Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Kitfox 7 or CH701

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ramrod25

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Fort Towson, Okla

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

I have decided I definitely want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane.  My concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally solid than the current Kitfox design.  However, I think the Kitfox is a better looking/performing airplane.  



Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront or will structural modifications be required.



Your thoughts,



Regards,

Rodney Wren

Last edited by ramrod25 on Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:55 am; edited 1 time in total

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Rodney, Both Kitfox and 701 are both very solid structurely made.



 I have a 582 Kitfox IV and My friend has a 701 with 912 UL

701 cruise at 85  and Kitfox at about 90  both on wheels.

both plane will go to same places and climb out the same.



701  is a draggy airplane - those leading edge cuffs will give you a rude 

awakening if you have a engien failure as your glide ratio will be like a 

brick.



His 701 cannot beat me on climb or rate of climb but maybe a steeper angle 

on best angle of climb.  Overall both a great planes .    I would take a 

tailwheel Kitfox over a tri gear if you are planing alot of off airport 

flying.



Can I ask what your reasoning is for the Tri gear configuration ?



 Also I did couple of videos here  http://www.cfisher.com/kitfox/   on 

Kitfox flying....

Free to download.



Dave

----------------------------------------------------



Coffee break at the Trailer park Hangar



Download   4.8 meg



----------------------------------------------------

Kitfox Movie Fresh from the Trailer Park.

DOWNLOAD NOW  17 mgs.



right clik save as.........



----------------------------------------------------

---

_________________
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/kitfoxflyer
Hundreds of Kitfox Movies
Most viewed Kitfox on youtube
Most popular on youtube
Highest rated on youtube

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

There are other considerations you may want to think about, such as the build process. Each plane goes together in fundamentally different manners.



Typically any of the Kitfoxes have a faster cruise speed, but the 701 is LSA compliant. 



If you are really thinking about hitting grass runways or river beds, then reconsider the tricycle gear, it's much easier to put large tires on a dragger.

On 11/20/06,   ramrod25 <r_wren(at)wfec.com (r_wren(at)wfec.com)> wrote:[quote] --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ramrod25" < r_wren(at)wfec.com (r_wren(at)wfec.com)>



I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane.  My concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally solid than the current Kitfox design.  However, I think the Kitfox is a better looking/performing airplane. 



Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront or will structural modifications be required.



Your thoughts,



Regards,

Rodney Wren





Read this topic online here: 



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75938#75938



 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List http://701Builder.blogspot.com/ 



"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.   [quote][b]

jdmcbean(at)cableone.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Kitfox is also LSA compliant…..  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

 AUTOTEXTLIST \s "E-mail  Signature" <![endif]-->Fly Safe !!  

John & Debra McBean  

208.337.5111  

www.kitfoxaircraft.com    

"It's not how Fast... It's how Fun!"  

<![endif]--><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

-----Original Message-----

 From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Marzulli

 Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:58 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

There are other considerations you may want to think about, such as the build process. Each plane goes together in fundamentally different manners.

 

 Typically any of the Kitfoxes have a faster cruise speed, but the 701 is LSA compliant. 

 

 If you are really thinking about hitting grass runways or river beds, then reconsider the tricycle gear, it's much easier to put large tires on a dragger. <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]>  

On 11/20/06, ramrod25 <r_wren(at)wfec.com (r_wren(at)wfec.com)> wrote:    

--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ramrod25" < r_wren(at)wfec.com (r_wren(at)wfec.com)>

 

 I have decided I definitaly want a tri-cycle gear stol airplane.  My concern is that the CH701 nosegear appears to be much more structurally solid than the current Kitfox design.  However, I think the Kitfox is a better looking/performing airplane. 

 

 Is the current Kitfox design strong enough to handle a large tire upfront or will structural modifications be required.

 

 Your thoughts,

 

 Regards,

 Rodney Wren

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here: 

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75938#75938

 

 

 

 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List http://701Builder.blogspot.com/ 

 

 "Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.   [quote]<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>       -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --           (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)   November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Click on   the Contribution link below to find out more about   this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided   by:     * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com     * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com     * Aeroware Enterprises www.kitlog.com     * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com   List Contribution Web Site   --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution   Thank you for your generous support!                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.          - The Kitfox-List Email Forum -   --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>[b]

dcsfoto

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 120

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701

i have built a 701 and now am a Kitfox owner..

can give you a good comparison if you want contact me.

