 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JetPilot
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 |
 |
|
I have seen two different people ask recently “ Which airplane is better, the Kitfox or the Zenith Aircraft CH-701 ? “ There seems to be a lot of interest in this topic so I will address it here. I have no interest in either aircraft company, am not in the business of selling or promoting anything in sport aviation, I am just giving the best advice I can here based on 25 years of being a commercial pilot, CFI, and flying everything from the smallest ultralights to heavy Airliners. This is the same personal advice I would give to a family member if they were asking me which aircraft they should buy. What I write below is based on my own extensive research and opinion. I would encourage anyone that is considering buying an airplane to do their own research, and talk to people that own and fly both airplane types before making their choice. I recently was in the market to buy a new Aircraft kit to build to use with my Rotax 912-S engine which I already have. In my search for the best aircraft, I looked at both the Kitfox Series 7 Super Sport, the CH-701, and also some other types. . I have a friend with a Kitfox Series 4 and a friend with a CH-701 so it was natural for me to compare these two aircraft closely to each other. After looking at each plane and its performance, I found the current model Kitfox 7 SS to be superior to the Zenith Air by a HUGE margin in performance and safety, here is why…
The Kitfox Series 7 SS that I bought is faster, more agile, and will run circles around the CH-701 in the air. The Kitfox is also every bit as good at STOL as the Zenair CH 701 is . Now you may ask how is this possible given the CH-701's obvious STOL design, and that is simple ! The Kitfox has a much larger, higher aspect ratio ( more efficient ) wing. If you look closely at the Zenith CH-701, you will notice that it has very short wings, exactly what you do NOT want if you want if you want to fly slow, and to take off and land at slow speeds. You will also notice that the CH 701 wings start to get very thin and totally disappear on each side of the cockpit, and there is NO wing at all above the cockpit on the Zenair CH-701. So the Zenair CH-701 takes an already too short wing, and gives up another 5 feet by not continuing any kind of airfoil over the cockpit, with the wing airfoil disappearing into nothing on where it meets the fuselage. So don't look at the published wingspan on the Zenith CH-701 and say " The CH-701 is not THAT much shorter than the Kitfox and other sport planes.. " Look at the Zenair CH-701 published wingspan, and take about 5 feet off that number for a realistic comparison to other airplanes. To compensate for the much to short wingspan, the CH-701 designers had to make a ridiculously thick and inefficient airfoil to enable the plane to take off and land slowly. Unfortunately the CH-701’s wing had to be made so thick that the ONLY thing that wing is good at is flying slow.... The other flying qualities of the airplane had to sacrificed to make up for this huge design flaw. The CH-701’s unreasonably thick wing makes the plane is draggy, slow, and it has a horrible glide ratio, and is just a real dog in the air when compared to the Kitfox. STOL is the only thing the Zenair CH-701 is good at.
The Kitfox has a very efficient wing that has low drag and is efficient at higher cruise speeds. The Kitfox wing has enough wingspan and area that it still has very good handling, efficient, and docile at low airspeeds. You need to put VG's ( Vortex Generators ) on the Kitfox wing to get the extreme slow speed handling of the CH-701, but they only cost 100 bucks and can be put on in 3 hours, With VG’s, the approach and stall numbers will be very close to that the Zenith CH-701 if not the same with no sacrifice in high speed cruise... With VG’s Kitfox can slow down, and land anywhere the CH701 can.
The most common emergency and greatest safety hazard we face in Experimental airplanes is an engine failure. The unreasonably thick, short wing of the Zenith CH701 gives it HORRIBLE glide characteristics. The Sink Rate of the CH-701 is bad also. The Superior glide ratio of the Kitfox is a HUGE safety factor. Assume you where at an altitude where you could glide a mile in a Zenair CH-701 and your engine quit, that would give you an area of 3.14 Square miles that you could glide to. Now lets say you were in a Kitfox that has twice the glide ratio and your engine quit at the same altitude, you would have an area of 12.5 square miles in which to find a a safe landing spot. In other words, if you double the glide ratio of an airplane, you have FOUR TIMES the amount of potential landing spots in the event of an engine failure. I am NOT saying the Kitfox has twice the glide of the CH-701 without testing and documenting this myself. But what I am saying that the Kitfox glide is MUCH better than the CH-701’s glide. Remember, every time you double the glide ratio, landing areas increase by a factor of FOUR !! It does not take a lot of increase in glide ratio to dramatically increase your chances of finding a safe landing area.
