Kitfox IV Speedster & learning to fly

[kl2657]

How difficult is it to learn to fly in a Kitfox IV Speedster? I've found a good deal on one and budget wise it fits the bill. My only concern is that with the shorter wings, it may be too high performance for a new pilot.

My plan would be to purchase the plane and then hire a CFI to train me in the plane. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Also, is the Speedster still STOL capable?

Thanks,

Jason

[Av8r3400]

A Speedster is still a very capable super-STOL plane if it was built light.

Learning to fly in it may be another story. (I'm assuming you have zero flight experience at this time.) These planes are not dangerous or difficult to fly, but you may be challenged to find a CFI that has the skill and experience needed to safely train you in a plane like this.

They are very short coupled and have a high power to weight ratio, making them potentially quite a handful in the takeoff roll and the landing roll out.

I've known of experienced tail-dragger pilots ground looping these little birds because they underestimated them (or over estimated their skill :eek:).

[DesertFox6]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Kitfox, kl2657!

Either you're blessed with an incredibly good sense of judgment or your best set of airshow sneakers had a major, lace-threatening, blowout right in front of the Kitfox Kiosk at a major air show...and the rest of us can just imagine how THAT worked out! :D

Av8r3400 highlights a couple of concerns I share about taking INITIAL flight training in a Model IV Speedster. I've been flying mine for over 11 years now without having the compass go unexpectedly 180 degrees crazy on me, but that's not necessarily going to be the case with a novice aviator and that's where I gather you stand. (But you're in for an awful lot of fun! :))

That said, I'm thinking you may have a hard time finding a CFI that's actually QUALIFIED to teach you in a Speedster, or any Kitfox; just another ASEL/CFI isn't where you want to venture your money or your life. If indeed we're talking flight instruction from the very start, you'll need a good ground school and an aircraft you can have somebody else fix for you while you learn. Please trust me on this; I've been flight-instructing in one thing or another for more years than I care to admit and we all want you to enjoy flying with us for many years to come.

I have no such concerns about taking such initial instruction (we should all have been so lucky!) in the latest models, like the Series 5 and later kits, and/or the Super Sport S-LSA. In fact, such from-the-ground-up training is available in a factory-built plane; check out GlassCockpitAviation.com (I can't seem to make that into link for you right now) and talk with CFI Paul Leadabrand. I think EVERYONE should be so fortunate as to learn stick and rudder skills in gliders and then move right into taildraggers...right after winning a major lottery.

Now, if no bonafide Kitfox CFIs pop up in this forum from the Jersey area to help you, I would recommend you investigate learning to fly in a taildragger, right there in New Jersey, at www.andoverflight.com. You can get a head-start by studying a video by one of their more prominent CFIs, Damian DelGaizo; his "Tailwheel 101" DVD is available through him at bushflying@earthlink.net, or through the Andover Flight Academy at the previously mentioned address. It's truly excellent.

Let us know what you decide. And please don't think we're trying to turn you off to flying a Kitfox Speedster; my wife is a Civil Air Patrol 182 pilot who's been flying with me all along and is currently getting her tailwheel endorsement from a local Super-Cub outfit instead of from her instructor-hubby. I want her to learn the tailwheel basics in that lumber-truck before I teach her how to handle the hot-rod!

That, and I'm pretty sure I'd be endangering a perfectly nice 40+ year marriage if I did otherwise! :(

Can anybody else more "Joy-zee-local" out there give Jason some help?

"E.T."

[kl2657]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Kitfox, kl2657!

Either you're blessed with an incredibly good sense of judgment or your best set of airshow sneakers had a major, lace-threatening, blowout right in front of the Kitfox Kiosk at a major air show...and the rest of us can just imagine how THAT worked out! :D

Av8r3400 highlights a couple of concerns I share about taking INITIAL flight training in a Model IV Speedster. I've been flying mine for over 11 years now without having the compass go unexpectedly 180 degrees crazy on me, but that's not necessarily going to be the case with a novice aviator and that's where I gather you stand. (But you're in for an awful lot of fun! :))

That said, I'm thinking you may have a hard time finding a CFI that's actually QUALIFIED to teach you in a Speedster, or any Kitfox; just another ASEL/CFI isn't where you want to venture your money or your life. If indeed we're talking flight instruction from the very start, you'll need a good ground school and an aircraft you can have somebody else fix for you while you learn. Please trust me on this; I've been flight-instructing in one thing or another for more years than I care to admit and we all want you to enjoy flying with us for many years to come.

I have no such concerns about taking such initial instruction (we should all have been so lucky!) in the latest models, like the Series 5 and later kits, and/or the Super Sport S-LSA. In fact, such from-the-ground-up training is available in a factory-built plane; check out GlassCockpitAviation.com (I can't seem to make that into link for you right now) and talk with CFI Paul Leadabrand. I think EVERYONE should be so fortunate as to learn stick and rudder skills in gliders and then move right into taildraggers...right after winning a major lottery.

Now, if no bonafide Kitfox CFIs pop up in this forum from the Jersey area to help you, I would recommend you investigate learning to fly in a taildragger, right there in New Jersey, at www.andoverflight.com (http://www.andoverflight.com). You can get a head-start by studying a video by one of their more prominent CFIs, Damian DelGaizo; his "Tailwheel 101" DVD is available through him at bushflying@earthlink.net, or through the Andover Flight Academy at the previously mentioned address. It's truly excellent.

Let us know what you decide. And please don't think we're trying to turn you off to flying a Kitfox Speedster; my wife is a Civil Air Patrol 182 pilot who's been flying with me all along and is currently getting her tailwheel endorsement from a local Super-Cub outfit instead of from her instructor-hubby. I want her to learn the tailwheel basics in that lumber-truck before I teach her how to handle the hot-rod!

That, and I'm pretty sure I'd be endangering a perfectly nice 40+ year marriage if I did otherwise! :(

Can anybody else more "Joy-zee-local" out there give Jason some help?

"E.T."

