Advice on buying Kitfox

[Horsefly]

I'm seriously thinking about getting a Kitfox because of it's STOL ability and the LSA category. It will be my first aircraft purchase and I sure would like advice from the pros, flyboys, and bushmen on this forum.

I want to hangar it on my farm where there is 900 ft. of open field on 1% slope.

I had been looking at Maules, but because of a "special issuance" on my medical and the high cost of testing every year for it, I thought it smarter to let my FAA medical expire when I turn 65 (148 days...not that I'm counting) and go with the LSA physical.

It's surprising that after 35 years as a pilot that I have almost no money to spend on a GA aircraft (had lots of fun though), so Kitfox fits my budget...mostly. Otherwise there will be no flying for me when they put me out to pasture ( did I mention it is in 148 days?)

Well, I'm sure looking forward to some Sage advice and I hope some of you will be happy to help.

[Timberwolf]

You must have been living under a rock recently. Google basic med and go buy the maule. Do not go back and get another medical. Go to your regular doctor and do the online portion and enjoy your rekindled love for aviation and having your own very capable aircraft.

[Bud Davidson]

Horsefly,
Love the name!!
You can in fact even avoid dealing with your local doctor. If you choose to fly a Kitfox.
Advice to not renew medical is critical.
I had a provisional which I got changed to a standard and I will fly on my driver's license in the future when I finish a Kitfox model IV 1200.
I too flew out of 900 ft with a J2. I then flew a bigger homebuilt.
Now, at 82, I am just finishing the Kitfox which really fits fun flying, short field and lowest possible operating cost, all necessary at this stage of my life. I have a thousand hours now in the Kitfox build I started last July.
Just west of you is Silver Wings Air Ranch where I Will be visiting next weekend. Would be happy to meet and discuss my approach to this phase of my flying.
I check this forum daily.
Bud

[Horsefly]

You must have been living under a rock recently. Google basic med and go buy the maule. Do not go back and get another medical. Go to your regular doctor and do the online portion and enjoy your rekindled love for aviation and having your own very capable aircraft.

Not a rock, but far from GA. I will not get another FAA medical and know how to download the basic med form when needed. But please correct me if I'm wrong, it's my understanding that a constant speed prop (on most Maules) does not qualify as an LSA.

Are you recommending a Maule over a Kitfox?

Thank you very much for your advice, as a newbie, I need it.

[Horsefly]

Horsefly,
Love the name!!
You can in fact even avoid dealing with your local doctor. If you choose to fly a Kitfox.
Advice to not renew medical is critical.
I had a provisional which I got changed to a standard and I will fly on my driver's license in the future when I finish a Kitfox model IV 1200.
I too flew out of 900 ft with a J2. I then flew a bigger homebuilt.
Now, at 82
I check this forum daily.
Bud

Bud,
Boy, I hope I'm alive at 82, much more, still flying. You're on. I'd love to chat.
990-0006

[David47]

Bud, like Horsefly, I'm blown away. Still building at 82 - now that's impressive !. I thought I was getting too old to start building in my very late 60's - you give me hope !

[Bud Davidson]

Horsefly,
One thought I should have mentioned. I recommend monitoring this forum site since the discussions cover an abundance of new ideas and solutions to challenges. I have learned as much just following discussions as I have actually assembling this aircraft... Unlike my earlier homebuilt experience.

I will post a note here when I get to Silver Wings... Should be Saturday.
Bud

[efwd]

Ground adjustable prop only. No Constant speed props for the LSA or I would have bought that too. :) Im hoping the Whirlwind prop is easily adjusted because I will use the climb setting mostly around home and Cruise setting when I want to go cross country.

[Timberwolf]

Horsefly you are confusing LSA and basic med. As long as you are flying an aircraft under a 6 seater and a few other limitations, you are covered. Basically this covers those senators with bonanzas that want to continue to fly as they age.

Constant speed is no longer a factor. Get the LSA idea out of your head as that will no longer be an issue for you, assuming you don't just have a sport pilots license. Since you were looking at Maules, I can assume that isn't the case.