The Kitfox will also give you more time in an engine out situation due to its much lower sink rate. Again, would you rather have 1 minute to diagnose your power failure, to search for a good field, and execute an emergency approach and landing, or would you rather have 2 minutes. Again, I am using round numbers here for ease of understanding, but here is a fact. The Kitfox has a lower sink rate than the CH-701 after an engine failure, which is another important safety factor.
As for pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox again wins hand down. The Kitfox is more agile, lighter, and quicker on the controls than the CH-701, while still retaining excellent flying and handling qualities at low speed. Imagine driving a agile, good handling sports car compared to driving an old pickup truck , this just makes for a much more enjoyable flying experience. I am building my Kitfox with Tricycle gear, I ddid not want a another taildragger, so landings in my Kitfox will be every bit as docile and easy as they are in the Zenair CH-701.
I was not a big fan of fabric, I like aluminum, but fabric does have its advantages. It is very easy to repair if you should have an incident or hangar rash. I can punch a hole in my airplane and have it fixed and flying again in one afternoon. The Poly Fiber system is modern, easy to put on, shrinks with a household iron, and requires no doping, and is much less labor and time intensive than the old fashioned fabrics. The Poly Fiber fabric is rated to last outside for many many years, service life of this covering is NOT an issue. If in 10 or 15 years years I do need to replace the fabric covering, its not that hard nor expensive. Replacing my fabric is no harder than stripping and repainting an aluminum airplane.
One thing that is an issue for me is Hangar space. We always need a place inside to put our airplanes, and the wings on the Kitfox fold and unfold in about 10 minutes with just one person, no lifting required. This feature is really great, as I can share a hangar or put my airplane in a garage anywhere if need be ! This can save a fortune in hangar rent. This also makes the airplane very easy store and fly from a trailer if you want to keep it at home. The folding wings did not make my purchase decision, it was just icing on the cake. With over 4000 Kitfoxes sold, I can always count on parts support from the company, and other sources that get into such a large market as well.
Whichever airplane you decide on, good luck. Experimental aviation is not easy, research, good judgment, skill, and a lot of knowledge are required. But owning and flying an airplane is a wonderful experience that is worth every cent and every hour you put into it. No matter which airplane you fly, it is the most exhilarating and rewarding hobby on the planet.
Mike
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fgantt(at)texaviation.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 |
|
|
Jeff
No asked for your opinion so why offer it to the Zenith list, it would be a good post on the Kitfox list and you don't need anyone on the Zenith list to validate your decision. We all have made our decision without you sage advice.
