Kitfox vs RANS, The Building Experience

[StuBob]

There are lots of threads on here about Kitfox vs RANS in terms of flying qualities, etc., but I haven't found anything comparing the building experience. The only person I've read who's built a RANS (S6) and worked on a Kitfox (V, I think) says the RANS kit was much more complete that the KF. He says the KF builder, after paying for the kit, was still left buying things like motor mounts and upholstery, both of which were included in the RANS. It only seems fair to ask TeamKitfox for an opinion.

Have you built a Kitfox and something else? How do they compare?

And what did you have to buy over and above the kit for your Kitfox?

I have this vague idea that the Kitfox would be better for my mission (floats), but I want to make sure I'm making an apples to apples comparison.

Thanks.

[jiott]

I have only built the Kitfox SS7, but I have to say that the Kit was very complete and the build manual is superb ( I have heard it is the best, or equal to the best out there). That said, you must understand up front that that basic kit is just that-very basic. There are many optional items that you can choose to buy or not. I found that I wanted almost all of the optional items. The optional items come in their own kits which are very complete, including additional hardware needed. I much prefer this approach because you only buy what you want. Many builders prefer to make their own options, such as upholstery and baggage compartment rather than getting the factory optional kits.

I have a hunch that the negative things you heard about the Kitfox kit was from an early builder who purchased the Kit from the old Skystar company.

[efwd]

Im with Jim. I started building in March 2016 and I am pleasantly surprised at the completeness of the purchase. I too bought just about every option available. If I don't want the interior option then I just make my own. If I do I just add it to the options list. Simple. The instructions are easy as can be as well.
Eddie

[StuBob]

Looking at the price lists for the SS7 and the RANS S20, it does appear that the RANS includes more in the base price, but the base price is $5000 more. Adding up the options, the prices come pretty close together.

Difficult stuff, this.

What about build time and manuals? I've looked at them a bit and I have to say the Kitfox manuals look easy to understand and follow. They also have everything in one place, where the RANS has you reading and crosschecking a manual, plans, and parts list. My Van's experience tells me there's a lot of opportunity for error there.

[efwd]

Well, Rans has some rather impressive build times. I am almost certain that the times given are for an absolutely base model. I can assure you that I will not be completing my SS7 in 1000hrs as I have many options that equate to many hours.
Eddie

[jiott]

There are a lot of threads you can search for in this forum regarding build times. It seems to vary a lot, from 1200 to about 2500 hours to my recollection. My build, with all the options, was 2200 hours; but I am slow and methodical, first time builder. I'll have to say that none of it was difficult, just a lot to do. The manual leads you thru the steps with all info and parts listed on the same page, no jumping around that you describe.

[jamesmil]

I built a rans s7 and first flite was in 2009 I found the build manual to hard to follow. In 2011 ordered a Kitfox ss7 kit and was very impressed by how easy it was to understand and follow. First flew in 2012 and have 350 hr on it love it

[jrevens]

... He says the KF builder, after paying for the kit, was still left buying things like motor mounts and upholstery, both of which were included in the RANS. It only seems fair to ask TeamKitfox for an opinion...


I think that you have to keep in mind that there may be many more options available to you as a Kitfox builder vs a RANS builder. I could be wrong, but I believe that engine mounts, for instance, may not be part of the basic kit because you have so many factory supported engine options with the Kitfox that you don't have with RANS. The mount and various other parts will vary with engine type of course.

[StuBob]

I built a rans s7 and first flite was in 2009 I found the build manual to hard to follow. In 2011 ordered a Kitfox ss7 kit and was very impressed by how easy it was to understand and follow. First flew in 2012 and have 350 hr on it love it

I was hoping to hear from someone like you. Thanks.

[Danzer1]

I to have been comparing the 2 brands and S7 vs S20. I think both are fine companies and fine aircraft and one could probably not go wrong with either.

I don't want to get into a debate about which is better, but there are differences, some sublte and some not so.

Price, probably minimal if not a wash in the end, the "kit" is only going to be maybe 1/3 the total anyway, so in my mind not an issue.

Build time, advantage probably goes to Kitfox IF you go with quick build wings.

Some differences:

Do you want more wing area/shorter (Rans - wider chord) or do you care?