Thanks for your input. Prior to stumbling onto the kitfox, I had run across Andover Flight Academy. I've spoken with them several times and they seem very knowledgeable at training tail draggers. They also have a really cool bush pilot course (something I'll think about later)... I'll ask them about prior experience in a Kitfox.

I did find a CFI out in Allentown, PA that has experience in a Kitfox. While it would be a drive to get out to, it's an option as well.

I'm not opposed to traveling out to someplace like AZ to learn to fly a Kitfox either ;).

Assuming that finding a Qualified CFI doesn't end up being an issue, would you still be concerned that a Speedster might be too much airplane to learn to fly in?

Thanks,

Jason

[Av8r3400]

I would have to echo DesertFox6 in saying it would be better to learn (earn your ticket) in a plane that is more "conventional". A plane that the CFIs you use will also be able teach you comfortably in. Starting in a plane that may require more skill than you (or your CFI) have currently will make success more likely.

Then doing a thorough transition (even up to 15 hours dual) into the Kitfox will be less stressful and more fun.

[wannafly]

I am a low time pilot with about 100 hrs in a cessna 150 before buying my kitfox. I took lessons in a taylorcraft for about 5 hrs. The instructor is a fantastic pilot and showed great skill in what he could do with his aircraft. He then took my kitfox IV Speedster out for about 2 hrs on his own and did lots of testing (landing and takeoffs) and made himself more aware of what a Kitfox is like before we went up and did some dual time. We had close to 5 hours dual before he said I was good to go on my own. I found the experience of the transition good probably because of the good instruction. I did this with subaru power on the nose. When I put the 912s in it was like starting over because of the increase in performance:eek:.
But what an amazing experience. best of luck in your training exercise

[akflyer]

I am gonna be the odd ball here (big surprise) and say go for it. The speedster is no more of a handful than many other GA aircraft out there that got a bad rap. Gear set up was a huge issue on the pacer getting a bad name as a handful on the ground. Wide gear took care of that problem, just as wide gear on the KF makes it a much more forgiving airplane.

Getting the CFI up to speed on the aircraft will be the biggest thing, and that is due to the nature of the engine etc. If there is a competent tail wheel instructor in your area, and they cant get comfortable in a speedster by the end of the first flight and a few landings, then you need to boot the low time kid out of the cockpit and go find a crusty old guy that has more time in a tail dragger than the afore mentioned kid has breathing.

There are no huge "gotchas" in flying the KF, other than quirky start-up procedures on a 912, or, in the case of a 2 stroke, knowing how to jet and run the 2 stroke. The plane itself is not anything that a CFI should have any trouble with.

Just my .02, and ya get what ya pay for on the internet :D

[carlisle]

Agree with AKFlyer. Hard not to sound a little 'old school' here but the fundamental things that Kitfox flying teaches are good lessons in any airplane. Coordinated turns in my M2 for example are like perfect landings...a little hard to come by and very satisfying when accomplished. The turn coord ball sometimes tends to act more like the wet compass in when it comes to keeping it centered.

Having to pay a little more attention to the engine gauges is also a good habit to develop and one that I didn't get into while learning in the 150 some 40 yrs ago. I'm pretty comfortable behind my 582 now after some experience, but wouldn't be if I didn't have the EGT and coolant temp gauges to frequently glance at.

Even without including the 'tail dragger vs nose dragger' argument, I think that anyone learning from the start in a Kitfox would be a better pilot for it and transitioning to a conventional plane would be a lot easier than vice versa.

Chris Carlisle
Model 2, 582, C box
Sioux Falls, SD

[HighWing]

No strong feelings yes or no, but! I learned to fly in a Cessna 170B - not your conventional trainer There was a day when the only thing you could learn in had a taillwheel and aviation survived. My only take on the Speedster are the CFI issues. It may take a bit more time, but I can't see where it won't be doable, and not having to pay rental fees would be a real plus to me.

Lowell

[DesertFox6]

Well it sure looks to me like wannafly taxied into a goldmine with his flight training experience: That's the kind of story we ought to be reading about in AOPA Pilot or one of the EAA magazines: Old-school, flight disciplined, IP! WOW! I'm just tickled pink you had such a wonderful experience with what sounds like one of those rare-as-Rotax-gaskets "crusty old guys" that akflyer endorses and I'll certainly second his recommendation on that score!

So, kl2657, other than slight variations of opinion based on our flying backgrounds with various trainers and Kitfox models, what you should take from this is that we ALL focus on the qualifications of the CFI as our primary concern for your success; certainly where the Kitfox is the mount of the moment, and, as carlisle so clearly opines, "anyone learning from the start in a Kitfox would be a better pilot for it," to which I'll add only "Amen." Just think of the quality of CFIs you'd have to chose from!

It would be great if you could take a demo flight in the machine you're eying and have an experienced Kitfox builder mentor you through the steps of acquiring somebody else's handiwork: This is an art form unto itself, covered in depth under many "else-wheres," so I'll drop it at that.

Make sure you have a great aircraft before you buy and a great instructor before you fly, Jason: Satisfy those two conditions and you'll be landing on some of our TeamKitfox members' home-dromes before you know it...and that includes GEU out here in Desert-Fox-Squadron-Land. I'd be happy to offer some instruction if you're in the area; just try to arrive when the temperature is less than 112 Fahrenheit/45 Celsius as the fully-loaded takeoff rolls sometimes exceed 400 feet! :eek:

"E.T."
(Semper Crustier!)

[cap01]

nice to read that someone else has a ball that acts like a compass . all along i thought it was me .

[kitfoxnick]

Just do it Jason. I learned in my model 4 1200 I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who has been teaching since the early 1960's and has owned his champ since 1966. Finding a good CFI is the trick. Try to find someone who has a lot of tail time. Once you get your license you'll wonder what all the fuss was about. Try to find some 2 stroke rotax guys in your area to teach you how to take care of your engine. I have no personal experience with the two strokes but many of my friends at the local ultralight field do, and seems to be a very reliable engine if taken care of. Insurance can be difficult to get being a student pilot in an experimental taildragger but it can be done. If you want to take a ride come on down I'm about an hour north of Baltimore and an hour south of Harrisburg.