Hands down Kitfox is a Winner



david(at)kelm.com

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

david,



I have a friend who is building his second rans.  I

would like to hear your comparison, and probably some

others here wouldn't mind either.  Some lurkers may

not have made the purchase decision yet and you might

help.  others who have decided on the Fox wouldn't

mind another supportive comparison made from

experience.



Kurt S.  s-5



--- dcsfoto <david(at)kelm.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   i have built a 701 and now am a Kitfox owner..

 can give you a good comparison if you want contact

 me.

 Hands down Kitfox is a Winner

 

 david(at)kelm.com

ramrod25

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Fort Towson, Okla

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Dave - thanks for your reply - 



At least two reasons I don't want a taildragger - 1. It's been 30 years since I have flown a taildragger and I just don't want to go thru the learning curve.  2. I want to teach my wife how to fly, and it's just so much easier with a tri-gear.  



I don't plan on really rough river bed landings.  Mostly grass fields and sand bars along the Red River (between Oklahoma and Texas).  I fully plan on having two sets of tires.  Regular tires for trips that use airports (like going to see the grandkids) and then a larger set of tires for trips to Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska - where we might want to explore.



Isn't there an old saying about there are two kinds of pilots? - Those that have ground-looped and those that will.  



I realize that there are places a tri-gear just couldn't land, but since I'm flying for fun and enjoyment, I can just choose other places to land.  I've tried to read all the trip stories of Kitfoxes that go to Alaska, and Newfoundland, etc.  The only stories I've come across that absolutely require a taildragger are some guys flying Maules and Cubs with what look like 60" tires - landing on rock river bars - they kinda ski across the water on the big tires and then end up on these really rocky river bars that look about 200 feet long.  NO THANKS.  While I really appreciate their skill - that's not in my plans.  



Back to my original question.  It appears that the CH701 nosegear is just a straight pipe attached to the firewall.  The Kitfox nosegear is a cantilever design.  I've not heard of any problems with the gear, but just want to get some feedback from people with real experience before commiting to purchasing a plane.  



Regarding the slats on the CH701 - there seems to be a number of people in Australia that have removed them and put vortex generators in their place.  They report the elimination of the drag problem you mentioned, with no degradation of the short field performance.  



Regards

Rodney Wren

av8rps(at)tznet.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Rodney,



I have flying experience in Kitfoxes and 701's.  In  my opinion the Kitfox 

is definitely the better airplane for most peoples needs.



Here are my comparisons to support my opinion;



(assuming both aircraft equipped with 912s Rotax 100 hp engines)



Cruise Performance:   Kitfox is 25-35 mph faster in cruise.

Takeoff Distance:        Kitfox needs a couple hundred feet, whereas the 701 

needs only a hundred.

Climb Performance:    Kitfox climb rate is very similar to 701, but angle is 

not as steep initially.

Landing Distance:        Kitfox needs approx 100 ft more than the 701 (701 

is extremely high drag).

Overall Handling :       Kitfox is more agile and sportier.  701 is more 

Cessna like.

Overall Weights:          Kitfox weighs approx 100 lbs more than 701, but 

has 450 lbs more gross!

Realistic Useful:          Kitfox 750 lbs, 701 only 450 lbs.

Fuel Efficiency:           Kitfox approx 70% more fuel efficient due to 

higher cruise on same gph.

Fuel Range:                  Kitfox can go twice as far due to higher cruise 

and 7 more gallons fuel on board.

LSA Compliant:           Kitfox and 701 are both Light Sport eligible.

Airframe Strength:       Kitfox is 4130 chromoly steel (like 200 mph race 

cars), 701 very light aluminum.

Crash Worthiness:       Which will collapse easier, a pop can or a pipe?



So there's my two cents on it.



Ironically, my friends 680 lb 912s powered 701 suffered a nosewheel collapse 

within it's first ten hours.  Buckled the firewall, requiring an extensive 

replacement and repair.  So I don't think that 701 nosegear is quite as 

stout as it might look. But he does enjoy the airplane again (and he knows 

just how high the sink rate is on a 701 when you pull the power).