Fabric covered wood wings or fabric covered metal wings or do you care?

Flaperons or conventional ailerons or do you care?

Adjustable pedals or adjustable seats or do you care?

Longer plane Rans (1'-4"), does it matter to you?

Rans taller by 11" (taildraggers). Is hanger/garage door height an issue? Are you happy ducking under the wing or running into it - Kitfox (if you are taller).

Cockpit width, baggage capacity, etc. Only you can answer the questions!

My choice is still not clear as Rans is now introducing the all metal S21 and I want to see early adopter build times and actual performance specs on that one.

Have fun, Greg

[rainbird]

I can give a comparison between a scratch build and a Kitfox ss7. Really it's no comparison at all. The scratch build What I got was a set of paper plans on how to build the wooden structure and metal parts (landing gear, pedals stick struts). After that it was up to you to figure out what was needed and where to get it. Other than the plans there were no instructions. Then during construction I kept finding structural errors in the design that had to be corrected. After getting the airworthiness certificate three trips to the airport. Each trip something broke while taxing.. The third time I loaded it back on the trailer took it home and sawed off the tail behind the cockpit. The tail now graces the end wall of my shop as a monument to a project gone bad. That was 12 years work with no joy, but I did learn a lot about building an airplane.

The kitfox, a joy. There are very few hard decisions to make, (like how much money are you willing to spend ) everything you need is right there(you just have to find it), and step by step assembly INSTRUCTIONS!!! It's still going to take me two years of working to assemble it but the stress level is way down . I'm looking at flying in 2017 after 20 years of struggling to get there.

[Flybyjim]

I have always liked the Kitfox series but I learned in a Champ and liked the tandem seating so I bought a Rans S-7. The build was straight forward but I did not like the method of using two build books to work out of. One for drawings, part numbers and the other with drawings and instructions. After a few months I got use to the flow of using both books. The factory support was always fine, Ed Swab is the main guy you will talk to about questions you have. I like the plane and the performance with the rotax 100hp.

As stated above I always liked the Kitfox so I bought a kit with the quick build wings, With my past build experiences having wings built in factory jigs is worth the price and time saved. Brandon builds wings very well, you can see his pride in every glue joint, kudos to Brandon. The parts received were very well packaged, numbered and boxed in logical order, Thanks Debra. The build manual is the best I have seen in kit planes, everything you need in one place with lots of good illustrations. The parts so far have fit very very well, all prebuilt items (struts for example) fit perfectly. I am just about done with the wings and looking forward to starting the fuselage. As for performance I can only compare John's blue/white factory plane as that is what I test flew in. Great performer, solid, responsive control, predictable, stalls straight forward no surprise, comfortable seats and just about no noise in the cockpit.

Both companies have been good for me however fit and finish goes hands down to Kitfox. If you go to Oshkosh both companies are across from each other, just compare the hardware, panel, seats, baggage compartments and of course under the hood for easy access.

Just my thoughts.

Jim

[StuBob]

I can give a comparison between a scratch build and a Kitfox ss7. Really it's no comparison at all. The scratch build What I got was a set of paper plans on how to build the wooden structure and metal parts (landing gear, pedals stick struts). After that it was up to you to figure out what was needed and where to get it. Other than the plans there were no instructions. Then during construction I kept finding structural errors in the design that had to be corrected. After getting the airworthiness certificate three trips to the airport. Each trip something broke while taxing.. The third time I loaded it back on the trailer took it home and sawed off the tail behind the cockpit. The tail now graces the end wall of my shop as a monument to a project gone bad. That was 12 years work with no joy, but I did learn a lot about building an airplane.

The kitfox, a joy. There are very few hard decisions to make, (like how much money are you willing to spend ) everything you need is right there(you just have to find it), and step by step assembly INSTRUCTIONS!!! It's still going to take me two years of working to assemble it but the stress level is way down . I'm looking at flying in 2017 after 20 years of struggling to get there.

That sounds TERRIBLE! Just tell me the plans built wasn't a Falco or a GP4. I can't imagine throwing that much work away. But after that, anything with instructions would seem easy.