Floyd
----------------------------------------
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:01 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701
I have seen two different people ask recently “ Which airplane is better, the Kitfox or the Zenith Aircraft CH-701 ? “ There seems to be a lot of interest in this topic so I will address it here. I have no interest in either aircraft company, am not in the business of selling or promoting anything in sport aviation, I am just giving the best advice I can here based on 25 years of being a commercial pilot, CFI, and flying everything from the smallest ultralights to heavy Airliners. This is the same personal advice I would give to a family member if they were asking me which aircraft they should buy. What I write below is based on my own extensive research and opinion. I would encourage anyone that is considering buying an airplane to do their own research, and talk to people that own and fly both airplane types before making their choice. I recently was in the market to buy a new Aircraft kit to build to use with my Rotax 912-S engine which I already have. In my search for the best aircraft, I looked at both the Kitfox Series 7 Super Sport, the CH-701, and also some other types. . I have a friend with a Kitfox Series 4 and a friend with a CH-701 so it was natural for me to compare these two aircraft closely to each other. After looking at each plane and its performance, I found the current model Kitfox 7 SS to be superior to the Zenith Air by a HUGE margin in performance and safety, here is why…
The Kitfox Series 7 SS that I bought is faster, more agile, and will run circles around the CH-701 in the air. The Kitfox is also every bit as good at STOL as the Zenair CH 701 is . Now you may ask how is this possible given the CH-701's obvious STOL design, and that is simple ! The Kitfox has a much larger, higher aspect ratio ( more efficient ) wing. If you look closely at the Zenith CH-701, you will notice that it has very short wings, exactly what you do NOT want if you want if you want to fly slow, and to take off and land at slow speeds. You will also notice that the CH 701 wings start to get very thin and totally disappear on each side of the cockpit, and there is NO wing at all above the cockpit on the Zenair CH-701. So the Zenair CH-701 takes an already too short wing, and gives up another 5 feet by not continuing any kind of airfoil over the cockpit, with the wing airfoil disappearing into nothing on where it meets the fuselage. So don't look at the published wingspan on the Zenith CH-701 and say " The CH-701 is not THAT much shorter than the Kitfox and other sport planes.. " Look at the Zenair CH-701 published wingspan, and take about 5 feet off that number for a realistic comparison to other airplanes. To compensate for the much to short wingspan, the CH-701 designers had to make a ridiculously thick and inefficient airfoil to enable the plane to take off and land slowly. Unfortunately the CH-701’s wing had to be made so thick that the ONLY thing that wing is good at is flying slow.... The other flying qualities of the airplane had to sacrificed to make up for this huge design flaw. The CH-701’s unreasonably thick wing makes the plane is draggy, slow, and it has a horrible glide ratio, and is just a real dog in the air when compared to the Kitfox. STOL is the only thing the Zenair CH-701 is good at.
The Kitfox has a very efficient wing that has low drag and is efficient at higher cruise speeds. The Kitfox wing has enough wingspan and area that it still has very good handling, efficient, and docile at low airspeeds. You need to put VG's ( Vortex Generators ) on the Kitfox wing to get the extreme slow speed handling of the CH-701, but they only cost 100 bucks and can be put on in 3 hours, With VG’s, the approach and stall numbers will be very close to that the Zenith CH-701 if not the same with no sacrifice in high speed cruise... With VG’s Kitfox can slow down, and land anywhere the CH701 can.
The most common emergency and greatest safety hazard we face in Experimental airplanes is an engine failure. The unreasonably thick, short wing of the Zenith CH701 gives it HORRIBLE glide characteristics. The Sink Rate of the CH-701 is bad also. The Superior glide ratio of the Kitfox is a HUGE safety factor. Assume you where at an altitude where you could glide a mile in a Zenair CH-701 and your engine quit, that would give you an area of 3.14 Square miles that you could glide to. Now lets say you were in a Kitfox that has twice the glide ratio and your engine quit at the same altitude, you would have an area of 12.5 square miles in which to find a a safe landing spot. In other words, if you double the glide ratio of an airplane, you have FOUR TIMES the amount of potential landing spots in the event of an engine failure. I am NOT saying the Kitfox has twice the glide of the CH-701 without testing and documenting this myself. But what I am saying that the Kitfox glide is MUCH better than the CH-701’s glide. Remember, every time you double the glide ratio, landing areas increase by a factor of FOUR !! It does not take a lot of increase in glide ratio to dramatically increase your chances of finding a safe landing area.
The Kitfox will also give you more time in an engine out situation due to its much lower sink rate. Again, would you rather have 1 minute to diagnose your power failure, to search for a good field, and execute an emergency approach and landing, or would you rather have 2 minutes. Again, I am using round numbers here for ease of understanding, but here is a fact. The Kitfox has a lower sink rate than the CH-701 after an engine failure, which is another important safety factor.
As for pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox again wins hand down. The Kitfox is more agile, lighter, and quicker on the controls than the CH-701, while still retaining excellent flying and handling qualities at low speed. Imagine driving a agile, good handling sports car compared to driving an old pickup truck , this just makes for a much more enjoyable flying experience. I am building my Kitfox with Tricycle gear, I ddid not want a another taildragger, so landings in my Kitfox will be every bit as docile and easy as they are in the Zenair CH-701.