I don't mean to be bashing the 701 as I think it is a good airplane overall. 

But compared to a Kitfox, there just really isn't any comparison.  For most 

people's needs, the Kitfox advantages outweigh most all competition.  (Gee, 

I didn't even get around to mentioning the "real" folding wing of the 

Kitfox...)



But if you are in need of the SUPER STOL characteristics of the 701, you 

might want to go that route.  However, there is a much less expensive way to 

do the same thing;  Just find an older Kitfox you can add a nosegear to, and 

then power it with any light 100 hp engine.  It will have SUPER STOL 

characteristics at least as good as the 701.



Paul Seehafer

Central Wisconsin

Model IV -1200 912ul

---

ramrod25

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Fort Towson, Okla

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Av8rps



Thanks very much - this is exactly the level of experience I was hoping to find.   Appreciate your taking the time and effort to reply.   



I think your advice is very sound about finding a good used one and converting it to a tri-gear if required.  



Still, the new model 7 with perhaps the Jabaru 3300 engine is very tempting.  



Regards

Rodney Wren

john.marzulli(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

You may want to start lurking on the 701 list, or search the archives. There was a huge discussion about the very topic of slat removal.



As for the Kitfox, I love it. I really looked hard at the Series 7, but when it came time to buy there were two factors that swung me to the CH701. 1) Zenith was in business, Skystar was not. 2) My "mission profile" was to put amphibs on my plane and go camping in Alaska, a task that I wanted "super" STOL performance for. 



The tail and control surfaces are finished, and my wings arrive Wednesday, and I can't say I regret my choice.



On 11/21/06, ramrod25 < r_wren(at)wfec.com (r_wren(at)wfec.com)> wrote:[quote]--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ramrod25" < r_wren(at)wfec.com (r_wren(at)wfec.com)>



Dave - thanks for your reply -



At least two reasons I don't want a taildragger - 1. It's been 30 years since I have flown a taildragger and I just don't want to go thru the learning curve.  2. I want to teach my wife how to fly, and it's just so much easier with a tri-gear. 



I don't plan on really rough river bed landings.  Mostly grass fields and sand bars along the Red River (between Oklahoma and Texas).  I fully plan on having two sets of tires.  Regular tires for trips that use airports (like going to see the grandkids) and then a larger set of tires for trips to Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska - where we might want to explore. 



Isn't there an old saying about there are two kinds of pilots? - Those that have ground-looped and those that will.



I realize that there are places a tri-gear just couldn't land, but since I'm flying for fun and enjoyment, I can just choose other places to land.  I've tried to read all the trip stories of Kitfoxes that go to Alaska, and Newfoundland, etc.  The only stories I've come across that absolutely require a taildragger are some guys flying Maules and Cubs with what look like 60" tires - landing on rock river bars - they kinda ski across the water on the big tires and then end up on these really rocky river bars that look about 200 feet long.  NO THANKS.  While I really appreciate their skill - that's not in my plans. 



Back to my original question.  It appears that the CH701 nosegear is just a straight pipe attached to the firewall.  The Kitfox nosegear is a cantilever design.  I've not heard of any problems with the gear, but just want to get some feedback from people with real experience before commiting to purchasing a plane. 



Regarding the slats on the CH701 - there seems to be a number of people in Australia that have removed them and put vortex generators in their place.  They report the elimination of the drag problem you mentioned, with no degradation of the short field performance. 



Regards

Rodney Wren





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=76066#76066

 http://701Builder.blogspot.com/



"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.  [quote][b]

av8rps(at)tznet.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Rodney,



I'm glad to know I was able to help.  Reading your later comment about 

potentially traveling a bunch in your new airplane, I definitely think you 

will want the Kitfox.  My 701 buddy just reminded me of flying home from 

Oshkosh at gross weight and seeing a 32 mph groundspeed due to headwinds 

that were 30-40 mph.  I've never yet had cars pass me in my kitfox, so I 

guess I'm already too spoiled to just accept those kind of speeds traveling 

cross country.