The Kitfox has nothing on the maule as far as speed, load hauling, range, etc. All for just a bit more than a KF will cost you. The KF will take off short, but so will a light maule.

I'm not in the category of having to use basic med, but have many friends that are. I would hate to see you settle for an aircraft that is LSA and doesn't meet your intended mission when you don't have to. If you are an AOPA member it would behoove you to give them a call and get educated on what all the new system can offer a private pilot such as yourself. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of aircraft that are available that meet your mission that are much more capable than a KF.

[Paul Z]

82 damned I hope I make it to 72! I am starting to have my doubts I'll make it to 70!

[Bud Davidson]

All good advice. First establish , as suggested, the mission.
I used a ground adjustable IVO on my 4 place homebuilt and when it went on amphib I adjusted for the desirable power on take off. I will use an IVO with the Kitfox in hopes it serves me as well.
In nearly 20 years flying the homebuilt I only had one person ever in the back seat... Was usually occupied by my Lab.
The Kitfox has been a satisfying building experience and nearly as complex as my earlier plans built...its much better organized requiring way less design headaches.
Expect to be finished in September... But who knows??
Bud

[ppilotmike]

Basic med does not work for me. My "family" doc will not put her "John Henry" on any form that involves flying. I am very happy flying LSA because at my age and physical condition I no longer want or need to fly long distances. When I did I had a great Mooney M20C that did the job well. I love my little Kitfox for my current mission. Mike:)

[jwinner]

I went the basic med route even though I could easily get a third class. If one doc won't do it, I'm sure you can find one who will. I believe some of the AMEs are doing it too. This way I only have to go back every four years too.

I really like the LSA driver license medical just for less government red tape, so I was also looking at a kitfox 7ss. Very nice aircraft. I ended up deciding to go with a kit with too high of a gross to fall under those rules (rans s-21 outbound, 1800lbs)

Certified is nice, but I didn't want to pass up on the build experience, maintenance, and annual inspection benefits of an amateur built kit.

[av8rps]

While I have always liked Maules, I don't think they are really comparable to a Kitfox. Here's my short list why I think a Kitfox would be a superior recreational airplane for two people; (ok, maybe not a short list...)

- Purchase price will be much less if comparing apple to apples. In other words, don't compare a new Kitfox to an old Maule. A new Kitfox will be less than a new Maule, and a used Kitfox will generally be less money than a used Maule. And don't kid yourself, the $50,000 used Maule is likely to need some work. Plan on more like $80,000 to get a decent one. By comparison, a 50K used Kitfox is likely to be a nice airplane that isn't likely to need any big dollar repairs anytime soon.

- Operational costs between a Kitfox and a Maule are for sure apples and oranges. I own a certified factory built aircraft in addition to my Kitfox, and the cost to maintain it is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than maintaining my Kitfox. And when you own a factory built aircraft you will learn to hate checking your mail, as when they send those nice little mandatory "Airworthiness Directives" you know it's going to be a lot of money for something that probably doesn't even need to be done. I once paid 10 grand for a 4 pound box of bolts and 8 short pieces of 4130 strapping to comply with a "wing spar reinforcement" that even the chief engineer of the company said wasn't needed on my airplane. But unfortunately, the FAA decided to include every model in the AD, whether it was needed or not. And the odd thing is that most of us were happy to pay 10k for a box of bolts, as the first idea the company and the FAA had was to replace both of the wings, at $130,000 EACH! Another example, the engine has had 5 AD's for the oil pump gears to be replaced, each time using a different combination of gear materials, only to end up with generally the same set up the engine came with. And that engine is known as one of the most reliable, bulletproof in the industry. Just pay attention to classified ads for the factory built planes "Crank AD complied", "Prop AD complied", "Tail reinforcement AD done", etc, etc. Owners spend a lot of money, and time on AD's. You will never get a mandatory AD on a Kitfox experimental as that doesn't exist since you are the manufacturer. You will get service bulletins, but compliance is at your discretion (and hopefully good common sense). And if you built the plane yourself, it typically is not a huge deal as you can do it yourself and save labor costs.