[kl2657]

Just do it Jason. I learned in my model 4 1200 I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who has been teaching since the early 1960's and has owned his champ since 1966. Finding a good CFI is the trick. Try to find someone who has a lot of tail time. Once you get your license you'll wonder what all the fuss was about. Try to find some 2 stroke rotax guys in your area to teach you how to take care of your engine. I have no personal experience with the two strokes but many of my friends at the local ultralight field do, and seems to be a very reliable engine if taken care of. Insurance can be difficult to get being a student pilot in an experimental taildragger but it can be done. If you want to take a ride come on down I'm about an hour north of Baltimore and an hour south of Harrisburg.

Kitfoxnick, I used to live down in Shrewsbury, PA. Still have family in that area and get down there fairly often. Perhaps we can cross paths at some point. The kitfox IV I'm looking at has a 912 engine in it so no dealing with two stroke maintenance.

Thanks everyone for your input.

[catz631]

I have a Kitfox 4 and absolutely love it .I have many mods that make it a better airplane (wide bush gear,elevator trim,etc)
Having over 2000 hrs in various taildraggers (Pitts,DerJaeger,KR2,Cessnas,Luscombe,Monocoupe,Wa co,Cubs,Champs,etc) , I found this airplane very unique in its handling.Would I recommend it for initial flight training.....NO.
As an example there is another 4 at our local airport. The guy got it on a trade in for another aircraft . His instructor ,a friend of mine, has over 25 hours with him and he still he can't keep the airplane on the runway. This guy is a licensed pilot with taildragger time (not alot but some) he is middle aged. I bring age up as it is a factor in learning. If you are a young sharp guy you will probably pick up the necessary skills quicker.
I think taildragger training in another aircraft would be the way to go then transition into the fox when you have your skills nailed...my opinion.(might save on aircraft repair)
Dick

[Av8r3400]

Excellent observation and advise, Dick. I couldn't agree more...

[kitfoxnick]

Jason next time your down to Shrewsbury send me a PM and I'll give you my number. I'm only about 15 mins from shrewsbury just south of Stewartstown. There's a small airport (0p2 Shoestring) in Shrewsbury mostly ultralights but there's another kitfox 4 there and that guy took his initial training in it. I was 32 years old when I started doing the sport pilot and had 23 hrs when I took my practical test. A year later I used the model 4 for my to take my private pilot check ride. My 4 was bone stock at the time including the bungee gear.

I'm not discounting what Dick said, and he certainly has much more experience than I'll probably ever have. Having said that, I think your background has a lot to do with it. If you grew up on a farm running tractors skid loaders and combines it'll be easier than if you grew up in a neighborhood and the first thing you drove was a car at 16.

[Lion8]

Hey Jason. I'm from Salem, County, N.J. I'm in the middle of restoring a Model IV Speedster. Installing a Jabiru 2200 in it. I've read up on Andover and talked to the CFI via e-mail. Sounds like a good place to get your training. I found a CFI that trains in a Luscombe from Virginia. That is a side by side, stick, tail wheel. They teach in a J-3 cub tandem at Andover.
I can't train in mine as it goes back into phase1 testing after I put the new engine on it. If you take yours to Andover, I'd like to come up to see it. -Tom from Salem County.

[kitfoxnick]

Hey Tom,
How many hours are they requiring for your new phase 1? A lot of time they just give you 5 hrs to fly off.

[Av8r3400]

... I found a CFI that trains in a Luscombe from Virginia. That is a side by side, stick, tail wheel. They teach in a J-3 cub tandem at Andover. ...

A Freightliner has a steering wheel and a stick shift, but doesn't drive like a Ferrari. :D

This sounds like a great place to start, but a Kitfox/Avid is a lot different flying machine from a Luscombe, even a Vagabond (which is much 'sportier' and more similar to a KF/Avid).

These little planes demand some respect or they WILL bite you. :eek:

Just saying...

[akflyer]

Dont be an "Ice Road Trucker" :D If you learn to fly in the KF you will not know any difference, but your feet will be much more agile when you move into another airplane. Many Many people have built and learned to fly in the Avid or Kitfox line of aircraft. That was a major portion of the original intent of the design. During original conception it was not to allow older pilots who could not pass a physical anymore to transition into a light aircraft..

Saying that you should learn to fly in different plane first is like saying all drivers should only learn to drive using an automatic tranny, and later in your life you can learn to drive a stick shift.

[Slyfox]

Well, what can I say. Just do it. I bought my KF when I was about 10hrs into instruction. I pulled the kf out and told my instructor to go fly it, he did. He came back and said, when do you want to start, I said right now. With that I went back and forth between the c172 and the kf because the fella that was going to do the check ride wouldn't do it in the kf. I will say that I also had some good experience with Mark the original owner during my solo work, he flew with me and taught me how to have FUN in a kf. Yup I'm talking Mark Ferkin.

Now for you to let all of us know about you. Your appox. age, your interest, and how forgowing you are. All these are important because the kitfox is pretty responsive. I got to where I hated the c172 because it was such a dog and turning, might as well call it a bus. My problem when starting out was the use of the rudder. I remember my own little exercise of pushing on the floor of my truck with my feet everytime I made a turn. kind of funny when you think about it, but it worked. I ended up soloing in the 172 first and then a week later in the kf.

I will tell you this, if you can master the kf you can fly anything. trust me on that one.

[Peteohms]

I had a harder time flying a Cessna 140 than my Kitfox III.

[Slyfox]

probably because you got bored and almost fell asleep. :eek:

[kl2657]

Now for you to let all of us know about you. Your appox. age, your interest, and how forgowing you are. All these are important because the kitfox is pretty responsive.

