Back in the air?

[chargerbill]

Brief history:
I solo'ed a Cessna 150 in High School (early 90's). Never recieved additional training after that, but Joined the Air Force and worked KC-10's as a flying Crew Chief (great gig!).
After 3 years of that I crossed trained into C-141's as a Flight Engineer and pushed those around for 4 years. When I left the Air Force, I thought my flying days were over.
I've been working with some guys that have "Bush Planes". After talking with them, I started to get an itch. It's been 10 years since I stepped off that last Starlifter...
So, I signed up for Sport Pilot training! I start Monday and it's all I can think about!
Seriously considering a Super Sport. Not sure what engine to go with yet, but I'm thinking Rotec R2800 or Jabiru 3300...

Anyone out there with real performance specs with these engines? I'm really interested in getting the best cruise speed....

[Av8r3400]

Kitfox (and all the Avid Flyer descendants) is not a plane for those looking for "speed". 110 mph is realistically about the top of the speed range. To get this you need to build a light and clean plane. Your best bet for this is still a Rotax 912.

[Dorsal]

Oh come on, I get at least 112 :D

[av8rps]

[quote=Av8r3400;12852]Kitfox is not a plane for those looking for "speed"...(snip)/quote]

I agree with Av8r3400 that one shouldn't expect a Kitfox to be a high speed cruiser. But it's not bad. Compared to many other LSA's, or to airplanes like Champs, Cubs, etc, it gets around quite nicely. I find myself many times taking the long way to my destination just so I can enjoy the flight a bit longer. Seriously. These things are a blast to fly!

Then add the excellent STOL characteristics, ever so sweet and crisp handling, folding wings, a great useful load, exceptional range, and a proven safety history (along with some really nice classic lines), and you will find that the Kitfox is still one of the very best choices you can make for a recreational aircraft.

I love mine, and I say that after a lot of years of flying these things. You may find another LSA that gets you there a bit quicker, but you'll be very hard pressed to find one that will make it as much fun:)

Paul S - Central Wisconsin
Kitfox IV-1200 912ul on amphib floats

[DesertFox4]

chargerbill- first, welcome aboard.
Second,thanks for your service. Much appreciated. Congrats. on the flight training. Hope you enjoy every minute. The Super Sport will be a great aircraft for you. If best cruise is a major requirement then I
second Av8r3400 for the Rotax 912S 100 hp. My model 4 has no problem cruising at 115 to 120 mph with the 100 hp. Rotax. 5.8 gph is average burn for those speeds. I've flown from Phoenix to S. Minn. and reverse a couple times in one day. Good cross country machine with lots of comfort.

[CDE2FLY]

I've got about 200 hours on my Model 7/912S/IVO IFA light in the past year and a half. I can get 120 mph true at 5,000-6,000 feet MSL at 75% power. General flying around at less than 3,000 feet and 65-75% power yeilds an indicated 105-110 indicated (typically 110-115 true).

Never flew with either the Jab or the radial but from what I've read and disucssed with others, it's tough to be the Rotax 912/914 series for overall performance. Excellent power to weight ratio and the gear reduction allows for a reduced (and more efficient) prop speed. An IFA prop is a must for best performance. The radial looks and sounds great but it's heavier and for sure creates more drag. The horsepower to overcome aerodymamic drag increases as a cube of the velocity so at a certain point, you need lots more power for an incremental return in speed. As others have indicated, "fast" is not at the top of the list of attributes for the Kitfox but 120 true at 5 gph is very respectable for "regional cross country" jaunts. If you check into the "real life" numbers of high wing certified airplanes with similar missions (Super Cubs, Maules, etc.), you'll find margionally faster top speeds at the expense of nearly twice the fuel burn.

I'm in the process of replacing the 912S with a 914. Part of this decision was to gain some cruise speed at altitude since I travel often with mine. I'm anxious to see if I can get close to 150 mph true at 15-16K feet. I'd be thrilled with 135-140 at 8-10 K feet....I should know in a couple of months and will report back with some numbers.

[DesertFox6]

Congratulations on taking your first (second/next/latest?) step towards obtaining your flight certificate, chargerbill: we can never have too many AF-types on the Kitfox Roll-call! (Right, John?)

Our moderator, Av8r3400, has again made an assertion of unassailable amplitude: You're going to have a much better time in the "cruise" department with the other, "non-Governator," muscle-machine from Austria, ye auld 912, in either 80 or 100 hp flavors. The Kitfox is not really a speed machine: Who wants to get there in a hurry when it's the "getting there" part that's so much fun anyway?

