I'd stumbled across the Kitfox Super Sport a while back in an article about LSA's. Like most LSA's I glanced over it as the useful load was in the "barely adequate if at all" range. I just saw that they have a version with a gross limit of 1550 lbs. Essentially the same as the LSA version only with slightly beefier gear to handle the increased weight.

Anybody on this forum have any experience with these?
The usual stuff: What engine? How long did it take to build? Was that using the quickbuild options? How's the performance (speed, TO & landing distance, climb rate)? How about at gross? How about at gross on a hot day with trees at the end of the short runway?

I have a Kitfox Series 5. It has the 1550 gross and the beefy Grove gear. I have flown it right up to gross and it is still happy to get off the ground and climb. I have the Rotax 912S and would recommend that combo for best overall performance for your money. I didn't build mine, so I can't help you with building questions. But I can talk performance numbers if you want. Everyone seems to be quite impressed when they actually see it fly. When they see what it can carry, the maneuverablitity, and how little fuel it does doing its thing, they are impressed. Great airplane.

What's the empty weight on your series 5? I've always liked the looks of the Kitfox, esp the later (bigger) series 5-7. That new Kitfox SuperSport LSA looks ike it'd be a good airplane. I don't like the complexity of the Rotax- reduction drive, dual carbs, water-cooling- but you can't argue with success. The jabiru looks like it'd be a good fit on a Kitfox, esp the 3300 (120 horse). Kitfox has told me that the heavier weight of the O-200 & O-235 make them impractical/impossible for an LSA Kitfox.
One thing I never liked the idea of was the flaperons versus regular flaps & ailerons. That's something I like on the Highlander over the kitfoxes. What's your opinion of the flaperons? Do you generally utilize the flap aspect of them?
I do have to admit that I don't have any time at all (even as pax) in a Kitfox,Avid, or Highlander, so luckily I don't have to clutter up my opinions/impressions with reality.

Eric

Empty weight varies largely on experimentals depending on how it was built and options installed. My airplane weighs 484lbs. I've seen the same model weigh 560lbs empy because the builder put so much crap in it. With airplanes in this power and weight range 1 extra pound decreases your rate of climb by 4 ft per min. You start putting in fancy door panels, interiors, silly avionics stacks, ect and it adds up very quickly. I've seen people add several pounds to their airplane with zip ties alone. Call John and Debra McBean at Kitfox LLC in Homedale ID. They will be able to answer any and all of your questions.

Here is an example of what the early model Avids were capable of because they were LIGHT. This particular airplane is able to get off the water in 2.5 seconds.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjDSatUSoCY

The empty weight on my Series 5 is 800 (798). Yeah, it could probably be lighter and fly much better. However I think that there is a point where you sacrifice some utility and comfort. For me, my Kitfox is a perfect combination of performance, utility, looks, and comfort. One of the things I liked most about this kitfox I bought is the full lexan doors. They bubble out, so I have awesome visibility and it also adds to the roominess. Most of the kits now incorporate that into them so that is not a Kitfox only benefit. The performance is far more than I expected from this little airframe. It will fly backcountry with little trouble. It will pack a load with little complaint. It will fly fast enough to piss off some SC fliers. And it will do all that while burning less fuel than most people out there. That fuel burn is part of the performance for me. I am very happy with what I got.

I agree with the flaperons point of view that Hotrod150 brought up... well, at least I did. I was really looking at the Highlander for that very reason alone (I personally like the look of separate flaps and ailerons). I also liked the openess of the cargo area on the Highlander. But that's another subject. Back to the flaperons: I really like how they set up the flaperons on the Series 5 on up. They are very effective. I use the flaps for takeoff and landing. First notch helps get the tail up around 20. Second notch gets me in the air around 35. I use full flaps for most landings now so that I have the best visibility while landing. I used to always land 3 point, but now prefer wheel landings. But that's another subject. The aileron part of the flaperons are great especially while you are low and slow since they are separated from the main wing. This keeps them in less turbulent air. Even while full flap, they work great at slow speeds. I usually come in around 45 if I want things tight and set down right at 40. I have complete control right up to that point. My Series 5 is fully stock (ie. no VG's etc.). So I would say that I really like the flaperons now. I wonder how much faster I could fly if they were tucked back up in the wing, the prop pitched for cruise, and the wheel pants it came with installed. However, all I ever really wanted was a 100 mph bushplane that I could afford. I always see 110 mph (96 knots) with 8.00 tires so I am happy with that. I also wonder how slow I could get with a VG kit like what the Highlander comes with.