I'm 37. I'm fairly athletic/coordinated (coach downhill ski racing during the winter and race mountain bikes during the summer for fun). I'm pretty extreme in my pursuit of hobbies. I've owned lot's of different types of vehicles in my life; sailboats, motorboats, motorcycles, dirtbikes, quads, snowmobiles, tractors, skidloaders, cars, trucks etc.... But since I'm not a pilot yet I have no basis to say that any of my past experiences would lend to an easier time in learning to fly.

[Slyfox]

I think you will do just fine, go for it.

[rogerh12]

Ya driving a motor boat is good pre-training for flying really. You have to bank to turn, go too slow and you fall of the step - sorta like a boat stall. You learn about wind pushing you off course for for the dock (runway). So yes, you will find flying similar I think and you can use your boating skill set to some extent.
Roger

[kl2657]

Well, here's my latest update.... I just bought a beautiful Speedster out in Northwest Arkansas. I hope to have it home soon! I'll keep everyone posted.

-Jason

[N82HB]

I think that airplane was in Friday Harbor, WA a couple of years back. I was real interested in it, but it was gone before I blinked.

Good luck and have fun,
Kelly

[kl2657]

Here's a link that the builder had up on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULhugvPIxwE

[Dorsal]

Looks like a beauty, good to have another east coaster.

[SaskFox]

you guys are scaring me. why are they (kitfox) so hard to fly? or is it just the speedster?

[Dorsal]

Can't comment on the speedster but I find the 7/SS to be a very easy and fun plane to fly.

[HighWing]

I suspect the real reason the Kitfox has the reputation it has is because the original landing gear came from the factory seriously toed in - very destabilizing on the ground and especially so on landing and take-off. The factory eventually sent out a method for tweeking the landing gear, which I did before the first flight of my Model IV. I never felt it was particularly difficult to fly and feel that the early talk was that it was a handfull influences perceptions today.

I have a friend that flys a Stearman to warbird events. More than once he has been approached by the high performance guys - Mustang - and told that they were glad they never had to train in the Stearman as it was a great deal more difficult to fly (read land). And this was the Army's primary trainer in the old days. It served well those that moved on to the Mustang, Corsair and others.

I guess I feel more like AKFyer in that it is doable, but may take a bit more time, but will make you a better pilot overall. It is exactly like any educational experience - a bit more challenging, a bit more time resulting in a greater level of skill.

Lowell

[catz631]

The Kitfox is no problem to fly but ground handling is a different thing.Think Luscombe. Like the Luscombe (a fine aircraft !) the original gear is very narrow. You have to work the rudder to keep the airplane on track. If you learn properly,it will make a good taildragger pilot of you.
Some things that will help is to use a wider gear. I have the "bush gear" on my aircraft which takes the gear spread from about 4 ft to 7 ft. This really improves ground handling. The Grove gear would do the same. It only takes a few days to install either gear and I think, a worth while operation.
Personally I would rather start a new pilot off in a more "gentle" taildragger such as a cub or champ prior to transistioning into a Kitfox. You can of course use the Kitfox as a primary trainer but I would be very cautious. Case in point is a local Kitfox.( Kitfox 3 with standard gear) The instructor had given over 25 hrs of dual in it to the new owner and he still could not keep it on the runway. Now at 40 hrs, I saw him solo it the other day. This man is in his mid 50,s and is probably not as sharp with his stick/rudder skills as some of you guys are so it pretty much depends on the person.
Bottom line here is to get good instruction and only fly when the conditions are good untill you have some time under your belt.
OR..you could get a nose dragger. They break too though . We have two aircraft that we have to repair that have busted nose gear ,prop and engine mounts from porposing on landing (a Rans S-6 and Paradise P-1...thanks for slipper clutches !)
Dick

[SaskFox]

thanks for explaining this. that new gear sure makes Fox look more stable

[Pilot4Life]

Gonna chime in on this one...

I have flown > 650+ hours in "taildragger" H-60s (Blackhawk Helicopters)

Once upon a time, in a land far far away...when afforded the opportunity to fly with Peteohms in his 912 powered Model III, I noticed that you've got to "dance" on the pedals when on the ground.

Also, I've flown an Extra 300L and, again, ground handling is the issue...

The biggest issue I would warn is not to get "lazy legs" on the ground and think that if you put the pedals in a particular position you're good...better watch out, cause you'll be looping into the grass before you know it.

Once airborne, coordinated flight is always best...even in a slip you still need coordination so as not to skid....

Hope to hear of you flying your FOX soon.

[kl2657]

I figured I'd bring some closure to this question.... I passed my flight exam last week and received my license. For me anyways it was possible to learn to fly in a Kitfox Speedster. Thanks everyone for your comments and support!

[Dorsal]

Congradulations, should be lots of fun in your future.

[DesertFox6]

Hallelujah and Congratulations! Wonderful News: A brand new pilot, trained and licensed in one of the world's premier taildraggers, no less!! Holy-moley, what is this world coming to?? A better class of pilots, it seems! ;)

"E.T."
(Keep the feet-bones connected to the brain-bone! :D)

[SkySteve]

You do realize you are/were the newest pilot in the entire world!!!

[happiestflying]

Curious to see if, five years after posting this thread, you ever learned to fly, and if so, did you do it in a Speedster?

Bought a Speedster last summer in Colorado, and then flew it home a few weeks later. It's a wonderful bird, high performance, great looking. I was also curious about the STOL capabilities. Everybody doing back-country flying seems to want as much wing area as they can manage, which makes sense. The Speedster wing, at 28' or so versus 32' or so, would have, by rough calculation, about 12% less surface area, or higher wing loading.

I'm a relatively low time pilot (650 hrs) and I'm quite sure I'm not flying it as well as it can be flown, or as well as it deserves, but I'm working on getting steep and slow approaches with a power-assisted flare at the last moment. If I could add the power and also slam in some flaperons at the same time I would, but I have only one right hand, so I choose power. The steep approach should allow the least forward motion, and therefore a shorter landing roll.

