 hours on his Rans S7 in less then 3 years. Together, they do amazing things. Watch them in any of his 65 videos here:
http://vimeo.com/user1123720/videos

Between all my other projects I am building a RV-9 tail wheel, its going to have different gear than Van supplies and bush wheels. Fast enough to get to the back country and should land at most anyplace I need to land.

Hi Dan,

I fly a 701 and have built a second one. I've also studied all three, 801,750 and the 701. The pros and cons of this design are interesting and to my way of thinking would take far more time to review than my typing skills can handle. I use to fly and build Piper Pacers and cubs before I got into experimental and the 701. If you’re interested in my experience and opinions feel free to call or e-mail me at:

[email protected] or 760-378-3870

Rick

Anybody remember the Pro-Tech PT-1?? I didn't think so. I briefly had a kit and dumped it at a loss (about 20 years ago) when I smelled a rat. The company went t*ts up shortly thereafter. Buyer beware.......

The point being, the plane is only as good as the support behind it. Having said that, there are always some new up and comers out there that deserve a look. Confused yet? I bought 2 Rans S-7's, back to back, the first time out of 5 kitplane constructions I've done that. The last kit EVERYTHING was in one box, I was not short one cotter pin, one flat thin 3/16" washer, etc. and EVERYTHING fit. Having said that, it is still a big job, about 750 to 1000 hours of YOUR SPARE TIME!! Think about that for a while.

The financial factor is the thing for me, no way could I afford a Super Cub or Maule, the initial purchase cost or the operating expense. Now I have something that does some things better then them, and other things not as well, but it was and is affordable, I just passed the 2,000 hr mark in S-7's, I can always afford the gas bill, at less then 4 GPH. Secondary is the fact that my bird is the only one just like it: I have mods no one else does, for better or for worse! I enjoy knowing mine is unique, like most homebuilts of course.

Hey Dan:

I fly a C205, but started researching LSA's when my medical examiner mentioned something about blood pressure. The mission statement is real important.

If you truly want back country and want a decent payload, look at the highlander. It holds two big people and lots of cargo room. I spent about 2 yrs looking and made the decision for a highlander. It isn't fast, but who cares when you love to fly. There are enough of them flying now to know it is a sturdy well thought out project. I hope to get mine flying by July, 2011.

PM me or call me if you want to bs about it. Of course, I'm a bit biased now that JA has my $.

Rich

Dan - where are you in Utah? You should fly down to West Desert Airpark (UT99) outside Fairfield. Mark Pringle at Rocky Mountain Kitplanes is the Rans Dealer, and actually builds a lot of their S-LSA's. He's got a beautiful S7-S on 26" Alaskan Bushwheels and is a super guy.

I don't think you can go wrong with a Rans S-7, Highlander or Kitfox. I think all are healthy companies. I only have direct experience with the Rans (2 of them now). I think based on those that have direct build experience, the Rans will be the fastest build, but not by much. If you have extra money, you can get it in an advanced build stage where the wings are built, covered and painted, as is the fuselage. The factory support is good, the kit has been refined since the early '80's. There are also some great forums/group specific to the type - Yahoo Rans group, or Ransclan.com. So do the others.

All the advice is good - figure out what you want it to do. If you want to haul two people and lots of gear, I'd say Highlander. If you mostly fly solo, with just the occasional passenger, and want maybe the slowest stall - Rans (it will haul as much as you want to shove in it, but not necessarily with another passenger). If you want your honey next to you, but don't needs lots of baggage - Kitfox maybe.

Go fly them all. Fly the Rans from the front seat.

I love my Rans. Its a great design, super capable backcountry plane, and I love the visibility of the tandem. If I was in the market, I would look also hard at the highlander - I think its got some great qualities.

If you have any specific questions on the Rans, send me a message - or better yet - courierguy - he had a bed in his last one!!!

Oh, and as the others have said - its a big undertaking. Don't underestimate it. If you don't have the time to get out and work on it several days (for at least 2-3hrs) a week, and a couple weekends a month, its going to take a while. Like years. It just will. Nothing magic or really difficult, its just a big project - even a quick build.

Be honest with yourself. If you are a persistent person that consistently finishes projects, even when over long periods - then do it. Especially if you like to build/work on things. You will love it. But if you really want to just "get it in the air" and maybe don't think you will have lots of time - be careful. Lots of the planes end up under a tarp and then sold.

Oh, and make sure you have a heated space to work on it. A cold poorly lit hangar is extremely uninviting!

I won't try to talk you into a specific plane to build. The earlier advice to define your mission is spot on.

I built a Savannah which is sort of a clone of the 701. A few years before I built my Savannah, a very capable guy in Lebanon built a 701 and took about 800 hours to do it. I built my Savannah in about 300 hours over a period of 5 months. The major difference is the pre-drilled holes. So whatever kit you buy, if time is important to you, and you like flying at least as much as building, go for a kit with pre-drilled holes. Zenith now does that as well as many others.

The Savannah came with a very nice firewall forward kit that included the wiring harness, basic instruments, tubing, fuel line, valves, oil cooler, and all the other stuff needed to get the plane in the air. Not having to source and order a ton of stuff from a variety of vendors saved many hours of effort. Knowing that it all has been put together and works is also a load off. For example, even though the 701 had been flying successfully for many years, my friend in Lebanon spent a lot of time discussing overheating oil before he got the air flow through the cooler to work properly. My Savannah has had no troubles with this, and I haven't seen a problem discussed on the forums. Compare kits for completeness.

I also recommend buying a kit that has a strong forum presence on the net. The folks on there can answer many questions about the quality of factory support and the build documentation. From the types of questions on the forum you can get an idea of problem areas and what concerns the builders are discussing. A guy flying a Savannah in Greece had an engine out when a cockroach clogged up the fuel line. Reading about that helped me decide that a "finger screen" on the tank outlets should be installed, since they were not included in the kit.

tom

PL-9 Stork?

I looked into the Pazmany Storch before buying the 701 back in 2000, and also the Carlson Criquet, named after the French version of the same downsized German war bird. My wife needed help climbing in so we crossed it off the list. With a straight bottom fuselage and such a steep angle of attack at touchdown, the main gear have to be so darned long or it would be at stall and the mains wouldn't reach the ground. All this makes the cabin really high from the ground. But if I was 25 yrs younger? Looks like a fun machine for slow motion flying and landing.

Foot note here is that the German Storch is the grandfather of the fixed slot wings that showed up on the 701, Helio Couriers, Wilgas and others.