This business of instructions is a big deal. I'm working on an RV8. People say Van's has terrific plans and drawings. Personally, I don't see it. I've looked at the Kitfox instructions and they look like they'd keep me out of trouble. It isn't 100% clear to me that they're better than RANS -- the guys on ransclan.com don't seem to complain. But I'm sure they're better than Van's and they'd be good enough.

[rainbird]

It was a rather obscure designer on the East Coast. Not a Falco or GP4..I would rather not say who the designer is because I don't like badmouthing anybody. Good advice is to pick a well known designer and a design that has been well proven. That is a big reason why I chose the Kitfox. It is so nice to not have to redesign the whole thing and to have predictable results. It is also a real neat plane that meets my needs.

[jmodguy]

StuBob
I'm in Carmel IN and have a Kitfox 5 project at Metro airport. The 5 is similar to the 7. I have the fuse covered and the wings are built but not covered. You are more than welcome to come take a look.
I also have a GP-4 at home in my garage if you want to take a look at that...

[efwd]

15 years ago I built an RV4 empennage. I honestly never recall having any questions while working with their instructions and I know I never called Vans for answers and I never had folks on line like this to lean on. I was very comfortable working with aluminum. Using the Kitfox manual has been very pleasant and I do lean on people here to glean some direction as well as the McBeans. They are very willing and encourage me to ask them for help when needed. I have made mistakes and thats what prompts my calls to Idaho. The build is moving along. I will complete this one. Im tired of seeing others fly their kitfox's but I will continue to watch them for inspiration. My favorites are the Youtube videos by Steve K "Kitfox flying Arizona Desert". I learned to fly in those deserts and have crewed many hours on UH 1H and Blackhawks in Steves backyard. Keep em coming Steve. Looking forward to having you show me around there in my own Kitfox someday.

[HighWing]

A very interesting thread and entertaining as well. I have no experience building a Rans or a Series 7, but have some thoughts. I have to disagree with Jim regarding his "I have a hunch..." comment. The earlier Kitfoxes were easier to build as the project didn't include Trim Actuators or Telescoping Rudder Pedal torque tubes - frequent topics discussed here. I built two of the earlies one from Denny and one from Skystar.

My comment about the Rans I am most familiar with - and keep in mind it was a S-6 ca. 1999 or so. On our first group flight to Idaho to explore the back country our first fuel stop was Winnemucca, Nevada. The least fuel purchased of the six airplanes for a top off was 7.2 gallons - a Model IV Kitfox. The most was 14 gallons - the S-6. Most were in the 11 - 12 gallon range for the three hour trip. We flew many trips together - Idahp, Oregon, Washington,Wyoming and Montana plus our one trip to Oshkosh - and loved the S-6 along as having two 9 gallon wing tanks, our friend, the pilot was the best low fuel indicator possible. I see that the S-7 now has 26 gallons total. Don't know if that was the case with the early S-7 but doubt it - the S-6 still the same.

Winnemucca for fuel.

[Danzer1]

The least fuel purchased of the six airplanes for a top off was 7.2 gallons - a Model IV Kitfox. The most was 14 gallons - the S-6. Most were in the 11 - 12 gallon range for the three hour trip.

Let me see if I've got this right.

KF IV - 7.2g / 3hr = 2.4 gph?
Others - 11.0g / 3hr = 3.66 gph
More others - 12 g / 3hr = 4.0 gph
Rans S6 - 14g / 3hr = 4.66 gph?

Really useless info unless acompanied by engine/gearbox/prop data, and loading. Was the KF IV going downhill all the way? Did the Rans start with 10 gallons in the tank? If all flying together at relatively the same speed and altitude, 2.4 gph seems a tad optimistic. Or the Rans was flying circles around you guys waiting for you to catch up. Surely not all were using the same engine.

So whats the point?

[WWhunter]

No dog in the fight here either but something definitely seems weird. I am currently flying a 1997 Rans S7 with a 912. When it had the 95 HP Extra Performance pistons, I ran it at max cruise RPM (55-5600 rpm if I remember correctly) on a cross country and used 4.3 gph. Basically WOT at this burn rate, my average cruising I only burn 3.5 gph +/-. It varies due to my never constant speeds.

[HighWing]

I guess I might understand the confusion. I left out one piece of information. One of the guys flew behind a Rotax 582 – that was the one orange in a flight with 5 apples.