Without getting into it too much, that's also the moment for some significant braking, which always raises the prop-strike risk, so I'm VERY careful about just how much brake I apply.

Having said all this, I've probably landed it safely in about 500-600' on concrete with the normal 90-80-70-60-over the numbers indicated airspeed kind of approach and no braking until late in the rollout. That's not impressive, and certainly is not back-country sandbar kind of performance, but still, it's a pretty quick stop.

I'm waiting on a fellow Kitfox guy nearby who has a VERY clever angle of attack indicator he made for his, which I'm hoping to duplicate. Once that's on my airplane, then I'm going to get serious about the steep and slow approach concept. Plus of course there's my mandatory re-reading of "Stick and Rudder".

Anyway, if you're still a member, I'd love to find out what happened in your flight training in a Speedster.

[kl2657]

Curious to see if, five years after posting this thread, you ever learned to fly, and if so, did you do it in a Speedster?

Bought a Speedster last summer in Colorado, and then flew it home a few weeks later. It's a wonderful bird, high performance, great looking. I was also curious about the STOL capabilities. Everybody doing back-country flying seems to want as much wing area as they can manage, which makes sense. The Speedster wing, at 28' or so versus 32' or so, would have, by rough calculation, about 12% less surface area, or higher wing loading.

I'm a relatively low time pilot (650 hrs) and I'm quite sure I'm not flying it as well as it can be flown, or as well as it deserves, but I'm working on getting steep and slow approaches with a power-assisted flare at the last moment. If I could add the power and also slam in some flaperons at the same time I would, but I have only one right hand, so I choose power. The steep approach should allow the least forward motion, and therefore a shorter landing roll.

Without getting into it too much, that's also the moment for some significant braking, which always raises the prop-strike risk, so I'm VERY careful about just how much brake I apply.

Having said all this, I've probably landed it safely in about 500-600' on concrete with the normal 90-80-70-60-over the numbers indicated airspeed kind of approach and no braking until late in the rollout. That's not impressive, and certainly is not back-country sandbar kind of performance, but still, it's a pretty quick stop.

I'm waiting on a fellow Kitfox guy nearby who has a VERY clever angle of attack indicator he made for his, which I'm hoping to duplicate. Once that's on my airplane, then I'm going to get serious about the steep and slow approach concept. Plus of course there's my mandatory re-reading of "Stick and Rudder".

Anyway, if you're still a member, I'd love to find out what happened in your flight training in a Speedster.

I did get my license in the Speedster (see earlier post in this thread). I never really explored the STOL characteristics that much of the plane. I flew it for two years and then parked it in a hangar where it has sat ever since. I ended up buying a Decathlon as a next plane. I really enjoyed that a lot more than I did the Speedster.

[happiestflying]

And thanks for the interesting reply. Also, reading a bit of your athletic background, it sounds like me only 25 years later; coached downhill racing, mountain biking, motorcycles, skid-steer loaders, etc.

So, if the Speedster is just sitting in the hangar, what's the chance you might sell it?

[Slyfox]

if you want the best landing in a speedster, be over the numbers at 50, higher then that and you bounce, the plane still wants to fly. I like 50 then float about 2 ft off the runway and wait for it to drop off and pull stick full back, nice pillow landing, at least for me.

[kl2657]

And thanks for the interesting reply. Also, reading a bit of your athletic background, it sounds like me only 25 years later; coached downhill racing, mountain biking, motorcycles, skid-steer loaders, etc.

So, if the Speedster is just sitting in the hangar, what's the chance you might sell it?

I would absolutely love to sell it. I would have done so long ago. Just haven't had the time needed to knock the dust off of it, put it back in service and list it on Barnstormers.

[av8rps]

I found this thread really interesting, but feel it necessary to reply for the sake of any newcomers considering owning a Kitfox;

#1 - Don't be scared of owning a Kitfox because they are hard to fly. THEY AREN'T. Kitfoxes are more sensitive on the controls compared to many GA type aircraft, but a typical pilot will get past that feeling usually in an hour of two. And once he does he normally finds himself liking the light, sensitive, sporty feel of the Kitfox.

#2 - I firmly believe if you learn to fly in a Kitfox you will be a better pilot than most. You have to "FLY" the Kitfox all the time, vs "driving around" the more typical GA type aircraft. In a very good way, the old saying of "You gotta fly it to the hangar door" applies to the Kitfox. Years ago, after 1300 hours in Avids and Kitfoxes I transitioned into a Pitts S-2. The instructor was amazed, telling me that I was the first person ever in his plane that could take off and land it unassisted. I'd like to be able to say that's because I'm a super-pilot, but I'm not. And while I did initially train in a J-3 Cub, a Piper Tomahawk, and later in a 172, a Warrior, and ultimately in a Arrow and 182, it was all the hours spent in my little short coupled 400 lb Avid Flyer that really taught me to fly. Oh, and back in 1986 I had to check myself out in it, as there were no instructors that knew anything about Avids or Kitfoxes. (in reality, I found it easier to fly than all the others because it had so much power, was super high performance, and was nearly stall proof).

#3 - Some people will perceive a Kitfox as difficult, but the reality is there are MANY aircraft much more difficult to fly. I thought I knew everything (hey, I could fly a Pitts :cool:) when I bought my Lake Amphibian. But I learned quickly that I knew little. In the air and on the ground it was an easy airplane. But after a few sinus clearing water bounces causing complete control loss of the aircraft (and consequently scaring the be-jeezus out of me while I screamed for my mother :eek:), I learned firsthand why it was so important to get the Lake Factory recommended 25-30 hour "Lake Amphib specific" checkout (note to self; you're damn lucky you survived all that...)

To better put all that into perspective, after 900 hours in my Lake, 26 hours in a Pitts, and more than 2000 hour in a variety of Avid, Kitfox, and Highlanders, along with a bunch of misc other aircraft, on a scale of zero to ten (10 being most difficult), here's how I would rank them for difficulty;

Conventional spam can trainers - a 1 to 2
A typical Kitfox (incl Speedster) - a 3 or 4
A 300+ HP Pitts S2 - a 7 or 8
A Lake Amphibian - an 8 or 9.

