Can't wait Steve. You run the motor yet? Sent yous some emails with questions

emflys wrote:I'd go Highlander as the 1st plane. You can EASILY stick the 1st kid in a seat in the baggage bay...in his/her car seat, with special mounts. Have a second kid, by the time you are ready to go flying with them...figure something else out.

This is my plan. Now I just have to bring myself and my Dad to sell the Luscombe Problem is by the time I have a flying Highlander I'll probably have another kid and be stuck with the same dilemma I have now...

........ probably have another kid and be stuck with the same dilemma I have now...

Do a search on the web. It is not inevitable.........

If I can figure it out, so can you......
lc

I hear they can do it during a lunch break

Zane wrote:The uncertainty of having a family still looms. It'd be nice to have Maule-like capacity without having to own a Maule. The Tundra just seems like it will be too expensive, and I like the rag n tube construction.

Zane is folding wing part of your consideration? The Kitfox / Highlander both provide much cost savings potential in shared hangars over fixed wing Bearhawks.... If I didn't have folding wings I couldn't hangar mine at my farm and save $200/mo in hangar fees. It's 100hp, 120mph cruise, and if built ExAB up to 1550 max gross which comes out to about 750lbs useful but still stop in 150ft. Food for your thought if you're diggin the lighter nimble feel of that Cubbie you've been usin....

I don't know Zane. As cool as the Highlander is you might want to check with your lovely wife first if she's OK with sticking the baby in the baggage compartment...
It's hard to do an in-flight breastfeeding (yes, we've done that) if the mom and baby aren't in the same row!

Also, you rarely hear a 4-seat backcountry pilot wishing he had less displacement. I'm with Vick, go with the 260.

Folding wings have never really factored into my decision making. I'm a "keep it at the airport in a hangar" kind of guy.

K-man, your breastfeeding anecdote is noted. Kids are really the deciding factor here, and there are no additions to the family currently scheduled, although the order could come any day. Meanwhile I keep practicing.

crazedpilot wrote:

Zane wrote:The uncertainty of having a family still looms. It'd be nice to have Maule-like capacity without having to own a Maule. The Tundra just seems like it will be too expensive, and I like the rag n tube construction.

Zane is folding wing part of your consideration? The Kitfox / Highlander both provide much cost savings potential in shared hangars over fixed wing Bearhawks.... If I didn't have folding wings I couldn't hangar mine at my farm and save $200/mo in hangar fees. It's 100hp, 120mph cruise, and if built ExAB up to 1550 max gross which comes out to about 750lbs useful but still stop in 150ft. Food for your thought if you're diggin the lighter nimble feel of that Cubbie you've been usin....

You really get 120mph cruise? Are you flying the highlander or the kitfox?

Oh, we found the perfect airplane for Zane in another thread. I'm sure it will be available in kit form soon:

Oh, we found the perfect airplane for Zane in another thread

Wow..... I wonder what kinda gas you gotta feed that thing....

You really get 120mph cruise?

A highlander is slower than the Kitfox in cruise.... i can't quote Highlander cruise figures but I heard closer to 100mph.
The new Kitfox models can reportedly cruise up to 130mph with adjustable pitch props. My inflight adjustable is sitting in my shop waiting for installation..... Kitfox has changed a ton in the last almost 30 years from a little toy to a real airplane with adjustable rudder pedals, good useful load like its Rans and Highlander cousins, engine options, great cruise but still land on a postage stamp with my Alaskan Bushwheels. Who could complain? I rent when I need to fly complex or high performance with 4 up, which is only once a month or so.....

GroundLooper wrote:You really get 120mph cruise? Are you flying the highlander or the kitfox?

Highlander can't go that fast. Their undercambered wing hits a drag induced wall at about 100 mph.

Their undercambered wing hits a drag induced wall at about 100 mph

That was the problem with the early Kitfox planes that everyone still has in their mental-picture of a "Kitfox" which
is the old "Denny/SkyStar Kitfox" from the 80's and 90s with their undercambered wing (possibly the same airfoil as the Highlander odds are high as they share a lot of other similar genes...) You have Kitfoxes do you know if it's the same airfoil?