Then this might help. When building, some guys build what we once called when working in a print shop during college – “Quick and Dirty”. For us meaning a quick build resulting in an aerodynamically dirty airplane. The 7.2 gph guy put lift strut fairings that in recent posts suggests a 10 mph airspeed increase. Then this guy put fairings on the jury struts and horizontal stabilizer struts for another mph increase. He also put on the Speedster elevator trim tab to avoid the draggy trim using the flaps – another mph or two. Then he airfoiled both horizontal stabilizer/Elevator and vertical stabilizer/rudder with airfoiled gap seals in both – more mph. He even tried hubcaps to reduce the drag from the original factory 8” X 19” wheels. We talk a lot about speed increases with our fairings, but drag reduction also has a lot to do with fuel consumption – ask any airline.

Consider this; along with our policy to always fly as a flight of 6 or 8 as the case dictated, we took off as a flight of six and landed as a flight of six. If it was a three hour flight, it was a three hour flight for all. Then there was – as was suggested our individual flight tendencies. The Rans guy, Kirk, liked to see what he could find on the ground 20 ft. AGL was not unusual for him – tons of video to prove it. (Pic From Video)

12041

The 582 guy, Wally, flew with a bit of altitude – makes perfect sense. Lenny flew conservatively maybe 1000 ft. Merv liked to find water to wash his wheels or maybe an irrigation sprinkler to wash his windshield – maybe you get the picture. But then put these guys with varying tendencies all with differently configured airplanes flying at the overall speed of a 582 powered Model IV (With the occasional side trip to chase the sprinklers or rattle snakes) fuel consumption will definitely go down – a lot for a clean airplane. My point was that the Rans S-6 burned the most fuel – with the possible exception of the 582. That was the apples and oranges comparison, or so I thought. Being factory built and sold as such, I felt the trip pretty much reflected what an off the shelf strictly instruction manual built S-6 would do.
A little math shows that I flew with these guys about 280 hours of my total 990 in my first Model IV. Some things you know through personal experience, Sorry if some find it mind boggling or difficult to swallow. I’ll be more careful what I post in the future.

[Danzer1]

Hey Lowell, thanks for the added info. I certainly understand how the Rans could consume that amount of fuel (or any aircraft for that matter). Piloting technique, dirty aircraft - could have been a dacron covered s6 with the big wing, pitched for climb, needed a tune, combination of all, etc, etc...

What I don't get yet is how a Model IV can achieve 2.4 gph averaged over a 3 hour flight - which also had to include taxi, takeoff, climb etc. Clean it up all you want, but that's a mighty impressive fuel flow figure for any bird. I'm sure there are a bunch of us that would like to know what engine, PSRU, prop combination can achive that 2.4 gph avg. burn throughout an entire flight envelop. Not yet clear.

Thanks, Greg

[Norm]

What I don't get yet is how a Model IV can achieve 2.4 gph averaged over a 3 hour flight -

Thanks, Greg

My Model Iv is giving me incredible fuel economy. I don't know if it's quite that good but I did a 2.7hr flight as per hobbs and replaced the fuel I burnt with a 28litre jug of premium. That is about 7.4 US gallons So about 2.7 gal per/hr. Not quite as good as 2.4 but I find it believable depending on how level the plane was when it was filled at home and how level it was when filled at airport pumps. It's possible it was not fully filled.
One thing I know is it sure is nice to go fly for a few hours for less that $30. Just a little more that $10/hr.
Especially after running a 582 for the last ten years. Oh and no oil to add.

[Danzer1]

My Model Iv is giving me incredible fuel economy.

Hi Norm, That's great info! I know you have a 912, but which version and prop? Also, do you recall your avg. rpm and airspeed?

Thanks, Greg

[efwd]

Personally, I like that Kirk guy in the story. ;)

[WWhunter]

Ditto, now that I have the full picture I can definitely understand the difference in fuel burns. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it) I am like the guy that flies at 20' AGL. I like to zig-zag all over and see thing up close. Yes, I would be the guy with the higher fuel burn!