- While an average stock Maule will operate out of a 900 ft field, if there are any obstructions the pucker factor will be high. 900 ft with obstructions will not be great in a Kitfox either, but the pucker factor will be a lot less for sure. There is no question that an average Kitfox will go in and out of a smaller place than an average Maule. It's really pretty simple, the Maule has a lot more speed and inertia than the Kitfox, so it needs more room. I used to fly a very light Avid Flyer (predecessor to Kitfox) out of a 300 ft model airplane runway on my dads farm for years (with two people many times), and not once was it a big deal. My buddy that owns an early and light 180 Cessna always said he was going to do it just to show me he could go in and out as easily as I could, but after flying a few approaches he forfeited our bet, admitting it was too tight.

- I fly my Kitfox 912 powered amphib currently for around $10 an hour in fuel. I would anticipate a Maule will burn 5 to 6 times that, or more. Mess up a prop on a Maule? Expect to spend 8-10k to fix that problem (assuming you didn't also damage the crankshaft, that would be another 15-25K). A NEW prop for a Kitfox would be anywhere from $700 to 3k depending on how fancy you want to get. And assuming it was a 912, a prop strike is not likely to damage the crankshaft, but you may need to go through the gear box for probably 2-3k.

- Storage? I can fit 3 or 4 Kitfoxes in a standard hangar with the wings folded. Heck, I don't even need a hangar. A garage or an enclosed trailer works. Anticipate 15 minute for getting her ready to fly, and you are good to go. Storage area not an issue? Well let me tell you, if you ever have a breakdown somewhere it is a pretty handy option to know you can haul it home on a U-Haul trailer if you need to (you can haul a Maule home if you take it all apart, but you won't have it ready to trailer in 15 minutes). Oh, and traveling with your folded wing Kitfox behind your motorhome is a blast. Nothing like discovering the country with your plane and your camper.

- LSA vs the new Medical option; Unless you need more seats, or have a high desire to go really fast, the LSA option is pretty hard to beat. As long as you have a drivers license you are good to go. No red tape or strings attached. Want a 1550 lb gross weight Kitfox? Well then you will need to do the new medical, as it exceeds the LSA max flying weight. But at least you will have all the other benefits of a Kitfox yet.

- Versatility; My 80 hp Kitfox amphib is a blast. I commonly fly with friends that have Husky amphibs, which can easily hit 400k to obtain new, and $150k for an older used one (that incidentally can't legally haul two people, as typically will only have a 380 lb useful load, but burns 60 lbs of fuel an hour). I put my Kitfox amphib together by buying a project and finding a used set of floats. So I have a whole 25k in it with a bunch of sweat equity (although realistically it is probably worth twice that today?) and I can do everything their Husky's can, on less than half the fuel. And I beat them off the water so bad it is embarrassing to them (so I don't do that anymore). Oh, and just imagine if I put 4 grand and an afternoon worth of effort to put a Zipper kit into my 912 to increase the horsepower by 35%! Then I'd have a real rocketship. With all that said, find another airplane that can do what my little 80 hp Kitfox can do. You'll be hard pressed to even come close. And of course you can put amphibs on a Maule, but you will need something like an M6 - 260 to make it perform on amphibs. And you won't find one of them for 50k. The floats alone are likely to cost that much.

I could go on and on why I think the Kitfox is such a great personal aircraft, but I think you get the drift. And hey, I'm not bashing the Maule, as I said earlier I like Maules. But the hassles associated with owning another factory built aircraft is likely to keep me from ever owning one. For the pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox is truly a premium aircraft.

And the low costs associated with operating a Kitfox is one of the things I like best. You can go out for 3 or 4 hours of flying and only burn 10 to 15 gallons of fuel, so you'll never have to feel guilty for draining the family's funds a couple hundred dollars every time you go out.