I really like the new Kitfox.  The baggage area and useful load is worth 

going with the new airplane (especially when traveling with heavier things 

than socks and underwear on those long cross countries).  And knowing you 

can safely haul the extras will make your significant other love the Kitfox 

too    I know you'd have no regrets if going with the new fox.  It's an 

awesome airplane, and sounds like just what you need to satisfy your flying 

needs.   But the best part is the fun you will have.  You will never grow 

tired of flying the Kitfox.  It is just so much fun to fly!



The big Jabiru would make for an interesting comparison to the 100 hp Rotax 

912s.  I know of one kitplane mfr that has one of each of these engines in 

the same model airplane, and have flown them together cross country numerous 

times.  The Jabiru has to carry an extra fuel tank to make the same range 

the Rotax does.  But that also was an early 3300, and I heard the company 

has made some changes to the carb and the heads (for overheating issues). 

It would be interesting to hear from other Kitfoxers running the 3300 

Jabiru.  We have a lot of stats on the 912's, and I personally am sold on it 

after owning one in my Model IV and flying many others in other aircraft. 

BUT, those jabirus sure look good, sound great, and have less parts to hook 

up...



Paul

---

ramrod25

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Fort Towson, Okla

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Paul

Your first paragraph really made me laugh!  When I first got my pilot's license I made a trip from Lubbock to Tucson, Az.  It was in an old Cessna 172 with the 145 hp Continental engine - we had such a bad headwind that the cars on the freeway were passing us.  I forgot about that until you mentioned the experience your friend had.  I guess there are just some days like that.  But - it's better to be flying than driving.



Well I appreciate all the help - I really wanted a Kitfox, but needed to address the concerns about the nosegear.  And unless I buy one all ready put together, the next big decision will have to be the engine.



Everyone I have talked to really likes the Rotax engines.  I think there are three engines I might be interested in: 1. The 100 hp Rotax 912S  2. The Jabaru 3300 and 3. the Ram Subaru that puts out 140 HP.  



The 912S seems to be a very proven engine with a good historical base behind it.  The Jabaru and the Ram Subaru are less well proven - but by the time I get around to buying an engine - that may have changed.    I think that right now the Rotax would be the engine of choice.  



Thanks again for your advice

Regards

Rodney Wren

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

On Nov 21, 2006, at 9:26 PM, ramrod25 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   The Jabaru and the Ram Subaru are less well proven - but by the time I 

 get around to buying an engine - that may have changed.


	


Very wise, Rodney. I have a Jabiru 2200 and I am very pleased with it 

but it is serial # 1665, a later and improved model. The 3300 is still 

in its infancy.



Cheers,

Michel

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

Sjklerks(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

One thing to consider about the choice between a Kitfox and the 701 is, If  you ever have an engine failure, the  701  will  fall to the  ground like a rock and the Kitfox will at least give you an excellent glide  ratio?

  [quote][b]

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Rodney,



Well hopefully  you will  test fly any model that you are looking at and 

take a GPS with you to see what speeds they are actually getting.    I did 

say that my friend has a 701 with 912 UL in it and he says 85 mph ........ 

I would verify  that with a flight your self.   I know my 582 Kitfox IV will 

fly at 88 to 90 mph at 1500 asl   -- and I would guess well over 100  at 

7500 or better...



The taildragger talk it a old one and to each  their own.  Nose gear 701 or 

Kitfox will certainly fit the bill as you described, but also they will 

break .  701 nose gears have been bent up from hard landings.



 Hope that helps you ,but the key to your right choice is to fly both models 

you are looking at.  I am in Ontario Canada and would be more than happy to 

take you up. Where are you located ?

Dave





---

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Hi Paul,



I would be a little more concerned with a heavy engine

on a nose gear plane.  More enertia and weight for the

nose gear to handle.  I have the NSI Soob, but on a

tail dragger.  For your application, the Rotax and

Jabaru sound better.  I think the 3300 will eventually

be the better choice, but it depends upon when you

have to buy it.  As you say, Rotax for now and the

3300 better sometime later.



Kurt S.  S-5/NSI Soob



--- ramrod25 <r_wren(at)wfec.com> wrote:



.........



 	  Quote: 	
		   Everyone I have talked to really likes the Rotax

 engines.  I think there are three engines I might be

 interested in: 1. The 100 hp Rotax 912S  2. The

 Jabaru 3300 and 3. the Ram Subaru that puts out 140

 HP.  