[LSaupe]

One other factor might also be company and forum support. When I built my Kitfox, the company and forum support was really great (and I was building an old Model III). It would be rare that I would go more than a day without resolution on a question/problem I might be having. Any parts need from Kitfox were also quickly fabricated (if needed) and shipped.

My only interaction with Rans was with their bicycle division. What I experienced for customer support was poor at best (and these are some higher end bikes/recumbents). Hopefully the aircraft division is much better (they have also sold off the bicycle interests). I have no experience with their aircraft side of the house.

[Norm]

Hi Norm, That's great info! I know you have a 912, but which version and prop? Also, do you recall your avg. rpm and airspeed?

Thanks, Greg

It is a 912Ul with an IFO ultralight three blade prop. I have not put the inflight adjustable motor yet. I have it running about 5200 on take off and can hit 5650 in level flight
The day I got the 2.7 burn I was running 5200 to 5350. Airspeed at that RPM is about 90-95mph. I hope to get better once I have my inflight adjustable.
Altitude was about 4500asl and temps in the range of 45 to 50F
And yes I am still loving this new to me bird.

[Flybyjim]

My Rans S-7 with 100hp rotax Keiv ground adjustable 3 blade prop at 5200 burns 4gal per hour at 3000ft.

[Flybyjim]

Should have added at 5200 I cruise at 112mph

[av8rps]

I can believe Lowells' 2.4 gph number. Flying an aerodynamically clean 912ul Kitfox 4 with much slower, draggier aircraft could allow the Kitfox to fly at significantly reduced power settings. My 912ul Kitfox 4 with two 14 ft heavy and draggy amphib floats only burns a hair over 3 gph at approx 100 mph. So if I got rid of those floats and slowed down just a bit it wouldn't be too hard to get the fuel burn down by another half a gallon per hour.

These planes are really efficient. I once tested my plane just to see how low of a power setting it would fly at while still maintaining altitude...at approx 3500 rpm and 63 mph my fuel burn was less than 1.5 gph. And I could have flown forever at that speed as it flew just great even with that super low power setting.

Sorry for getting off the original building question this thread was started with.

Paul

[StuBob]

Sorry for getting off the original building question this thread was started with.

Paul
Pssht! It's the internet!:)

[av8rps]

Pssht! It's the internet!:)

I'm glad you don't mind StuBob. I kinda laugh when any of us go off in different directions... keeps it interesting at least ;)

I do wish I could be more helpful to you regarding your original building question, but I tend to buy project airplanes and finish or redo them. I like the Rans S7 after flying one on amphibs for about 35 hours, but I still like my Kitfox more. I find the Kitfox design more refined and a bit more efficient. The best way to prove that statement is to youtube "Kitfox aerobatics" and to watch an 80 hp 130 mph Kitfox perform (with a not very efficient wood prop no less).

Not that we should think of our Kitfoxes as acro planes, but that video does a really good job proving just how capable the Kitfox is. I also think the Kitfox is a much sexier looking airplane. At typical seaplane gatherings its a rare case for someone not to approach me about buying my airplane as they are so impressed seeing it fly, can hardly believe the low cost of operation and aquisition, and just love how it looks. Unfortunately for them I have no plan to sell it anytime soon.

[HighWing]

Fact check after some communications with friends:

On our Winnemucca trip September 15, 2000
Slippery Model IV
Flight Time - 2.9 hours Logged
Fuel burn - 7.7 gallons per still existing receipt rather than 7.2 from memory or maybe a poorly written note.
gallons Per Hour 2.66 Vs. the 2.40 at the 7.2 gallons
Fuel price for those interested $2.54 per Gallon Total invoiced $19.63

[efwd]

Well doesn't that figure! Guess I will be doing some re calculations for how many trips to Phoenix I'm going to get to make in my 912is. What a shame. I'll have to make twice as many than what I figured my budget Would allow! ;)
Now, if could just get these AP servos installed with all these Holliday interruptions and all.
Eddie

[av8rps]

When I get questioned about how little fuel my Kitfox burns I'm used to getting some really funny looks. They are just amazed how little fuel it burns and yet it performs so well.