I was not a big fan of fabric, I like aluminum, but fabric does have its advantages. It is very easy to repair if you should have an incident or hangar rash. I can punch a hole in my airplane and have it fixed and flying again in one afternoon. The Poly Fiber system is modern, easy to put on, shrinks with a household iron, and requires no doping, and is much less labor and time intensive than the old fashioned fabrics. The Poly Fiber fabric is rated to last outside for many many years, service life of this covering is NOT an issue. If in 10 or 15 years years I do need to replace the fabric covering, its not that hard nor expensive. Replacing my fabric is no harder than stripping and repainting an aluminum airplane.
One thing that is an issue for me is Hangar space. We always need a place inside to put our airplanes, and the wings on the Kitfox fold and unfold in about 10 minutes with just one person, no lifting required. This feature is really great, as I can share a hangar or put my airplane in a garage anywhere if need be ! This can save a fortune in hangar rent. This also makes the airplane very easy store and fly from a trailer if you want to keep it at home. The folding wings did not make my purchase decision, it was just icing on the cake. With over 4000 Kitfoxes sold, I can always count on parts support from the company, and other sources that get into such a large market as well.
Whichever airplane you decide on, good luck. Experimental aviation is not easy, research, good judgment, skill, and a lot of knowledge are required. But owning and flying an airplane is a wonderful experience that is worth every cent and every hour you put into it. No matter which airplane you fly, it is the most exhilarating and rewarding hobby on the planet.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 41215#241215
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 |
|
|
Ignoring the qualities of the Kitfox designs as aircraft, they do seem to
have trouble building a viable company around the aircraft. By my count the
current owners are the fourth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitfox
-- Craig
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JetPilot
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH |
|
|
| fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote: |
No asked for your opinion so why offer it to the Zenith list, it would be a good post on the Kitfox list and you don't need anyone on the Zenith list to validate your decision. We all have made our decision without you sage advice.
Floyd
|
The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a head to head comparison between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either.... Actually, yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead others into making a bad choice just because I did. I am man enough to admit if I made a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators from making the same mistake.
Mike
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William Dominguez
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 |
|
|
Mike,
You sound like an epinion poster. Experimental airplanes are not appliances nor consumer electronics. You are suppose to do your homework and look for what is right for you. Just because you are not happy with your choice doesn't mean others will be unhappy with the same choice.
I wouldn't go for a Kitfox or a Sonex, but that doesnt mean it could be good choices for other peoples.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, JetPilot <orcabonita(at)HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
| Quote: |
From: JetPilot <orcabonita(at)HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 1:31 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <[url=/mc/compose?to=orcabonita(at)hotmail.com]orcabonita(at)hotmail.com[/url]>
fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
| Quote: |
No asked for your opinion so why offer it to the Zenith list, it would be a good post on the Kitfox list and you don't need anyone on the Zenith list to validate your decision. We all have made our decision without you sage advice.
Floyd
|
The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a head to head comparison between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either.... Actually, yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead others into making a bad choice just because I did. I am man enough to admit if I made a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators from making the same mistake.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241474#241474</"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List" target="_blank">http://wp://forums.matronics.com" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com -Matt Dralle, List m/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution============
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmccune
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH |
|
|
Actually this is the wrong list for this post, there is a 701, 801 list.
I looked at both the Kitfox and the Eurofox, but they did not offer what I wanted. A little extra cruise would be nice, but how many times would I use it? Its pretty well known that the 701 can be built with longer wings ( ala Savannah) Same design just longer ( and yes I have Savannah docs to go by). The VGs are also available for the 701, this increases speed and supposedly does not effect the STOL capabilities. This is direct from happy customers, not internet speculation. Though, I am going with the slats.
The Kitfox specs also don't support your claims, yes I know that they all perform better then the specs, but so does the 701, there is a big chasm between the two specs as for STOL.
The Kitfox cannot be built from plans and this is the second biggest thing for me. I can not afford a kit with two kids really into med school. The biggest reason is weatherability ( I think I may have coined that one...sorry)
Biggest reason...The out side is not good for rag and tube airframes, but not as bad for 6061 alloy airframes. And if I want to go faster the 650 is always available. And no I am not at all concerned about the wings falling off.