There's a reason the GA crowd refers to their flying as the $100 hamburger... and today it is more like the $200 hamburger. But in a Kitfox, the hamburger is more like $25 :)

[Timberwolf]

Owners spend a lot of money, and time on AD's. You will never get a mandatory AD on a Kitfox experimental as that doesn't exist since you are the manufacturer. You will get service bulletins, but compliance is at your discretion (and hopefully good common sense).


Have to disagree with you here. Look up the Navworx AD for experimental aircraft. I'm in the process of getting bent over by the FAA on this one for adopting adsb early. Last time I will ever do that.

I do agree with you on most of the other points, but to me there are a bunch more aircraft out there with much more utility than a kit fox with a much lower price point. $50-70k for a newer KF is crazy to me for a tube and fabric 100 mph aircraft. I recently bought an IFR rv-6 with a new IO-360 angle valve and hartzell constant speed for less. Mission will ultimately drive the decision, but I would rather have an aircraft that is cheaper and able to accomplish my primary mission as well as have plenty of other utility when I need it. To me the KF is limited to cruising around the patch in the evening when winds are fairly calm and limited to one passenger, at best. At least with a rans with tandem seating 2 adults can fit in comfortably.

If you want to see a maule that outperforms a KF in all arenas look up Greg Swingle. Big rocks and long props.

So back to the OP what is your mission outside of operating from a 900' strip?

[AirFox]

What are you talking about? Get some experience with a Kitfox in the "Greg Swingle arena" You might revise your opinion. Nuts!!!

[av8rps]

From Timberwolf; "I Have to disagree with you here. Look up the Navworx AD for experimental aircraft. I'm in the process of getting bent over by the FAA on this one for adopting adsb early. Last time I will ever do that"

I have to admit that I was not aware of that Navworx AD. But it is apparent that the FAA may have gone off the deep end on this one, as it is not at all common to have an AD be mandated for an experimental aircraft. Imho this is a classic case of the FAA overstepping their bounds. And while I can understand them wanting properly functioning ADSB units, they shouldn't be going off willy nilly with new rules they just make up. Things like that should really concern all of us experimental fans, as them making an AD apply to experimentals in this case is the equivalent to allowing the camel to put his nose under the tent...not good.

But hey, thanks for that info as I know a bunch of good people at the FAA and I'm going to "express my opinion" on this issue. It is still America after all.

[Tom Waid]

From the AD

"The FAA has chosen to minimize regulations on experimental aircraft because of the level of the safety risk, these risks normally apply to the individual airplane and do not affect the overall NAS. The safety risks defined in this AD extend beyond one aircraft and could affect many other aircraft as well as ATC. Therefore, we find it necessary to include experimental aircraft in the AD's applicability."

This is the FAA's reason for applying this AD to experimental aircraft. If navworx doesn't come up with a solution I'm stuck with a $1,700 piece of junk.

We might want to create a new navworx thread.

[Slyfox]

ok, a maule being different then a kitfox to fly. boy, I needed to do some flying in a maule, oh a big one, next to a kitfox. that baby was pretty tame. not as quick on the controls, but I did it real nice. In fact I did very good. operating cost of a kitfox, can't be beat. but if I put my rv7 down to the speed of the kitfox, mine does 120mph. the rv7 will burn way less fuel. which airplane do I like to fly. I've said it before, whatever hangar I go into at the time. :D I personally can't do without either one.
whenever you build a plane, it will cost a fortune. If you can buy a nice kitfox, do it. What you need to do is figure out what YOU want and go for it. forget this or that and just do it. If your size is an issue then go to a big flyin like OSH and see them, sit in them. try them out for you. then decide.

Now as far as ADSB. that's an electronic thing. always, always, always wait on buying something. let them get the bugs out and also for the PRICE and OPTIONS to be better. After all the standard transponder is still working and there is 3 more years. A whole bunch is going to come out between now and then. This kid is going to wait. nuff said.

