Anyone know of a Florida based S-7 that can be looked at?

Also, what if any float conversions of the S-7 are out there and what kind of useful load #'s once float equipped?

I picked up a S-7LS at the factory mid December and have over 70 hours on it so far. Couldn't be happier, flies great, real eye catcher at the airport and factory support is as good as it could possibly be. The Rans folks are great to work with, have been around for many years and it looks like they'll be around for many more. Performance is excellant. I have had instructors that fly Citabrias, Husky's and Cubs that rave about the performance and would like to own one themselves. Factory support is very high on my list and have had parts delivered within 24 hours.

Magnet

Since we are discussing the Highlander, I'll throw the Kitfox Supersport into the mix. I owned a Speedster and still lament selling it. It was a great plane and the support from the McBeans at the Kitfox factory was superb.

I haven't flown the new Supersport, but one of the airport bums up in Maine built one a few years ago. It hauls a lot, takes off and lands SHORT, and it has a lot of hip/shoulder room.

As far as tandem seating, sitting on centerline is awesome for the front seat pilot, but the back seater can have a rough time if they get air sick if the visibility is not great. Something to consider if you do some long cross countries with a copilot.

I second the kitfox nomination lot of bang for the buck. You can pick up a nice 912 powered model 4 for under $25,000. 26 gallon of gas 1200 lb gross, cruise @ 110mph, stall in the mid to upper 30's burning 4 gallon an hour.

Are all of the rans, kit fox, highlander fabric? Am really intrigued by these planes but I cannot afford a hanger at my current airport for 4 to 5 months out of the year.

Are all of the rans, kit fox, highlander fabric?

Yes they are all fabric. I know of people who keep their kitfox in a wide car trailer, and only pay for a tie down space. I can fold my wings in about 10 to 15 min depending on how much gas must be drained. Not quite as convenient as a hangar but a lot cheaper.

Nick

Wow that is a great idea. Might be kind of a pain to haul to the airport everyday but I bet there would be a way to sort out some deal with the airport if you just tuck your trailer in the corner. Therefore your not using any tie down spots and have the coverage. Gotta love that foldable wing.

My tie down space for the 182 is $900/year here. Main goal for getting a small lsa would be for cheap flying around the area and low fuel burn. Kind of defeats the purpose if a hangar probably 6k to 8k a year is throw into those numbers.

Another option with the folding wing is sharing a hangar with someone. An Avid/Kitfox will fit under the wing of a 172 in a standard T-hangar when folded up. I put an add on the bulletin board at our airport and had it answered within a week from someone looking to offset their hangar cost a little bit. I found a better option later on down the road but something to think about. I too know of a guy that keeps his Kitfox at home in his garage and trailers it to the airport to go flying. Not ideal but it works.

On the downside though compared to a Rans or Highlander they have a much smaller cargo area and are a smaller airplane in general. They also don't have conventional flaps like the Rans/Highlander. I use flaperon flaps for take off on mine but not for landing as they don't provide any drag at all. If I were to build one from a Kit form it would probably be a Highlander.

Anyone know where I can find the dimensions on a kit fox IV 1200 with wings folded?

Contact John or Debra McBean

http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/contact.htm

ington6 wrote:Anyone know where I can find the dimensions on a kit fox IV 1200 with wings folded?

21'-6" long X 8 feet wide.

I trailer my Kitfox to the airport for each flight. I would fly a lot more if it was sitting down there in a hangar all ready to preflight. It is a lot of monkey motion but the folding wings is what makes flying affordable for me.

Hmmmm.
No discussion about the CH-701/750. Why? Ugly? On paper it sure seems like a winner. I have to admit the first time I saw one at a fly in my response was something like "what the heck". Still, lots of room, cub like speeds, true STOL.

Wondering.

I finished building my 701 last November, and now have a little over 70 hours flying on it. At my home airport (Mack Mesa, CO), elev. 4724', it will get off the ground in about 200' fully loaded on an 80 degree day, less when it's cooler and lighter. It uses a little more room to land. My empty weight came to 612lb, so with an 1100lb gross weight, useful load is 488lb. I have the long range tanks, so it will take up to 40 gallons fuel onboard (normal fuel cap. is 20gal) if needed, but then it's a solo airplane. I use a moderate power setting on the Rotax 912S and cruise about 80MPH on 3.6GPH of premium auto fuel. I can push it up to about 90MPH burning closer to 4.5GPH. I've begun taking it into some of the backcountry strips (Hubbard, Caveman, and Dolores Point, so far) and it does really well, even 2 up. The down sides are that it's slow, and the payload is somewhat limited. My wife loves the side by side seating, and the bubble doors give unbelieveable visibility. I'm 6' tall and a little over 200lbs, and it's really comfortable and plenty roomy for me. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but for the money it's a heck of a good little all metal light-sport STOL airplane.