Zane wrote:...Obviously these are not apples to apples... It's 2-seats vs 4-seats. 100 hp vs ???. I'm not sure I'm ready to commit to 260hp. My Bearhawk would likely be closer to 195hp, and therefore would have to be a featherweight specimen. ...

There aren't any cheap (good) engines, but go price a 540 Lycoming before you commit. Another thing to consider is the if the drivers license medical thing goes through, it's limited to 180 horse or less. Uness you custom-placard a 540 for 180 hp, sorta like the Cubcrafters' 80 horse Lycoming 360 (or 340?), you're kinda limited to a 360. Never seen one except in magazines, but the best of both worlds might be a bearhawk patroller.

They both have their pros and cons. Kitfox is a little faster. Highlander has a much wider more usable baggage space, adjustable seats ( which in my opinion are much more useful than adj rudder pedals), flaps and ailerons, placement of the main gear that lets you reef on the brakes without nosing over. I've flown quite a bit alongside a good KF and he could not touch my Highlander for any kind of STOL flying.
I'd be happy to show anyone my Highlander that would like to check one of them out. I don't have anything bad to say about Kitfox's or anyones plane, it's great to have some variety. After flying 1500 hours and 9,000 landings in some very interesting places in my Highlander, I know first hand what a great plane the Highlander is.

Steve
WildWestAircraft.com

I've flown quite a bit alongside a good KF and he could not touch my Highlander for any kind of STOL flying.

Yes..... but you were probably 45 minutes behind him getting to Idaho

I agree the storage space is probably the number one thing I envy in the Highlander over the Kitfox.... but I still say lots of variables in pilot and comfort of short field ops to make a direct comparison in STOL capabilities.... in a spot landing contest how much ground roll you got in that Highlander, no wind, on pavement? I've had other KF owners tell me there was no way they could land their plane in under 500 ft.. WHAT???? common... I'm just sayin the pilot is the biggest piece of that pie. Highlander may beat the KF5-7 in groundroll by 20-40 ft max, but I'll give up that and the 2 cubic feet of storage for 120mph cruise anytime.

I'm just glad there's so many options out there for us all to choose from, which is really the whole point of this thread...take care all, and stay out of the rain!
~Brendan

crazedpilot wrote:

I've had other KF owners tell me there was no way they could land their plane in under 500 ft.. WHAT???? common... I'm just sayin the pilot is the biggest piece of that pie. Highlander may beat the KF5-7 in groundroll by 20-40 ft max, but I'll give up that and the 2 cubic feet of storage for 120mph cruise anytime.

~Brendan

I think Steve's videos do the talking on this. I've never seen a KF attempt what Steve does routinely. Just saying....

MM

I've never seen a KF attempt what Steve does routinely. Just saying....

Hi Matt! Congrats on the photo in P&P! Yea I've never seen anyone attempt to do what Steve does at all But I'm just saying if you put STEVE and HIS capabilities in a similarly equipped KF5 or 7 you'd only loose 20-50ft in ground roll given his experience, abilities, and willingness assuming he had equal time and comfort in both planes.

You have a good point, Steve is a freak.

Thanks, MM

You have a good point, Steve is a freak.

Not a freak - he's just 'representin' Highlander. For the 912ULS planes of that category you've got Swingle for Rans, Steve for Highlander, but Kitfox as far as i know is a little lack-luster in the bush plane representation unless they're out there hiding in the shadows.... it's certainly capable, but under-utilized and flown too fast into short final whenever it is on display, as usual Maybe with time I can convert some people but I mostly fly two-up with bagage so anyone watching me from the corners when I'm not lookin don't hold those longer landings against me

Would be a very interesting 'test' to have matching gear and angle of attack on my KF as Steve's Highlander and put Steve in it and watch him go to town - see how much difference that undercambered wing itself makes in the equation.

Regardless Highlander provides a lot more ACCESSIBLE storage in the back - maybe not much more 'space' but easier to get longer objects (tents bikes etc) in and out.That's probably the most important difference if you ask me outside of STOL performance gain and cruise loss compared to the modern Kitfox.

Enough!

Zane wrote:Enough!

Buy your plane/kit already.