[efwd]

Wow Timberwolf. Your one person spin around the patch in calm air comment probably resonates loudly with some folks here. How's Two people with gear from Idaho to the Bahamas fit that? Or across the Australian continent with two people and gear.

[avidflyer]

Just looked at the AD myself. Got a laugh out of the Cost of Complyence part. They list the cost as being approximately 1 hr labor or on average $85 to remove the part. I guess the cost of the original unit or the cost of a new unit to replace it doesn't factor in. JImChuk

[Esser]

To me the KF is limited to cruising around the patch in the evening when winds are fairly calm and limited to one passenger, at best.


Not trying to offend anyone, but this might be the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this website.

[David47]

I'm with Eddie and Josh. The capability of the KF go way beyond a spin round the block on a calm evening. Perhaps read the "where I fly" posts.

[Timberwolf]

Not trying to offend anyone, but this might be the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this website.

I'll buy that. That was really aimed more at the earlier KF versions pre -IV based on my own opinion of price vs value and what I personally would be willing to spend on a 2 place tube and fabric aircraft. People have flown ultralights all over the place. Doable? Sure. Practical? Hardly. No I'm not comparing the SS7 to an ultralight...again...earlier versions.

The newer KF's are nice planes, don't get me wrong. For me, the same amount of money will buy a lot of other aircraft that will take off from a 900' strip and offer more performance and features. Either way, my opinion is KF's are overpriced for what they are. I just think the OP is doing himself a disservice if he doesn't expand and look at all the options available, both LSA and basic med.

Also misspoke earlier, Greg Miller, not Swingle in his Maule

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQkdtHM-w7I

[bogmonster]

Have to disagree with you here. Look up the Navworx AD for experimental aircraft. I'm in the process of getting bent over by the FAA on this one for adopting adsb early. Last time I will ever do that.


I think all you have to do is add an approved waas gps source. Have you looked at uavionix. They have a waas gps source for $400 and it weighs almost 2 oz.

[rosslr]

HI Timberwolf,

As you can see, we Kitfox owners are pretty passionate about these aircraft!

I note your comment about what you would be prepared to pay for a tube and fabric aircraft. I cant help but think you see tube and fabric as being some how lesser than an all metal aircraft (?). I might be wrong on this but I used to have a Mooney M20J and also had a bit of 'Prejudice' about tube and fabric - but not now - I understand the wonderful weight savings it provides and doesn't detract from any airworthiness that I am aware of??? I have flown our KF7 some pretty long distances in Australia with 2 up, full fuel and about 65kg of camping gear. Landed in some pretty remote off field places. All good, but only at about 95-100kts - but then again, using about 16-17lt of unleaded an hour. I have also flown a KF model 4 across Australia and would agree it is smaller, slower and able to carry less - but still very doable. My plane owes me about $80K (Aust) not including my labour of course - and I consider this exceptional value for a new aircraft with a new style, fully FADEC engine, constant speed prop, bush capable (big tyres and strong undercarriage) and the best compromise between speed and bush capability and value that I could find. And then there is the ability to do your own maintenance - that is a great saving!!

You are right though, it all comes down to your mission. But I would strongly suggest you examine the source of any prejudice you may have towards tube and fabric, and if in any doubt about the performance of the KF7, invest a few dollars and go fly with STick and Rudder for a few hors in the Idaho back country - that will give you a very good idea of what they will do.

Best wishes

ross

[Slyfox]

Not trying to offend anyone, but this might be the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this website.

I guess that depends a lot on the pilots experience level. yes they are a joy to fly when it's calm out, what aircraft isn't. I've been out in real windy conditions, like 25mph. with a healthy cross. I personally did just fine. so maybe this person is talking on personal experience. yup, that's what it is.

[Slyfox]

HI Timberwolf,

As you can see, we Kitfox owners are pretty passionate about these aircraft!

