Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

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

Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

frank(at)dykaslaw.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

I might be able to help here.  Kitfox model currently in kit and LSA

production is the Super Sport.  It's basically a refined Series 7.  The

cabin is wider, and the plane is truly refined.  



Here's a little history.  The Series 1, 2 and 3 have a smaller fuselage,

much narrower passenger compartment, and need a lot of rudder control

inputs.  The Series 4 was a redesign of the Series 3, and is a much better

handling airplane.  There are probably a couple thousand Series 4's out

there.  This is the design that most others copied (but not Zenith), think

of the Eurofox.  It's a great aircraft, but again, a narrow cockpit that

will hold two people if they are good friends.  It's about the same width at

the Zenith if I remember correctly.



There were two Series 5's.  The original Series 5 has a gross weight of 1340

lbs, and was tailwheel only.  The later Series 5 has a beefed up fuselage,

and a possible gross weight of 1550.  I'm not sure, but I think all Series

5's are tail draggers.  The Series 6, amongst other changes, is configurable

with either a nose wheel or tail dragger.  It's often called the Vixen.



The Series 7 is a Series 6 with a much improved wing and flapperon assembly,

and is a refined aircraft.  It is easily converted between nose wheel and

tail dragger.  It's got a wider cockpit.  Can fly with either the 80hp 912

or 100hp 912S.  There are two configurations for elevator trim, first is a

stablator, second are trim tabs.  Accord to John McBean, the stablator is

better and that is the current configuration for Super Sport.



The current production model is the Super Sport, and it's a refined Series

7, which adds back some of the better features of the Series 6 which were

dropped from the Series 7 when Skystar owned the company.  It's a nice

airplane and it's much wider in the cockpit than the Zenith.  It's also

faster.  It can be built as an eLSA, with the lowered gross weight, or as a

straight experimental with a 1550 weight, or now purchased as a preassembled

LSA from Kitfox Aircraft.  It is a versatile aircraft that can go low and

slow, in the mountains, yet still is comfortable enough to long cross

country travel. 



I looked at both, and chose the Kitfox.  Glad I did.



Frank



--

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

You realize this will be a biased group!  At least I hope it will be a

biased group.



The Zenith is a good performer... as long as the power is on.  It will glide

better than the proverbial manhole cover but I have heard not as well as the

'fox.



The Zenith is a monocoque construction which means it derives its strength

from the shape of the aluminium skins.  Get a small dent in one and you may

destroy the integrity of the plane until that particular skin is replaced.

The Cessna 150 also has this particular type of construction.  It is light

and strong as long as you don't dent it.



The Kitfox is 4130 chromoly steel.  It will take a pretty good bending and

still be strong enough to fly.  The weak point has always been the cloth

covering.   Yes it is possible to push a sharp object through it but if you

do you cam repair it quickly with a patch doped on to the affected area.  It

doesn't need the colour coats to fly....  In fact it will fly quite nicely

and very lightly without the colour dope.



For me I like the tube and rag construction.  The spoiler was the folding

wings.  Theyt fold easily on my palnd without disconnecting anything other

than the front spars.  I can fold the wings on my plane without help in

about three minutes,  Ten minutes with help. 



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

MDKitfox(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Frank,



Good run down.  One slight correction.  The original Series V was a 1400 LBS gross weight.  A thicker spar upped it to 1550.



 Rick Weiss

N39RW Series V Speedster, 912ULS

SkyStar S/N 1

Port Orange, FL



 



On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Frank Dykas wrote:

[quote]--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Frank Dykas" <frank(at)dykaslaw.com (frank(at)dykaslaw.com)>



I might be able to help here.  Kitfox model currently in kit and LSA

production is the Super Sport.  It's basically a refined Series 7.  The

cabin is wider, and the plane is truly refined.  



Here's a little history.  The Series 1, 2 and 3 have a smaller fuselage,

much narrower passenger compartment, and need a lot of rudder control

inputs.  The Series 4 was a redesign of the Series 3, and is a much better

handling airplane.  There are probably a couple thousand Series 4's out

there.  This is the design that most others copied (but not Zenith), think

of the Eurofox.  It's a great aircraft, but again, a narrow cockpit that

will hold two people if they are good friends.  It's about the same width at

the Zenith if I remember correctly.



There were two Series 5's.  The original Series 5 has a gross weight of 1340

lbs, and was tailwheel only.  The later Series 5 has a beefed up fuselage,

and a possible gross weight of 1550.  I'm not sure, but I think all Series

5's are tail draggers.  The Series 6, amongst other changes, is configurable

with either a nose wheel or tail dragger.  It's often called the Vixen.



The Series 7 is a Series 6 with a much improved wing and flapperon assembly,

and is a refined aircraft.  It is easily converted between nose wheel and

tail dragger.  It's got a wider cockpit.  Can fly with either the 80hp 912

or 100hp 912S.  There are two configurations for elevator trim, first is a

stablator, second are trim tabs.  Accord to John McBean, the stablator is

better and that is the current configuration for Super Sport.