I have flown with a Zenair, various Super Cubs, and a Skylane. They all fly differently than my airplane. I was able to keep up with all of them for the most part (the skylane of course throttled back - but he is a good friend of mine). Most took off like me, but most didn't climb like me. Most were a little slower than me, but everyone burnt more fuel than me. But that's just my experience. I hope I'm not too biased... I'm sure there are plenty of airplanes that can post better numbers. Frankly speaking, that's great to hear. I hope we can keep innovating and impoving to see what is possible. Until that perfect airplane, I'll keep enjoying my airplane because that's what I've got and it works great for me.

lazflyn wrote:... It will pack a load with little complaint. It will fly fast enough to piss off some SC fliers. And it will do all that while burning less fuel than most people out there. That fuel burn is part of the performance for me. I am very happy with what I got.
... I usually come in around 45 if I want things tight and set down right at 40. ... I have complete control right up to that point. My Series 5 is fully stock (ie. no VG's etc.). ... However, all I ever really wanted was a 100 mph bushplane that I could afford. I always see 110 mph (96 knots) with 8.00 tires so I am happy with that.

You keep talking like that and I'm going to want to go out and buy one... not that I can right now, mind you. They really do sound like most everything I want from an airplane, 80%-90% anyway. I'll have to see one up close sometime. Might even make a trip out to Homedale sometime later this year for the heck of it.

Does your Model 5 have folding wings? If so, are they practical? That is can one person fold and unfold them in a "reasonable" amount of time? Saving a grand or two a year on hanger space is another nice selling point... if it works.

Craig

Now a Kitfox ready to fly LSA.
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentB ... 6638c276f&

I mentioned the Slats I built on a model 4 on a different threat, thought I might as well put them up here also. Any more questions and I will be happy to answer.

Brian.

The factory-fly-away Kitfox at $84K is spendy, but less so than most of the factory LSA's. I hope they can hold that line, althogh it's already too high for my budget. I imagine that's bare bones, by the time you put a couple TV screens in there along with a full electronics suite it'll be up to $100K like the rest.
I side-stepped (some say stepped down) from a C-170 to a C-150/150TD a year ago, and never looked back. I don't regret it at all, the 2-seater meets 99% of my needs-- I never liked hauling them whiney back-seaters anyways. I could be happy with an LSA if the weight limit were high enough and/or the empty weight low enough to make it practical. About a 500 pound useful load would seem to be a minimum IMHO.
There's a new version of the Zlin Savage called the Savage Cub, sort of a 7/8 scale Rotax powered sort-of-super-cub. Same price range, it looks like it might be a good one. Lots of Cub guys seem to take exception to the name though.

Eric

hotrod150 wrote: About a 500 pound useful load would seem to be a minimum IMHO.

Eric

I tend to figure 600 as most aircraft seem to be over the advertised minimum empty weight. I also estimate
Pilot and passenger @150lbs each: 300lbs - It's pretty easy for pilot and or passenger to weigh more than 150lbs.
Fuel 22.5 usable (c-150): 135lbs - of course this will vary depending on capacity
Oil 11lbs for (c-150):
That uses 446lbs right there. I figure 50-55lbs/person for food and gear for backpacking trip of about a week (that doesn't include niceties like a camp chair.)

Craig

Zlin's use of the 'Cub' name is probably no more egregious than the Legend Cub or any other Cub that wasn't built by Piper (or Taylor). Nobody seems to have flown in one yet (or at least nobody seems to have written about it) but there are certainly many devotees of the Savage Classic; it's probably safe to assume it'll perform as advertised. For those seeking legitimate useful load and usable space for baggage (at a decent price), both the Highlander and Bush Caddy also seem to deserve consideration. For Americans, the Bush Caddy deserves extra attention simply because your dollar goes so far in Canada.