I'm sure that you like your Kitfox, just back off a bit and let me like my CH701.
Regards
Kevin McCune
CH 701
SN 7172
| JetPilot wrote: | I have seen two different people ask recently “ Which airplane is better, the Kitfox or the Zenith Aircraft CH-701 ? “ There seems to be a lot of interest in this topic so I will address it here. I have no interest in either aircraft company, am not in the business of selling or promoting anything in sport aviation, I am just giving the best advice I can here based on 25 years of being a commercial pilot, CFI, and flying everything from the smallest ultralights to heavy Airliners. This is the same personal advice I would give to a family member if they were asking me which aircraft they should buy. What I write below is based on my own extensive research and opinion. I would encourage anyone that is considering buying an airplane to do their own research, and talk to people that own and fly both airplane types before making their choice. I recently was in the market to buy a new Aircraft kit to build to use with my Rotax 912-S engine which I already have. In my search for the best aircraft, I looked at both the Kitfox Series 7 Super Sport, the CH-701, and also some other types. . I have a friend with a Kitfox Series 4 and a friend with a CH-701 so it was natural for me to compare these two aircraft closely to each other. After looking at each plane and its performance, I found the current model Kitfox 7 SS to be superior to the Zenith Air by a HUGE margin in performance and safety, here is why…
The Kitfox Series 7 SS that I bought is faster, more agile, and will run circles around the CH-701 in the air. The Kitfox is also every bit as good at STOL as the Zenair CH 701 is . Now you may ask how is this possible given the CH-701's obvious STOL design, and that is simple ! The Kitfox has a much larger, higher aspect ratio ( more efficient ) wing. If you look closely at the Zenith CH-701, you will notice that it has very short wings, exactly what you do NOT want if you want if you want to fly slow, and to take off and land at slow speeds. You will also notice that the CH 701 wings start to get very thin and totally disappear on each side of the cockpit, and there is NO wing at all above the cockpit on the Zenair CH-701. So the Zenair CH-701 takes an already too short wing, and gives up another 5 feet by not continuing any kind of airfoil over the cockpit, with the wing airfoil disappearing into nothing on where it meets the fuselage. So don't look at the published wingspan on the Zenith CH-701 and say " The CH-701 is not THAT much shorter than the Kitfox and other sport planes.. " Look at the Zenair CH-701 published wingspan, and take about 5 feet off that number for a realistic comparison to other airplanes. To compensate for the much to short wingspan, the CH-701 designers had to make a ridiculously thick and inefficient airfoil to enable the plane to take off and land slowly. Unfortunately the CH-701’s wing had to be made so thick that the ONLY thing that wing is good at is flying slow.... The other flying qualities of the airplane had to sacrificed to make up for this huge design flaw. The CH-701’s unreasonably thick wing makes the plane is draggy, slow, and it has a horrible glide ratio, and is just a real dog in the air when compared to the Kitfox. STOL is the only thing the Zenair CH-701 is good at.
The Kitfox has a very efficient wing that has low drag and is efficient at higher cruise speeds. The Kitfox wing has enough wingspan and area that it still has very good handling, efficient, and docile at low airspeeds. You need to put VG's ( Vortex Generators ) on the Kitfox wing to get the extreme slow speed handling of the CH-701, but they only cost 100 bucks and can be put on in 3 hours, With VG’s, the approach and stall numbers will be very close to that the Zenith CH-701 if not the same with no sacrifice in high speed cruise... With VG’s Kitfox can slow down, and land anywhere the CH701 can.