To add to the fun I typically then respond with "It burns so little fuel that sometimes I swear it's making fuel? Do you think that's possible? You know, like regenerative brakes on a hybrid car...like maybe when I'm in a long descent with the power at idle?" Usually at that point they don't know what to think. It's always good fun to keep them wondering. :D

And the low fuel burn is only part of it. It never ceases to amaze me that my Kitfox amphib can do pretty much everything my buddy can with his 350k Husky amphib. And I do that on about a fifth of what he spends for fuel. Plus I have in my plane about what he paid in taxes to buy his Husky. Granted I've had my Kitfox for quite a while, so I have less $ in it than more current Kitfoxes. But in my opinion, even at new prices it would still be an amazing value compared to it's certified factory built competition.

Oh, and Lowell, all of us that have planes like yours with the same engine can vouche for your numbers. Your numbers are really not that uncommon regardless of what some may think. Can you imagine what the fuel numbers might be if we had the super-miserly 912iS? (Like Eddie) With one of those you'd probably think something was drastically wrong if you saw numbers higher than 3 gph.

Back to that Husky, there is something he can do that I can't...he can back up. His new reversing MT prop is pretty cool around the dock, but that prop was another 37k (gulp!). Now don't get me wrong, I love his new Husky. It's a mega-cool airplane.

But so is my Kitfox for a whole, whole lot less. And who knows? it might even be making gas at times... ;)

[StuBob]

This is meaningless observation, but it appears to me that the RANS guys are somewhat less effusive when talking about their airplanes.

[Ramos]

This is meaningless observation, but it appears to me that the RANS guys are somewhat less effusive when talking about their airplanes.


I don't believe that observation is meaningless. That passion comes from somewhere. As a PROSPECTIVE buyer, I feel it is reasonable to assume that the ardor is created by the aircraft itself. I have been giving serious consideration to KF, Rans and possibly even an Avid. At this point in time, my first choice is a Kitfox Model IV Classic or newer. Due, in part, to the enthusiasm that I see in the KF community.

[efwd]

Here is two cents worth. I am very grateful for the completeness of this SS7 kit. Taking today into consideration, I was at Aircraft Spruce, I have to purchase hardware to install my autopilot servos. Which length bolts? Should I buy a rod end bearing with a built in stud? What size exactly is the clamp I will need to secure to the airframe, (what size was the tube Im mounting too?). Whew, If I had to do that for all this stuff that Kitfox supplies I am not sure this project would be so recreational for me. Thank You McBeans! Its definitely rewarding to get the job done but I am certainly glad I don't need to do this kind of stuff all the time.

[StuBob]

That brings up a point. I'm pretty sure the talk I heard of incomplete kits hearkens to a pre-McBean age. When did they take over? And can anyone speak to whether the kits have changed in that respect?

[WWhunter]

This is meaningless observation, but it appears to me that the RANS guys are somewhat less effusive when talking about their airplanes.


I really don't see it that way. I am on both sights since I own both brands (did not build either of them) and I see both sites very similar. Maybe a lot more activity on this site but I believe that might be do to their being way more KF than RANS owners. Both seem to be just as excited about their planes as most any 'type' forum. Heck, I own a 172 also and even those guys get excited! Guess what? I took up my 172 yesterday for an hour and everytime I fly it I remember why I have kept it for nearly 30 years. It is an honest reliable plane that has taken me all over the US. I can also fly it is much worse conditions than I would ever want to fly the light wing loading KF/RANS types.

[Av8r3400]

That brings up a point. I'm pretty sure the talk I heard of incomplete kits hearkens to a pre-McBean age. When did they take over? And can anyone speak to whether the kits have changed in that respect?

The McBeans have been in the left seat for the last 10 years (2006 (http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/home/KitfoxHistory.htm)).

The problem with "pre-McBean" kits is most likely that they have been laying around so long and passed from owner to owner and place to place that components and parts have been lost.

[av8rps]

I don't believe that observation is meaningless. That passion comes from somewhere. As a PROSPECTIVE buyer, I feel it is reasonable to assume that the ardor is created by the aircraft itself. I have been giving serious consideration to KF, Rans and possibly even an Avid. At this point in time, my first choice is a Kitfox Model IV Classic or newer. Due, in part, to the enthusiasm that I see in the KF community.