Don't believe that? Call your insurance man and ask him about insuring the aircraft I've described. The Kitfox will be the cheapest and easiest to obtain insurance for (except for the trainers), and will require the least amount of flight experience. And I probably under-rated the Lake, or maybe over-rated the Pitts?

After 41 yrs of flying, I've learned that in aviation all things are relative. And good and bad advice is all over the place.

#4 - The pilot and his attitude is a big part of it. Some like to be challenged and will desire to move into more and more challenging aircraft as they gain experience. But some never seem to get much past the trainers that they learned in, or derivatives of them. Either way is ok with me, but if seeking information about a specific aircraft you really need to look at how much experience in other airplanes the person advising you has had. Without experience in more difficult airplanes, they won't have a balanced perspective. What may be difficult to one may be easy to another...

#5 - One of the most important factors with the Kitfox genre is to make sure the tailwheel, and the landing gear are set up and working properly. I have flown Kitfoxes and Avid's (and recently a Highlander) that had bad tailwheels (and/or bad setups) on them, and I'm telling you NO ONE can fly them consistently safe. I'm not kidding, that is a huge issue, and was especially bad with Maule tailwheels. There are a bunch of guys that will laugh at that and say you just aren't a good pilot, but the fact is that once you experience one of those you will completely understand why I say what I do. I won't go into all that here as there is plenty of that discussion in the archives. But take my word on it, whenever I hear someone say how much trouble they are having with their Kitfox, invariably it will have a Maule tailwheel on it. You should not have to be Superman with a hairy chest to be able to handle a Kitfox. Most any average, properly trained pilot can fly one successfully.

I think it is cool that kl2657 went against the odds and got trained in his new Kitfox Speedster, and 2 years later transitioned into an aerobatic Decathalon. Good for him!

And what I think is funny, while most of us will look back at our early flying days and fondly remember our typical spam-can trainers, he's going to be thinking about that cute-but-cool little Kitfox Speedster that taught him to fly so well.

And I'm willing to bet he's already a better than average pilot too. :)

[kl2657]

I'm grateful that I learned to fly in a Kitfox. I do believe that I'm the better for it as a pilot. I will always have fond memories of my little red speedster.

I moved on to a Decathlon primarily because I wanted a plane where I could become proficient in spinning both upright and inverted. The aerobatic aspect was nice to learn as well and tons of fun.

[beeryboats]

This has been a great read tonight. I fall into a different group. I learned to fly in a Piper Vagabond, very similar to the KF IV in size and weight, back in 1983. I moved up into whatever Dad bought, Pa-16 Clipper, Varga, and a neat little Baby Great Lakes. Due to the death of my mother in laws husband in his Beech Bonanza, I've had my own airport for the last 17 years. I found a KF IV that needed a lot of TLC and I'm almost done fix'en stuff. I've got lots of tailwheel time, but lot's have changed in the regs. And I'm sure I need more than a little time in the air. I can't decide if I want to go through ground school again as it has been so long. I'm not scared of the Kitfox after flying a Baby Lakes, I'm just perplexed on going through ground school again. Then comes the big hurtle of finding someone to check me out in the KF.

[gregsgt]

I grew up in the co pilot seat of a P210 when my father was flying. I put a total of 30 hours or so training in a 172. I decided I wanted to go a different route and bought a Kitfox IV with the end goal of a light sport certificate. I've got a great instructor who is as excited to train me in the plane as I am to learn. He's put together a whole syllabus on the plane and training starts next week. I've flown the planes before and found them a joy to fly. It's more like driving a sports car as compared to a pickup truck.

[SkyPirate]

On my second kitfox and love them, my first was a model 2 built by a forum member thats a mechanic on the red bull team, wish I never sold it, and so does the builder, flying a model 5 now, a couple hundred hrs so far in the 5, did a 2400 nm cross country in it the first year I owned it, considering doing the Zipper kit on the 912UL ,. I have flown a 3 and 4 also,.. Great planes the kitfox line👍

[Geowitz]

Obviously, your mileage may vary and not bragging, but I built my speedster and did the first flight myself after getting my tail wheel endorsement in 5 hours. Actually, that 5 hours was the only flying time I had after 10 years of not flying anything at all. I got the tail wheel endorsement in a Champ. It was slow to respond and only had 65hp. When I got in the kitfox I LOVED the responsiveness. It did what I told it to do. No hesitation. I thought and still think the Speedster is EASIER to fly than the champ.

[av8rps]

I think the Speedster was one of the better flying designs in the Kitfox heritage. And even though it was named a "Speedster" and had 3 ft shorter wings than the standard Kitfox, in reality the Speedsters wing span is pretty much the same as the Avid STOL wing, and is about 5 feet longer than the Avid Speedwing (which was out in tbe mid 80's, vs the Speedster introduced in 92 as I recall). So no one should be intimidated by the Speedster. In fact, I'm pretty sure if you do the math, you would find the Speedsters wing loading to be comparable to a J-3 or a Champ. It certainly is not like the clipped wing Monocoupe it somewhat resembles physically. That plane is a handful!

I still applaud Kitfox and Dan Denney for the Speedster, as it is one really cool little airplane that is so reminscent of the 30's air racers, but anyone can fly it. And it is still a pretty good STOL airplane. I'm glad to see people are still appreciating it, as it is truly one of those timeless designs that will never get out of style.

I still keep thinking about chopping the wings down to 26 ft on the Model 4 project I have in the shop, as that is the wingspan I think would make it an even better Speedster. One of these days...

[HighWing]

My only flight in a speedster was at the factory fly-in in 1992 and the factory demo then was the chartreuse and purple one in all the videos. I had an interesting conversation with a local Model IV owner a week or so ago. He was talking about a mutual friend who owned a vixen with the convertible wing extensions. He flew it as a speedster for many years. When he once put on the long tips, he couldn't control the airplane. That was him, but it does tend to substantiate Paul's impressions.