The most common emergency and greatest safety hazard we face in Experimental airplanes is an engine failure. The unreasonably thick, short wing of the Zenith CH701 gives it HORRIBLE glide characteristics. The Sink Rate of the CH-701 is bad also. The Superior glide ratio of the Kitfox is a HUGE safety factor. Assume you where at an altitude where you could glide a mile in a Zenair CH-701 and your engine quit, that would give you an area of 3.14 Square miles that you could glide to. Now lets say you were in a Kitfox that has twice the glide ratio and your engine quit at the same altitude, you would have an area of 12.5 square miles in which to find a a safe landing spot. In other words, if you double the glide ratio of an airplane, you have FOUR TIMES the amount of potential landing spots in the event of an engine failure. I am NOT saying the Kitfox has twice the glide of the CH-701 without testing and documenting this myself. But what I am saying that the Kitfox glide is MUCH better than the CH-701’s glide. Remember, every time you double the glide ratio, landing areas increase by a factor of FOUR !! It does not take a lot of increase in glide ratio to dramatically increase your chances of finding a safe landing area.
The Kitfox will also give you more time in an engine out situation due to its much lower sink rate. Again, would you rather have 1 minute to diagnose your power failure, to search for a good field, and execute an emergency approach and landing, or would you rather have 2 minutes. Again, I am using round numbers here for ease of understanding, but here is a fact. The Kitfox has a lower sink rate than the CH-701 after an engine failure, which is another important safety factor.
As for pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox again wins hand down. The Kitfox is more agile, lighter, and quicker on the controls than the CH-701, while still retaining excellent flying and handling qualities at low speed. Imagine driving a agile, good handling sports car compared to driving an old pickup truck , this just makes for a much more enjoyable flying experience. I am building my Kitfox with Tricycle gear, I ddid not want a another taildragger, so landings in my Kitfox will be every bit as docile and easy as they are in the Zenair CH-701.
I was not a big fan of fabric, I like aluminum, but fabric does have its advantages. It is very easy to repair if you should have an incident or hangar rash. I can punch a hole in my airplane and have it fixed and flying again in one afternoon. The Poly Fiber system is modern, easy to put on, shrinks with a household iron, and requires no doping, and is much less labor and time intensive than the old fashioned fabrics. The Poly Fiber fabric is rated to last outside for many many years, service life of this covering is NOT an issue. If in 10 or 15 years years I do need to replace the fabric covering, its not that hard nor expensive. Replacing my fabric is no harder than stripping and repainting an aluminum airplane.
One thing that is an issue for me is Hangar space. We always need a place inside to put our airplanes, and the wings on the Kitfox fold and unfold in about 10 minutes with just one person, no lifting required. This feature is really great, as I can share a hangar or put my airplane in a garage anywhere if need be ! This can save a fortune in hangar rent. This also makes the airplane very easy store and fly from a trailer if you want to keep it at home. The folding wings did not make my purchase decision, it was just icing on the cake. With over 4000 Kitfoxes sold, I can always count on parts support from the company, and other sources that get into such a large market as well.
Whichever airplane you decide on, good luck. Experimental aviation is not easy, research, good judgment, skill, and a lot of knowledge are required. But owning and flying an airplane is a wonderful experience that is worth every cent and every hour you put into it. No matter which airplane you fly, it is the most exhilarating and rewarding hobby on the planet.
Mike |
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
“Always do what you are afraid to do.”
R.W. Emerson (1803-1882)
"Real freedom is the sustained act of being an individual." WW - 2009
"Life is a good deal...it's worth it" Feb 1969
Dorothy McCune |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jshep00(at)centurytel.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 |
|
|
In the same hanger I keep my 701 is a Kitfox Mod IV with a 80 HP 912 Rotax.
WE compare notes often. I have flown with and without Slats. Cruise speed
is not much different between the two airplanes if I am flying without
slats. STOL preformance either way goes to the 701, although the Kitfox is
not bad. If you want to compare the Mod 7 Kitfox, Maybe you should be
comparing with the 750. If you want raw speed , build a Sonex. Kitfox or
Zenith cannot beat the numbers Monet puts up.for his Sonex. Is'nt it great
that we all can have opinons Maybe a PIET would best serve your needs!!!!!
As for the 601 spectacle. remember. these are EXPERIMENTAL AIRPLANES. If
you want to Mass Balance your Aielerons, then do it, If you want pushrods
instead of cables, then do it. Stop whinning about what someone else should
or should not do for your experiment. If you don't want to build and fly an
experimental airplane, buy a Cessna, or Piper or Cirrus.. BALLISTIC CHUTE
anyone???
---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