My first airplane I bought was Dean Wilson's prototype Avid Flyer, N99AF. The airplane that started the whole movement of Avids, Kitfoxes, Sky Raiders, Ridge Runners, Highlander - Super STOL, Eurofox, Bushbaby, etc, etc. That was 30 years ago, and even though today I could buy pretty much any plane I want (within reason), every time I consider drifting off into another aviation direction, I always find myself back to where I started.

I've had the fortune in my life to fly a lot of different aircraft, and for sure there are some that really tripped my trigger (Glasair 3, Pitts S2, 300 hp Skybolt, Lake Amphibian, Grumman Goose, Dehavilland Beaver, etc, just to list a few), but none of those other aircraft are as versatile as my Kitfox 4, as inexpensive to own and operate, and as much fun. Well, ok. I have to admit my Lake amphib rivals my Kitfox for fun, but in the other areas it fails miserably (cost to operate mainly. But it also can demand a lot from the pilot - the Kitfox is absolutely a play toy by comparison, therefore much more relaxing to fly, more enjoyable).

I say all that just to confirm what was said about Kitfox owners being passionate about their planes. My wife teases about having to bury me with my Kitfox. She knows how much I like it. Many many times I've kicked around doing something else, but i just can't imagine giving up what to me is the perfect recreational airplane.

But for the record, I am still open minded. And like most all of us I am always looking around to see if there is something better that I might like? But thus far I haven't found anything. And frankly the only ones that interest me are just newer, more evolved versions of my Model 4. And thinking about all this, after 30 years being around these aircraft it says a lot that I'm still this passionate about them.

Your comment about the plane doing most of that is absolutely correct. The enthusiasm, the help, and the friendship that comes from the owners group is just a big bonus you get when you join this family...

[WWhunter]

Awesome post sir! I am in the same frame of mind....always looking for that 'next best thing', and it is hard to beat the KF or Rans.

[StuBob]

I really don't see it that way. I am on both sights since I own both brands (did not build either of them) and I see both sites very similar. Maybe a lot more activity on this site but I believe that might be do to their being way more KF than RANS owners. Both seem to be just as excited about their planes as most any 'type' forum. Heck, I own a 172 also and even those guys get excited! Guess what? I took up my 172 yesterday for an hour and everytime I fly it I remember why I have kept it for nearly 30 years. It is an honest reliable plane that has taken me all over the US. I can also fly it is much worse conditions than I would ever want to fly the light wing loading KF/RANS types.

That's fair. I regret thinking out loud about who's more enthusiastic, especially since I'm basing it mostly on forum participation.

[StuBob]

One more component of the building experience is the time required. Kitfox posts an estimated time of 1000 hours while RANS says 500-700 for the S-20.

Given that the welding is done and the fabric covering, engine and avionics installation should be the same, is it possible that both of those numbers are accurate?

[avidflyer]

I don't know if it's still the case, but older Rans aircraft used a premade sail cloth covering. Kind of like sliding on a sock. That alone would cut back on the hours needed to build a plane considerabley. It would also cut down on your options for paint schemes. JImChuk

[WWhunter]

I would take most brands build time with a grain of salt. Way too many variable. Are you mechanically inclined? Have you much build experience? Are you a perfectionists that spends a lot of time on getting things in show quality? All of these things add lots of time to a build.

Guys that have built something similar be it a car restoration or airplane, they learn 'tricks of the trade' that can vastly cut down on build times. A first time builder can spend as much or more time just studying the construction manual as they do with the actual hands on building.

Jim, I think it is only the pusher type RANS and the S-6SES that have the Dacron slip on type covers. Most of the time guys use the same process as the KF. I'm not so sure build time would be much different on the KF vs. the RANS. I do think the wings may be able to be built a little quicker on the RANS but I am only speaking from looking at the way they are constructed. Riveting seems quicker that alignment and then epoxy. Like I said, I really don't know, just a guess.

[PapuaPilot]

I would guess the build times would be close because they they have similar types of finishing work. Most of us building our KF's have spent 1500-2500 hours, so the times are just an estimate anyways. The Rans S-20 requires fabric, not a sleeve like other Rans models have.

I flew a trike Rans S-6 factory demo plane several years ago and found it had very nice handling. Normally the demo pilot wouldn't let the pilot do anything more than maneuvers at altitude, but he let me fly the pattern and land it. It was very easy to land too. It did feel lighter than my KF5 does.