[av8rps]

I think if you have a model 4, unless you are doing a lot of backcountry or float flying, or tend to fly heavy or at higher altitudes most of the time, you'd be better off with the shorter wing. Not only will the Speedster wing fly faster, but it will ride out turbulence better, and overall be a bit more fun to fly as the controls are even quicker / more sensitive. Climb rate loss is minimal as I recall, and so is stall speed. And that all makes sense as if you calculate wing loading numbers on a new Kitfox Super Sport you will see that the shorter winged but lighter Speedster will compare to the heavier longer winged Super Sport. That's why you probably shouldn't put a shorter wing on a Super Sport, as the utility of the airplane would be compromised. Not that it wouldn't fly faster, because it most likely would (especially with a higher HP engine), but more because climb rate and stall would be compromised.

But what the heck it could maybe be worth it? John and Deb probably got nothing to do anyhow :D, so maybe they should think about making a 27 ft Riblett wing for that Super Sport STI, keeping the new extended gear so it looks like an old Monocoupe but trading in the big tundra tires for a nice big set of wheel pants, cleaning up every protruding thing they can find so as to reduce drag, shape the most beautiful faux round cowl ever seen, and put either a 914 or an 0-320 or 340 in it, and rename it the "Kitfox Coupe". Then scream around the country at an easy 145 mph showing it off at airshows and antiquer fly ins. I'll bet even in a soft economy they'd fill their order book pretty quick.

Ok, easy for me to say, as dreaming doesn't cost anything or require any building or design effort. But I really think a new super cool looking and relatively fast cross country Kitfox Speedster (excuse me, I meant to say Kitfox Coupe) based on a the newest Kitfox platform would be one hot airplane.

Ok, enough of my rambling...

[happiestflying]

So glad that this discussion covered STOL performance on the Speedster, as that's been on my mind recently. Just got the weather I need to go out and test it in the real world, but that's my flying objective this summer, to nail the STOL performance on my 100 HP Speedster.

[LORENZ]

Paul, can you compare the Speedster Kitfox 4 to the Avid MkIV Aerobatic.

My little hot rod is almost to the point of running and going throught the process of flying again after being mothballed for 20 years. Im a newer pilot and would love to find a CFI in San Diego to help get me to solo in her. I have 15ish hours in different GA aircraft, that frankly, never felt performed better than an SUV in the sky even under mynew hands.

Any CFI's in San Diego want a couple extra grand in thier pocket and willing to put the time in with me and my new baby?

[LORENZ]

New Rotax Rick 670

[LORENZ]

Almost read to fly again after 2 decades in hibernation.


10764

[avidflyer]

I believe the Avid aerobatic has a 24' wingspan. The Kitfox speedster has about the same wingspan as a standard length Avid wingspan. Avid standard length is 29' 10 1/2" Jim Chuk

[av8rps]

Congrats on your progress Shawn. I love the pic looking down at your house with the Avid in the yard. Beautiful country too.

I only flew two Avid Speedwings, aka as Aerobats. I liked the way they flew as they sure were sporty feeling with that 24 ft wing and the much quicker airfoil vs the STOL airfoil. Some complain they don't fly well, but I thought otherwise. The biggest thing is if you build them heavy they will feel like a heavy C-150 Cessna, therefore having little to no real STOL performance. But keep them under 600 lbs and they still have some of the Avid STOL left in them. I wouldn't hesitate to own one for a minute. I do however think for the average person they might enjoy the longer STOL wings more. But that is a simple fix of finding or building another set of wings, or just extending the speedwings (my last choice however).

To compare a Avid Speedwing to a Speedster is a bit hard as I never flew a 582 powered Speedster, and both Speedwing Avids were 582 powered. I think if the Avid had a 912 like the Speedster did it would probably be faster, but climb wouldnt be as good because the weight would negatively impact wing loading on that short 24 ft wing. Overall the Kitfox Speedster was compromised less than the Avid Speedwing by keeping the wingspan longer by almost 5 ft. So the Speedster will generally make a better STOL airplane. But again, with the Avid it is all about weight, lbs per square foot on that short wing. If one does the math on the two it would probably be the best way to know how they would compare. And personally, I like them both :)

[SaskFox]

Curious to see if, five years after posting this thread, you ever learned to fly, and if so, did you do it in a Speedster?

Bought a Speedster last summer in Colorado, and then flew it home a few weeks later. It's a wonderful bird, high performance, great looking. I was also curious about the STOL capabilities. Everybody doing back-country flying seems to want as much wing area as they can manage, which makes sense. The Speedster wing, at 28' or so versus 32' or so, would have, by rough calculation, about 12% less surface area, or higher wing loading.

I'm a relatively low time pilot (650 hrs) and I'm quite sure I'm not flying it as well as it can be flown, or as well as it deserves, but I'm working on getting steep and slow approaches with a power-assisted flare at the last moment. If I could add the power and also slam in some flaperons at the same time I would, but I have only one right hand, so I choose power. The steep approach should allow the least forward motion, and therefore a shorter landing roll.

Without getting into it too much, that's also the moment for some significant braking, which always raises the prop-strike risk, so I'm VERY careful about just how much brake I apply.

Having said all this, I've probably landed it safely in about 500-600' on concrete with the normal 90-80-70-60-over the numbers indicated airspeed kind of approach and no braking until late in the rollout. That's not impressive, and certainly is not back-country sandbar kind of performance, but still, it's a pretty quick stop.

I'm waiting on a fellow Kitfox guy nearby who has a VERY clever angle of attack indicator he made for his, which I'm hoping to duplicate. Once that's on my airplane, then I'm going to get serious about the steep and slow approach concept. Plus of course there's my mandatory re-reading of "Stick and Rudder".