I note your comment about what you would be prepared to pay for a tube and fabric aircraft. I cant help but think you see tube and fabric as being some how lesser than an all metal aircraft (?). I might be wrong on this but I used to have a Mooney M20J and also had a bit of 'Prejudice' about tube and fabric - but not now - I understand the wonderful weight savings it provides and doesn't detract from any airworthiness that I am aware of??? I have flown our KF7 some pretty long distances in Australia with 2 up, full fuel and about 65kg of camping gear. Landed in some pretty remote off field places. All good, but only at about 95-100kts - but then again, using about 16-17lt of unleaded an hour. I have also flown a KF model 4 across Australia and would agree it is smaller, slower and able to carry less - but still very doable. My plane owes me about $80K (Aust) not including my labour of course - and I consider this exceptional value for a new aircraft with a new style, fully FADEC engine, constant speed prop, bush capable (big tyres and strong undercarriage) and the best compromise between speed and bush capability and value that I could find. And then there is the ability to do your own maintenance - that is a great saving!!

You are right though, it all comes down to your mission. But I would strongly suggest you examine the source of any prejudice you may have towards tube and fabric, and if in any doubt about the performance of the KF7, invest a few dollars and go fly with STick and Rudder for a few hors in the Idaho back country - that will give you a very good idea of what they will do.

Best wishes

ross

Ok, what about the carbon cub. that's a rag plane also and that's like a 250k plane. I've read where people are doing mods to that and the cost is up to like 300k or more.

[av8rps]

I can appreciate Timberwolfs view, as there's a valid reason the Vans RV design is so popular. It makes for a very nice, practical 2 seat recreational aircraft. It goes reasonably fast yet can still go into many grass strips, and is capable of some mild acro. And it is very cost effective with a great bang for the buck value. Especially if you buy one used, as the market is usually flooded due to the popularity of the design.

And while the cost to build a new Kitfox and an RV are going to be somewhat similar, the comparison pretty much ends there. Yes, the Kitfox is a lot slower. But the Kitfox can go into places you could never take an RV-6.

And the Kitfox makes for a wonderful 2 seat seaplane. Even when put on heavy amphibious floats and have only 80 hp. The RV has been put on floats a handful of times, but you rarely see one as most of the seaplane crowd has learned that the wing area js just too small, resulting in a horrible performing seaplane.

And then there is the load carrying capability. According to factory specs, a Kitfox 7 will haul 105% of what it weighs empty. Ok, how about some real numbers...My earlier lower gross Model 4 will easily and legally carry 90% of its empty weight. Specs from the factory on the RV-6 show it can haul 65% of its empty weight, which isn't bad. But the 90% to 105% load carrying capacity of the Kitfox is 50% + better when you compare the Kitfox to the Rv.

And that's only one of the benefits of tube and fabric construction. The other is crash-worthiness. Note that Nascar racers surround the driver with a chromoly steel tube structure so they can survive hitting things at 200 mph. They do not build their cars structure from riveted aluminum sheet.

Ok, so the RV is a reasonable acro airplane. But so is a Kitfox. Youtube "Kitfox aerobatics" and watch a bone stock 80 hp Kitfox fly an acro routine at an airshow. No, its not a 300 hp Pitts, but then again neither is the RV.

I really don't mean to be bashing other airplanes, just making a comparison of two of the worlds favorite homebuilts. I agree completely with the comments from other posters about picking the right plane for the mission you choose. My mission is quite different than many others, so for my mission my Kitfox does most everything I want it to do. Granted, I'd love to find an amphib that can cruise like a Glasair, have a weight haul ratio like a Kitfox, be at least as aerobatic as an Extra 300, go 2,000 miles on 50 gallons of fuel, and can be bought for under 50k. But thus far I've not found anything even close.

So to meet most of my mission, I fly a Kitfox, a Lake Amphib, and will probably add a Glasair 3 to the mix one day. Or maybe an RV-6 or 7 ;)

[Horsefly]

Av8rps,

Thanks

[Horsefly]

While I have always liked Maules, I don't think they are really comparable to a Kitfox. Here's my short list why I think a Kitfox would be a superior recreational airplane for two people; (ok, maybe not a short list...)