The current production model is the Super Sport, and it's a refined Series

7, which adds back some of the better features of the Series 6 which were

dropped from the Series 7 when Skystar owned the company.  It's a nice

airplane and it's much wider in the cockpit than the Zenith.  It's also

faster.  It can be built as an eLSA, with the lowered gross weight, or as a

straight experimental with a 1550 weight, or now purchased as a preassembled

LSA from Kitfox Aircraft.  It is a versatile aircraft that can go low and

slow, in the mountains, yet still is comfortable enough to long cross

country travel. 



I looked at both, and chose the Kitfox.  Glad I did.



Frank



--

rjdaugh

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 195

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

As long as we are picking on Frank, one more correction.  The series 5 could be purchased as either a tail dragger (Outback) or as tricycle gear (Vixen – I don’t know why they needed names!).  You had to make a choice when you ordered.  The 6 and 7 can be set up either way or switched back and forth.  

   

Good job though Frank.  It is easier and more fun to criticize….  

   

And I am sure that the ktifox has a better glide ratio, but still not fantastic at about 10:1.   

   

Randy – one of the biased Fox owners.  

         

  

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

 Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 3:30 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701  

  

   

Frank,    

   

    

Good run down.  One slight correction.  The original Series V was a 1400 LBS gross weight.  A thicker spar upped it to 1550.  

    

             

Rick Weiss  

    

N39RW Series V Speedster, 912ULS  

    

SkyStar S/N 1  

    

Port Orange,  FL  

  

  

   

    

   

  

   

  

       

On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Frank Dykas wrote:  

  

 <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]>    

--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Frank Dykas" <frank(at)dykaslaw.com (frank(at)dykaslaw.com)>

 

 I might be able to help here.  Kitfox model currently in kit and LSA

 production is the Super Sport.  It's basically a refined Series 7.  The

 cabin is wider, and the plane is truly refined.  

 

 Here's a little history.  The Series 1, 2 and 3 have a smaller fuselage,

 much narrower passenger compartment, and need a lot of rudder control

 inputs.  The Series 4 was a redesign of the Series 3, and is a much better

 handling airplane.  There are probably a couple thousand Series 4's out

 there.  This is the design that most others copied (but not Zenith), think

 of the Eurofox.  It's a great aircraft, but again, a narrow cockpit that

 will hold two people if they are good friends.  It's about the same width at

 the Zenith if I remember correctly.

 

 There were two Series 5's.  The original Series 5 has a gross weight of 1340

 lbs, and was tailwheel only.  The later Series 5 has a beefed up fuselage,

 and a possible gross weight of 1550.  I'm not sure, but I think all Series

 5's are tail draggers.  The Series 6, amongst other changes, is configurable

 with either a nose wheel or tail dragger.  It's often called the Vixen.

 

 The Series 7 is a Series 6 with a much improved wing and flapperon assembly,

 and is a refined aircraft.  It is easily converted between nose wheel and

 tail dragger.  It's got a wider cockpit.  Can fly with either the 80hp 912

 or 100hp 912S.  There are two configurations for elevator trim, first is a

 stablator, second are trim tabs.  Accord to John McBean, the stablator is

 better and that is the current configuration for Super Sport.

 

 The current production model is the Super Sport, and it's a refined Series

 7, which adds back some of the better features of the Series 6 which were

 dropped from the Series 7 when Skystar owned the company.  It's a nice

 airplane and it's much wider in the cockpit than the Zenith.  It's also

 faster.  It can be built as an eLSA, with the lowered gross weight, or as a

 straight experimental with a 1550 weight, or now purchased as a preassembled

 LSA from Kitfox Aircraft.  It is a versatile aircraft that can go low and

 slow, in the mountains, yet still is comfortable enough to long cross

 country travel. 

 

 I looked at both, and chose the Kitfox.  Glad I did.

 

 Frank

 

 --

_________________
Randy
Kitfox 5/7 912S
Black Hills, South Dakota

helili(at)chahtatushka.ne
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Actually, The Cessna 150 and larger Cessnas (170, 172, 175, 180, 185, 185,

etc.) are of SEMI-monocoque construction.



John Hart

KF IV, NSI Subaru

Wilburton, OK

--

motoadve

Joined: 23 Apr 2009
Posts: 123
Location: Seattle

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 7

Thanks a lot for the replies.



Wouldnt the CH 701 be safer at a stall speed of 30mph instead of 37of the kitfox 4 or 41 in the Super sport?



According to this numbers the Kitfox will stop flying before the CH 701 in case of an emergency.



Im not expert at all so flame away.

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Point!  They do have a steel frame around the cockpit.  But one good dent in

the rear fuse will ground them.

Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:52 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Sorry no flame here.  To get the 30 mph stall the Zenith has to attain a

pretty extreme attitude and basically hang on the prop.  Not the best

procedure for a power out landing.  On the other hand I make almost every

landing on floats a power off final to touchdown.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:29 am Post subject: Re: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 7

701 is a high drag airplane. The glide ratio is far less that a Kitfox.

Here is some Deadsticking in a Kitfox  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm1iqcn8nFM



 	  motoadve wrote: 	
		  Thanks a lot for the replies.



Wouldnt the CH 701 be safer at a stall speed of 30mph instead of 37of the kitfox 4 or 41 in the Super sport?



According to this numbers the Kitfox will stop flying before the CH 701 in case of an emergency.



Im not expert at all so flame away.

_________________
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

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 7

 	  motoadve wrote: 	
		  Thanks a lot for the replies.



Wouldnt the CH 701 be safer at a stall speed of 30mph instead of 37of the kitfox 4 or 41 in the Super sport?



According to this numbers the Kitfox will stop flying before the CH 701 in case of an emergency.



	




You can put VG's ( Vortex Generators ) on the Kitfox, and the stall numbers will be very close to the CH-701 if not the same...  When you are only talking 2 or 3 MPH, there is no safety difference anymore due to speed, other things become much more important.



The Superior glide ratio of the Kitfox is a HUGE safety factor.  Lets say 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 land in.  Now lets say you were in a Kitfox that has twice the glide ratio and your engine quit, you would have an area of  12.5 square miles in which to find a landing area.  In other words, if you double the glide of an airplane, you have FOUR TIMES the amount of area to search potential landing spots.    I am not saying the Kitfox does have exactly twice the glide, but it is a LOT better than the CH-701, and every time you double the glide ratio, landing areas increase by a factor of FOUR !!



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 chose a spot, and execute an emergency landing, or 2 minutes, the Kitfox has a HUGE safety advantage over the Zenith CH-701 in an engine out situation.



So that is the engine out performance comparison in a nutshell, Dave, did you read my post about the performance comparison of the Kitfox and the Zenair CH-701 that is located here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=57516



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:25 am Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Mike,



FYI, and this has been mentioned many times on the list, often by very 

careful observers - vortex generators do very little to stall speed 

reduction with the Kitfox wing - in most instances not measureable.  Control 

stability is almost universally reported, but no effect on stall speed.



All this despite what we all know about vortex generators.



I have heard some talk on this and it just might be that the Riblet airfoil 

Kitfox uses is not a true airfoil as the design profile only exists at the 

fuel tank, rib caps, the false ribs and maybe three inches at the wing tip. 

A total of about four feet on each wing.  The rest is a different profile 

because of the depression due to the fabric shrinking between the ribs and 

false ribs.  Harry Riblet tells us that the most critical point on this 

airfoil is the first five inches.  This is exactly where the leading edge 

cuff and spar give away to the collapsed fabric.  There are several 

airplanes currently being built with "D" profile leading edges that will 

protect the leading edge shape and these might benefit from vortex 

generators.  But the proof will be in the testing rather than the hoping.



Lowell



---

motoadve

Joined: 23 Apr 2009
Posts: 123
Location: Seattle

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 7

Thanks for the replies.

So vortex generators are made /tested and sold by the Kitfox factory? or is just an aftermarket product?

Is not totally tested yet?



I wanted the CH 701 becasue is a STOL and I also prefer all aluminum plane, I might not have a hangar all the time.



What about the Savannah? looks like the CH 701 but has no slats and the performance claims as STOL are the same.



Is the Highlander full aluminum?



I weight 165 and plan to fly always with friends or wife ect, usually go to the beach being able to fly low and slow over the shore, pick a place to land take a swim go up again.



Go following rivers, sightseen ect, just plain flying, not planned cross country trips because Costa Rica is montaneous windy , rainy and many Cessnas are burried in the mountains, the area I plan to fly is on the caribeanside which is totally flat.

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 701

Several 701 owners have taken the slats off their wings and installed Vortex

Generators (VGs) From what I've read they get similar STOL performance with

better glide and speed.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Newbie questions, which easier to fly a Kitfox or a CH 7

There is a VG thread started  here   http://rotaxaircraft.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=33 



John Gilpin some STOLSPEED.com is over there too.  I have used both Harrison and Stolspeed VGs.  I prefer Stolspeed's to 2 main reasons. 

1, rounded edge makes it easier for washing.

2. They come with kickass adhesive the harrioson ones do not. 

Now I have tested VGs only at 10% on my Kitfox IV. Results are minimal. I plan to move them and see what changes.  

Only things i noticed was maybe a reduction in stall 1 - 2 mph if  that . 

Power off  stall no buffeting just a controlled mush. 

Power on stalls - no warning or buffeting  -     you will get a fast wing drop and go into spin.



I think i might have a little steeper angle of climb now .

No change in cruise speed. 



I still have them on.



I used some harrison VGs on cowl mod and reduced coolant  temps 

http://www.cfisher.com/cowl.html

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