 

 The 912S seems to be a very proven engine with a

 good historical base behind it.  The Jabaru and the

 Ram Subaru are less well proven - but by the time I

 get around to buying an engine - that may have

 changed.  I think that right now the Rotax would

 be the engine of choice.  

 

 Thanks again for your advice

 Regards

 Rodney Wren

eskflyer(at)lvcisp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Rodney

I am in Lawton OKlahoma just north of the RED RIVER . I have been thinking 

of running the river but wondered if I would get in trouble for landing on 

the sand bars or not ?. What does the FAA say about this and will we get 

spanked for it . if not Im in this weekend and flying the river . What do 

you guys out there think .

If you are near me give a holler and well have to meet up and let you fly 

the bird.



Take care every one have a great safe week and a very HAPPY 

THANKSGIVING<<<<<< thankful for the KITFOX



Fly safe fly low fly slow fly fun fly KITFOX



John Perry

Kitfox 2 N718PD

580-695-8778

rdmac(at)swbell.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Rodney,

	Where at along the Red River do you fly? I'm in Duncan just to the

north, right about in the middle.

	Roger Mac

	S7/912uls

DO NOT ARCHIVE 



--

ramrod25

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Fort Towson, Okla

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Kitfox 7 or CH701

Appreciate all the kind and thoughtful responses.  Where to start.



Sjklerts - Glide ratio/ability is very important and more than one person has mentioned that the Kitfox is superior in this catagory.  That's one major reason if I built a CH701 that the slats would go and the vortex generators would be used instead.  



Dave - I live in Fort Towson, Oklahoma - in the eastern part of the state just above the border with Texas.  How very kind of you to offer a flight, but it would appear the distances are too great.  However, if you ever plan a flight in this area and need a place to spend a night - just email me.



Smoky - The weight of the engine is a very real issue, especially with a nose gear.  I'll have to study that some more - that is also one reason that the Rotax might be the engine of choice.  Having said that - there are lots of Skylanes out there that have had the firewall bent by bad piloting technique.  I know some people that could tear up a sledge hammer with a rubber ball.  I may want to contact John McBean at Kitfox and see if they have any design data on the ultimate load for the nose gear.  I have talked to him once before and he was very helpful.  Also consider that the Ram Subaru is capable of 140HP - on take-off the nosegear would be off immediatly and the plane ought to be in the air in 250 feet.  The only real issue I see would be on landing. Does the elevator have the authority to hold the nosegear off as the speed decreases?  You are right in that you definitely don't want to "dump" the nosegear on landing.  Vortex generators placed on the underside of the elevator are said to increase it's authority at low speeds.  Any thoughts or experience on that subject?



Eskflyer - I am not aware of any restriction relative to "off airport" landings that would keep us from landing on the Red River.  What's the difference between us doing that and all the guys that land on river bars in Alaska?  I am certainly not expert on all of the FAA regs and perhaps someone with more knowlege will weigh in, but at this juncture I think it would be totally legal.  Send me a private email - I would love to see your airplane - maybe we could find a time to meet.  



Rdmac - I've not pulled the trigger on an airplane purchase yet, still contemplating choices but I would very much like to see your airplane too.  Could you send me a private email?  I'd very much like to arrange a time to come up to Duncan if that would be possible.



Dave - thanks for the video link to the "Kitfox flying from the Trailer Park."

Are you trying to make me rethink my "nosegear only" position?  I'll say one thing - what could be more fun than spending a lazy summer afternoon slipping onto a grass runway shooting touch and goes???  Or, ease down to land on a sandbar on the river and throw in a fishing line for a few minutes.  



I had to quit flying in the early 70's - college, family, kids to raise etc.  Now it's time to get back to my "first love" - flying.   I acquired 40 acres, and will have both north/south and east/west 1000 foot runways with no trees or obstructions on either end.  As soon as I finish building the house, I'll start on the runways.  By then, I want to have done all my research on both the airplane and engine possibilities, and be ready to either build one or buy one.   I'll probably find one that is just perfect - and won't you know it, it'll be a taildragger.  Perhaps the video that Dave sent is convincing me that a Kitfox taildragger may not be as "wild" as I am imagining. 



Again - thanks for all the helpful thoughts

Regards

Rodney Wren

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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