Thanks for the feed back sir. It's funny that Zenith won't let folks participate in their forums unless they buy a set of plans. I guess that' why we don't hear from more builders out here in net world. My most common use would be like yours I think. I'm in Reno. More or less the same altitude. I have a granddaughter 7 hours away by car and 2 hours away by Ch-601HD. The same flight in a 701 would be maybe 45 minutes longer. High mountain passes and lots of rugged terrain in between. I'm 5'7" and 140lbs these days. My wife is smaller so we may have a bit more useful load than you. So you've got 10 hours of fuel on board? That's a bunch. the 601 and 701 take about double the build time that is required for the new 650 and 750 but the kit price difference is rather large I think. I've got 6 Saturdays a week so hours are more important than months or years. Do you think, as a percentage of total building cost, that the new kits are worth the extra? I'm pretty sure I could find the difference in price if push came to shove. I'm just a cheap son of a gun. I may just buy a J-something to save money.

701der wrote:I finished building my 701 last November, and now have a little over 70 hours flying on it. At my home airport (Mack Mesa, CO), elev. 4724', it will get off the ground in about 200' fully loaded on an 80 degree day, less when it's cooler and lighter. It uses a little more room to land. My empty weight came to 612lb, so with an 1100lb gross weight, useful load is 488lb. I have the long range tanks, so it will take up to 40 gallons fuel onboard (normal fuel cap. is 20gal) if needed, but then it's a solo airplane. I use a moderate power setting on the Rotax 912S and cruise about 80MPH on 3.6GPH of premium auto fuel. I can push it up to about 90MPH burning closer to 4.5GPH. I've begun taking it into some of the backcountry strips (Hubbard, Caveman, and Dolores Point, so far) and it does really well, even 2 up. The down sides are that it's slow, and the payload is somewhat limited. My wife loves the side by side seating, and the bubble doors give unbelieveable visibility. I'm 6' tall and a little over 200lbs, and it's really comfortable and plenty roomy for me. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but for the money it's a heck of a good little all metal light-sport STOL airplane.

I don't usually carry that much fuel, but the tanks are there if I need them.

I toured the factory last fall and got to look at some of the 750 parts and compare them to the 701. I think it would go together significantly quicker than the 701. I think I'm probably slow, and never had done anything like it before, but mine took me about 1060 hours to build. I'd be willing to bet I could have built a 750 in 700 or 800 hours. I wouldn't believe the estimates the factory gives. Some folks have done it in that little time, but most I've talked to took more. I know very little about the 650, but the 750 can use any of several different engines. If a person could find a good used Continental O-200, the cost savings over a new Rotax could just about offset any price difference between the 701 and 750 kits. The 701 has a weight limit of 200lbs installed for it's engine, so that pretty much leaves only the Rotax 912S or the Viking, which I know very little about. All that being said, for sheer takeoff and climb performance the 701 will beat the 750. But the 750 is a little larger and faster and will carry more weight. My 701 is basic VFR, with a few options: bubble doors, electric trim, long range tanks, cabin heat, and I installed an angle of attack indicator. Even though I was able to save money by finding a used 912S (kind of rare these days) I still have about $42K in it, just to give you an idea of what to expect, should you go that route. You can spend a lot more with glass panel, etc. It adds up fast.

I kinda figured that the overall cost would be in that area. What you get though is an airplane that is more capable than a factory built used aircraft in that category. Thanks again for the input.

Dan

Emory Bored wrote:Hmmmm.
No discussion about the CH-701/750. Why? Ugly? On paper it sure seems like a winner. I have to admit the first time I saw one at a fly in my response was something like "what the heck". Still, lots of room, cub like speeds, true STOL.

Wondering.

There's been plenty of discussion and cool video's about those models on other threads. (If my laptop wasn't broken, I'd take the time to find those posts for you). I think they are a great plane! Great performer and excellent visibility.