The basic specs between the SS7 and S-20 are very similar.

One of the things I really like about the Kitfox is the the higher gross weight. The Rans S-20 is limited to 1320 lbs, but the KF can go up to 1550, if you want to.

Baggage weight is much better in a KF at 150 lbs vs. 80 lbs in the S-20. The Rans does claim a lot more baggage volume. It looks like you would have to stack the cargo to the ceiling, which would require a baggage net and maybe cargo straps to make it safe.

I know this thread is about the building experience and time. When it comes down to it, I think we should be more concerned about the type of aircraft that we want to fly after the build is done.

When I was considering building a plane it came down to the Rans S-6/S-7, Just Aircraft or Kitfox. In the end I chose the Kitfox due to its reputation, speed, higher gross weight and cargo carrying ability.

[Danzer1]

I think Keith is on the right track. The difference is primarily in the wing build. I have seen (mostly on here) reports that a few have spent just over 100 hours getting to the quick build stage (Tom Waid was one as I recall). Some around 300 hours (non quick build) to covering.

I know of at least 5 that have built complete s20 wings to covering stage in 100-120 hours.

I also know that if you oder Laker leading edge, bottom false ribs and Speedster tail you will also spend more time there.

I don't think you could go wrong with either, as Papua says, it's more of which you want to fly when you're done.

Greg

[StuBob]

If I were really smart, I'd buy a flying airplane and build floats for it.

[Esser]

Stu, I think you hit the nail on the head. Build times for a plane already built are much shorter than a kit. I love building but there are times where I wish I had a plane flying faster than my schedule allows. Plus you are going to spend the same in the end on a kit you build yourself as an already flying specimen. You won't know the plane as well as some of us here but you have lots of help on the forum. Get your building itch scratched with building floats. I would have loved to build floats but I know I will never end up doing that once I have a flying plane. Goodluck!

[Bud Davidson]

Wow!!! I purely by chance have taken on the completion of a KF IV . Got a 912 instrument panel forward from a totaled KF. My earlier project completed in 1992 took 5 yrs and 6000 hrs. Built from plans. Had to hunt supplies. Used a Ford V 6 engine. Built amphib floats later which took 1000 hrs. Float kit from Montana floats which were excellent in all respects. Anyone wanting a good float kit, I recommend them. Flew that project 18 yrs and should have kept it.
But, this discussion has me really excited about completing and flying the Kit fox. Thanks for the encouragement.
Bud

[StuBob]

1000 hours to build the floats! Ack!!!

[WWhunter]

Stubob,
I have a set of the Murphy 1800 Amphibs, haven't done much on them but looking through the build manual, they look nearly as complex as building an airframe. Lot more to them than I guy thinks. Bulkheads, chines, pump outs, gear, etc. all add up to a lot of work.

[StuBob]

I guess that explains why they cost almost as much as an airplane, too.

I wonder about the Zenith and Full Lotus models.

[Esser]

MY buddy runs Full Lotus floats. If you are flying in rivers where you have rocky, shallow shores I think they are the best bet. They have an amphib flavour too. The new ones are a lot less draggy than the old.

[WWhunter]

I have a set of the Full Lotus amphibs (older style with the exposed type gear). The Full Lotus are definitely not for the guy that is worried about looks. I will be up front and mention that I have not yet mounted these floats on my plane. I bought them due to the price being right and the fact that living up here in the north country, the original owner told me they work great on snow and ice. Actually, he said they were the most fun he had for winter flying since they had better flotaion than skis when landing on the snow and 'really fun' on ice.
Hey, what else can a guy mount in regards to landing gear that will allow landing on nearly anything!

Water..check
land...check
snow...check
ice.....check

The retract gear definitely isn't made for rough field landings but my strip is pretty smooth so I think they will be a great addition for me.

[StuBob]

The Full Lotus straights and the old amphibs are apparently great on snow. But I've read that the new amphibs, with the mains retracting into wells, are more problematic, as snow can get packed into the wells.

Maybe so, maybe not, but it makes sense.....

BUT, Full Lotus are certainly one good way around 1000-hour build times.