Look into the Avid Flyer. It was better built than the Kitfox. Dean Wilson was the original designer. Denney Aero and him split in the early 80's. Denney was not a designer just a good businessman. Dean was an awesome designer just not much of a businessman which is the main reason Kitfox is still around today. The Avid Magnum uses 150-180hp certified engine and performs awesome. It's basically just the big brother to the earlier models. The earlier Avids like the MKIV are very similiar to Kitfox IV. There's one on barnstormers right now with a C-85 in it that he claims does 100mph on 4.5gph. Avid was out of business for a while so support was limited but there's a new guy that bought all the rights named Brett McKinney in Wisconsin. He is offering support and parts and is hoping to start producing kits again soon.

Somebody down there in southern Idaho was involved with a beefed-up follow-on to the Avid called the Airdale. A friend of mine was building one but decided to sell his project & buy a flying Pacer (which unfortunately turned out to need rebuilding). He had it sitting up on the gear,uncovered-- I sat in it & liked the feel of it. It'd be hot stuff with a 120-horse jabiru or similar. www.airdale.com

Eric

AAAhhh! The age old questions. You can tell by my name what my preference is, but how I came to be an owner is important to this discussion. All of us have our perspective based on experiences and background. I came from a household wherein my father referred to exp. aircraft as "make believe" or "garage built" airplanes. My father was a Piper dealer so I was a Cub and T-craft fan. As far as engines go prior to 2005, I NEVER sat behind a non certified engine, but THEY ALL FAIL. I can say in 4000+ hours in piston powered aircraft I have never had a Lyc fail mechanically, but I have heard of horror stories from every engine. The Rotax was very suspect in my mind at first and prior to buying one I took the engine tech course at Lockwoods to examine the engine more thoroughly. The technology and materials used by Rotax is far more advanced then the 1940s tech used by Cont and Lyc because the FAA has handcuffed the certified engine manufacturers. Not to mention the lawyers in Washington and the backward product liability legislation. The FAA has repeatedly increased TBO on the 912's based on performance in the field and I know a lot more owners with great things to say about that little engine then I know horror stories. I think of my Highlander as NEW tech meets OLD tech design and I am very happy with it's STOL performance and agility at high density altitude. Of course I am jaded buy having spent 56K to build mine, but I wouldn't trade for a brand new T-craft if they made them. Why.....you have to fly them both on a LOOOONG trip...then you will know. Just a demo flight its hard to get a good picture. Its all about comfort level and ease of ownership. Plus the kick in the pants you get with a REALLY short take-off roll.

I do love the Rans S-7 but I had no room for my dog.

Lynn, we've got a guy in our local EAA chapter here in Los Angeles who is building a Highlander QB to use the Jabiru 3300 that he already had available (he had almost finished a Zenair 601 when they started having all those problems and so he just put the airframe away).

Like I said, the Highlander appears to be a very well put together kit, and the crash structure in the cockpit area impressed me quite a bit. He's happier than a pig in s**t with it so far... he has property at 6500 ft. in Utah so the airplane will be a great toy/transportation tool for him.

The only thing I personally don't like about it is the idea of wooden ribs glued to aluminum tubes for spars. It's nearly impossible to get a 100% strength epoxy glue joint on aluminum. The Highlander kit I saw looks like it uses JB Weld or Pro-Seal or some other kind of gray filled epoxy for the glue joints. I DO understand that there are not a lot of failures reported on Avid/Kitfox/Higlander types using this glue method, but it still just doesn't look totally right on a long term basis for me.

I have many hours in plastic-glue-flexible-ish airplanes (racing sailplanes) so it's not the concept of glue that bothers me. Also had an AA-1 Yankee for a bit. It's the concept of epoxy and aluminum being used in a non-aerospace facility, without the aluminum conversion coating to guarantee a high strength glue joint. A very high brain function chemist type engineer informed me that the only way to properly glue aluminum is to use a certain type of conversion coating (alodine of one particular type), after which the epoxy will stick very very well and you can achieve an 80-90% material strength bond.

However my friend building the Highlander will have far far more in it cash-wise than an updated antique like an 85 HP T-craft or Champ. The original post in this thread had cash limits as part of the decision (don't we all?), so $50K and up on a new custom built airplane (or a Helio Courier or whatever) is not an option for him.

Only time will tell on the Rib to Spar bonding and I know what you mean. So far I have been very impressed with the strength shown by the wings during post crash inspection. Sounds bad I know, but I have seen the rumpled remains of a couple Highlanders. I figured even if I have to build a new set of wings every 15-20 years I really like the engineering and performance. The market is flush with great airplanes right now and the prices are very negotiable. I hope he can find a nice T-craft.

That rib-to tubular-spar epoxy bonding has been on all the Avids & Kitfoxes from day one, no? Any reports of them failing? I've never heard of it, but then again I don't have one and so don't pay particular attention.
I remember watching an early 1990's marketing video from Avid, most of which was shot with an airplane-mounted camera, showing the factory pilot zooming around southern Idaho,making low passes and doing rolls- made me wanna run right out and get one! I doubt that they were putting much G on it but they were definitely wringing it out.

Eric