Anyway, if you're still a member, I'd love to find out what happened in your flight training in a Speedster.
It's been five years already? No I never did learn to fly mostly because the nearest training facility is 200 miles away and now at 57 years of age I am thinking my dream might only be a dream.

[Esser]

It's been five years already? No I never did learn to fly mostly because the nearest training facility is 200 miles away and now at 57 years of age I am thinking my dream might only be a dream.

Noooooooooo. You are only a spring chicken still. Follow your dream! Start with your rec license as it is easier to get, you can do it!

[happiestflying]

Or, instead of recreational pilot, consider Sport Pilot, which has only 20 hours of flight time as a minimum, and would allow you to fly under nearly all the conditions we enjoy, such as daytime VFR, any distance allowed, etc. Check it out.

[jiott]

I would certainly encourage you to go for it if your health is reasonably good. In my own case, I started building my SS7 Kitfox when I was 67, finished it at 69, went to S&R in Boise to get my Sport Pilot License (with tailwheel) at 69, finished the training in 6 months, did my maiden flight on my own Kitfox at 69-1/2, have been flying it now for 2-1/2 years-almost 72 now. Having the best time of my life, doing lots of small grass/dirt fields, some mountain strips, a few river gravel bars, etc. I am averaging about 140 hours per year. Believe me, its not too late and its the perfect thing to keep an old retired guy occupied, keeps the mind sharp with much satisfaction, and a great incentive to keep up your health. This is not intended to be bragging (maybe a little bit) but to encourage others who are in the same situation and wondering.

[Esser]

Or, instead of recreational pilot, consider Sport Pilot, which has only 20 hours of flight time as a minimum, and would allow you to fly under nearly all the conditions we enjoy, such as daytime VFR, any distance allowed, etc. Check it out.

Canada, where SaskFox lives, doesn't have a sport pilot license but the rec pilot is almost the same but 25 hours instead.

[jiott]

I still can't figure why Canada does not recognize my Sport Pilot ticket if they have a very similar Rec ticket. I would love to fly into Canada but so far am frustrated by this license thing.

[Esser]

The difference is that the rec license still requires a medical. Canada is still very much in the dark ages regarding medicals. So if you get a sport license with no medical, they don't recognize it.

[Norm]

It's been five years already? No I never did learn to fly mostly because the nearest training facility is 200 miles away and now at 57 years of age I am thinking my dream might only be a dream.

You can also learn to fly on an Ultralight permit. Only 10 hrs required with 5 dual. Those are minimuns so you may take more time. With the ultralight permit you can fly up to a 1232 LB gross weight plane so that includes up to a model IV. All hrs in the ultralight are transferable to a Rec license and private pilots license. May be a quicker and easier way for you to go. My friend started with an Ultralight permit and then went on to a Rec permit when he wanted to fly a Citabria. It's a great inexpensive way to go that will allow you to fly a KitFox IV or less. Good Luck.

[Norm]

The difference is that the rec license still requires a medical. Canada is still very much in the dark ages regarding medicals. So if you get a sport license with no medical, they don't recognize it.

Actually I think it is the US and the FAA that are in the dark ages when it comes to medical. I am not sure, and maybe someone from the US can confirm but I believe the cost for a medical for a US aviation license is thousands.
A Canadian CAME exam is $150. A class 3 medical which is all that is needed for a Rec License can be signed by your family doctor. (Mine never charged me)

You are right about Canada not allowing sport pilots to fly in Canada because there is no medical but the cost of the FAA medical is a little prohibitive for some I am sure.

[Av8r_Sed]

My recent 3rd class medical was about $100 US.

[rv9ralph]

cost for a medical for a US aviation license is thousands

In US when a Medical Certificate is required, the airman must use an "Aviation Medical Examine" (AME). That is a doctor that has applied and been designated by the FAA. The fee charged is at the discretion of the AME, usually between $150 - 250, depending on the local economy. The problem is, if there is a disqualifying factor, then the airman must submit more documentation or test results, that can result with additional expenses (depending on the test, a lot of expenses). This is the reason many are choosing to not renew their medical and fly under the Sport Pilot rules in qualified aircraft. (In order to qualify to operate under Sport Pilot rules, a pilot must not have had his medical certificate revoked)

Ralph

[Norm]

In US when a Medical Certificate is required, the airman must use an "Aviation Medical Examine" (AME). That is a doctor that has applied and been designated by the FAA. The fee charged is at the discretion of the AME, usually between $150 - 250, depending on the local economy. The problem is, if there is a disqualifying factor, then the airman must submit more documentation or test results, that can result with additional expenses (depending on the test, a lot of expenses). This is the reason many are choosing to not renew their medical and fly under the Sport Pilot rules in qualified aircraft. (In order to qualify to operate under Sport Pilot rules, a pilot must not have had his medical certificate revoked)

Ralph

Thank you for clearing that up. I was in disbelief when I heard figures in the thousands tossed around. $150 to 250 makes a lot more sense.

[DesertFox4]

My last 3rd Class medical exam cost $100.00 also.

SaskFox don't shelve that dream to fly just yet.
57 is not too old to realize your desire to escape the clutches of Mother Earth and her relentless pull of gravity. OK. You may have missed your opportunity to fly the latest military turn and burn fighter jet or maybe that career in the left seat of a very large Boeing or Airbus human relocation device but you most assuredly have not missed your shot at years of unmitigated aviation rapture flying the most incredible, the most enjoyable , the most rediculously fun aircraft ever devised by mere mortals, the Kitfox.
Take your que from jiott. A great example and inspiration.
Lots of good and heartfelt suggestions in the previous posts.
Get busy and in a couple months you can be posting pictures here of your first solo flight. After that, the skies your playground.
"Remember. We're all in this together. We're pullin for ya.":)

[jamesbdunn]

a new pilot.

My plan would be to purchase the plane and then hire a CFI to train me in the plane. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Jason kl2657


Well it's been about 5 or 6 years since you initiated your interest in the Kitfox Speedster, and getting your ticket.

What has happened since then?