While the Rotec (major drooling here) powered 'Fox is sheer sex (there are three out West here, including "The Hussy" at the factory, that cause a lot of lift-lust hereabouts) I think you'll be amazed at what a super-cruiser the Super-Sport can be with the Rotax and how much more money you'd have to spend to get a home-built that will cruise faster; for each knot past 110, think "$500 per knot" for any other airframe brand.

I used to joke that a Kitfox's middle name was "Drag," but these aren't the ultra-light, leaf-blower and chainsaw-powered motorized kites of 1984 anymore. Even my 11 year-old Model IV Speedster with an 80-horse 912 will zip around Arizona in the summer at 112+ knots indicated! But it is, as Av8r stipulated, "light and clean" plus well-traveled to boot.

If you want MORE speed, the RV folks have perhaps the finest toy under the tree, but I'd be willing to bet there's a Kitfox enthusiast close-by in Ohio who'd be willing to show you why a Kitfox-gift-wrapped 912 gets us so excited: Whatchasay, Buckeyes: can anybody give chargerbill a demo? When the tornados die down and the glaciers recede a bit, maybe? They're more fun to fly with the doors open then! :D

"E.T."

[HighWing]

A sort of related story. Once on our way to a remote fly-in - the annual Dichondra Field Fly-in - the three of us Kitfox guys were approached by a guy in a RV-4 asking if he could follow us to the fly-in as he didn't know how to get there. Sure, why not, then as we departed KRIU, we immediately dropped down to follow every bend in the Consumnes river at about 50 ft. (or less). He followed, but orbiting overhead. I think this story pretty much devines the difference between the Kitfox and RV fleets.

[chargerbill]

I really do appreciate all of the advice! Nice pic of Kitty Amphib btw.
I'm sold on the Super Sport. I was interested in them years ago, but they have evolved quite a bit. Not really looking to get 150mph out of it, but would really like a solid 120mph....
I would think the Jab with 120HP and the right prop should work? I do like to be different btw!

[Dorsal]

BTW careful when comparing HP ratings, thrust goes as the square of prop diameter (and other factors). Higher RPM results in shorter props so comparing a direct drive high RPM engine to a geared engine on rated HP is not apples to apples. I am not expressing an opinion on R v J, just providing some info.

[Monocock]

Chargerbill,

Something tells me you aren't a fan of the Rotax!!

:D

[chargerbill]

Update:
I flew an Evektor today. Equipped with the Rotax 912s. Wow, I am shocked at the performance!
An update for the Rotax Mafia out there! :)
http://www.evektor.com/sportstar/

[chargerbill]

Monocock,
I didn't have an opinion one way or the other, until today. I was truly impressed with Rotax!
I'm going to explore a Jab as well. Although, I really do like the appearance of the Rotec...
Simplicity is what I'm really looking for. Of the three I'm considering (Rotec, Rotex, Jab) The Rotex is the most complex.
When its all said and done, I'll probably get the Rotec 2800. It makes a damn good looking airplane!

[chargerbill]

C5Engineer,
A friend (Jessup) was a C-5 FE, I believe he transferred to Travis after leaving Altus...what a cool plane to!
My ole KC-10 was transferred to Travis (6031) from Seymour-Johnson in the 90's...and I went to McGuire. The plane definately recieved the better assignment!

[HighWing]

Like Dorsal, this is just some observations on "simpliciity". First, the Rotec is fairly new especially as far as factory support. I think the guys that go that route, will be beta testers on the engine and that is never simple. The Rotax 912 series have been around since the early 90s and on Kitfoxes since about that time. With the Rotax, there is really nothing new under the sun and tons of experience and help in this forum and elsewere. In my opinion, there can be nothing simpler than the water cooled Rotax. I just installed the cooling system on a Series V and it took a day. It took that long because I changed out the SS straps for the radiator mount to 4130 and paint needed to dry. Three years ago, I put in the baffeling on an IO-540 in a Lancair-IV, and that is a several day challenge if you want nutplates for easier removeal for annuals. Then you get to replace baffles from time to time as they wear and crack. The Jab has fiberglass baffling which I understand is pretty nice, but still you have to remove it for annuals and I have no idea if the installation would beat the cooling sytem in the Rotax.

flying? With the Kitfox, no problem diving down the canyon to the river side strip - shock cooling not an issue. With the Rotec, it is new and you will have to decide if it is the engine for you for the long haul. I guess my prejudice is showing, but my guess is that there is in excess of a half million hours in Rotax engines pulling Kitfoxes, likely less than 1,000 with Rotec (maybe less than 500) and probably 10-15,000 in Jabaru.

What ever it is, Go for it!