Thanks so much. Great detail, it's like you know what I'm thinking. You explained things very well.

I'm pretty sure that a used Kitfox is going to do the trick. I've got a good field, don't have anyplace far off to travel to, not a lot of money, no desire to visit B,C, or D airspace. Steam gauges are fine. Basic med, or no med (LSA) is fine. I have a first class now with a special waiver that I believe the Feds will want me to maintain even with a third class. Basic med looks real easy and have already checked with my family physician.

I've got no desire to build at this time, but might change my mind in a year or two when things slow down. A used Kitfox fits me just fine, but there is a lot to know about homebuilts that I'm not up to speed on. I like the specs on the 912 engine and don't think much of some of other exotic motors I see in Trade a plane and Barnstormer.

I think I'm going to take the course up in Idaho soon. Has anybody done this? I haven't flown a tail dragged since 1984 and that one grossed at 48K, I flew with an instructor in a 172 last year, and other than that, commercial jets for the last 30 years.

Kitfox looks real good for keeping my hand in flying without breaking the bank.

Again, thanks for the great detail in your post.

[av8rps]

snip, snip... If you want to see a maule that outperforms a KF in all arenas look up Greg Swingle. Big rocks and long props

I would agree that is a very good performing Maule. But it is probably the most modified Maule in the history of the design. I've seen it in a lot of videos, and it is pretty amazing. But I also think much of its performance can be attributed to a pretty exceptional pilot. Greg is one hell of a pilot imho.

And while I do think Greg's highly modified Maule (Bushwacker) would give a standard Kitfox a good run for its money, they aren't as far apart in performance as you may think. Especially if you put a highly skilled pilot like Greg in the Kitfox. And if you modified a Kitfox to lighten it up like Greg did the Bushwacker, and then you put a 115 hp Rotax 914 in it, performance wise the 914 Super Sport would surpass the Maule in most every area. Of course, the Maule will haul more weight, but only 175 lbs more. And since the Rotax burns less than half the fuel of the 180 hp Lycoming, you will save 120 lbs of fuel in a 4 hour flight. So now the actual weight carrying difference is down to a very minimal 55 lbs.

Some might think this pretty "Ballsy", but let's compare that highly modified 180 hp Maule against a stock Kitfox Super Sport with a standard Rotax 912s of 100 hp. I copied the Bushwackers specs from an article about Greg Miller building it. Note that I put the Kitfox SS standard specs behind those of the Bushwacker.

Bushwacker Specs:

Powerplant Lycoming H0-360 C1A 180hp (Kitfox SS - 100 hp 912 Rotax)
Prop McCauley 90" length /33" pitch (Kitfox SS - 72" 3 blade typical)
Stall Speed (dirty) 37 (Kitfox SS - stall 37)
Cruise Speed ~95 mph @ 2500 rpm (Kitfox SS - 120 mph)
Top Speed 102 mph @ 2700 rpm (Kitfox SS - 125 mph)
Rate of Climb ~1200-1500 fpm@ sea level (Kitfox SS - 1200 fpm SL)
Takeoff distance 125' (1/2 fuel, pilot, a few extras) (Kitfox SS - 290')
Takeoff Over 50' obstacle ~250-300' (Kitfox SS? Similar)
Landing distance 150' or less...way less with water (Kitfox SS - 270')
Fuel Capacity 42 gal - Range 380 miles (Kitfox SS - 27 gal/612 miles)
Wingspan 33' 8" (Kitfox SS - 32')
Wing Area ~165.6 sq feet (Kitfox SS - 132')
Gross Weight 2300lbs (Kitfox SS 1550 lbs)
Empty Weight 1325lbs (Kitfox SS 750 lbs))
Max Useful Load 975lbs (73% of Empty Weight) (Kitfox SS- 800 lbs. 107% of Empty Weight So Kitfox SS can haul 82% of what Bushwacker can! )

Mods/Extras:


Maule M5 fuselage (powder coated)
Maule M7 wings - wingspan 33'-8"
126" Flaps
Maule M7 rudder
Stock horizontal stabilizer and elevator
Titanium Firewall and egress tunnel
Custom carbon fiber cowwl by Maule Mods
.080 AR5000 windows (except windscreen)
Sky light
Metal Belly
Extended baggage
Fieberglass/nomex-core floor boards
Gar Aero tailwheel
Baby Bushwheel with 1 3/4 spring
Vortex Generators
Light-weight alternator
Becker Com
Airtech paint C102 fabric


So we learned the Kitfox SS is 23 mph faster than the Bushwacker in standard configuration. Of course, to be fair you need to equip the Kitfox with some big draggy tires, so lets just say the Kitfox is only 10 mph faster. The stall and climb is about the same between the two planes. The Bushwacker shows a slightly shorter takeoff and landing distance, but that is probably the largest difference in the two planes. But to be fair to the Kitfox, if you are concerned about improving T/O and Landing distances we should equip it with the new Kitfox STI wing that is designed for even more improved STOL. Then I'm sure the T/O and landing distances would be closer. But then the Kitfox would really accel in the climb, probably climbing 300+ fpm better than the Bushwacker. And of course if you lightened and modified the Kitfox similarly to what was done to the Bushwacker, and then put the 914 Rotax (or better, the 140 hp custom 914), the Kitfox would blow the numbers through the roof.

I know these are specs vs specs, but I think it does a pretty good job of showing that a Kitfox CAN holds its own against the most highly modified and famous Maule in the world. That says a lot in my opinion. And remember, the Kitfox is doing that on about 1/2 the fuel per hour.

So how is that even possible? It is actually quite simple. Just do an empty weight wing and power loading comparison of the two airplanes and you will see the Kitfox actually has the same horsepower to weight number as the Bushwacker, and a wing loading number that is 30+% less. Numbers don't lie. It's just that simple.

For most then, the only reason to own the Maule in my opinion is that you need more cubic feet of space, and/or more seats. Or maybe you just like Maules? And that is perfectly ok, and understandable to me as I like them too. I just like the Kitfox more...

On a final note, Greg Miller has a very, very cool Maule. But I doubt very much that you could build that plane again. The FAA will not allow people to modify a factory built airplane like that anymore, converting it to an experimental certificate (look it up, there's a lot of discussion on that subject). You'd have to build it from scratch without using Maule parts. And if you did so with new parts and materials, I'm pretty sure you'd have at least double the cost of new Kitfox in it. There's a reason a Carbon Cub brings 200k+.

Here's the link to a very good article about Greg Millers highly modified Maule affectionately named Bushwacker;

www.shortfield.com/31-articles/pilotsandplanes/29-bushwacker (http://www.shortfield.com/31-articles/pilotsandplanes/29-bushwacker) (Scroll down the page once the home page opens to read article)

[TY2068]

"I want to hangar it on my farm where there is 900 ft. of open field on 1% slope."

I'm curious about your proposed 900' farm strip. What's on the approach ends ?

[Horsefly]

"I want to hangar it on my farm where there is 900 ft. of open field on 1% slope."

I'm curious about your proposed 900' farm strip. What's on the approach ends ?

Two choices actually. One is flat and 1100 ft. Over 35 ft trees, But far from house, barn, and would need a hangar. The other, a clear approach over neighbors cows, then across an 8 ft. game fence, then uphill to barn and shipping containers. Anybody keep their kit fox in a shipping container?

Prevailing wind will be quartering tail wind for downhill takeoff (5 to 8 mph). The second choice will have to share the field with livestock, but I can easy mark out 75x900 strip with electric fence to keep them out and open it a few times a year for grazing. Also there is an airport 6 miles away (T-82).

[Av8r3400]

If you want to see a maule that outperforms a KF in all arenas look up Greg Swingle. Big rocks and long props.

Greg Swingle flies a Rans S7 of the Ohio Bush Planes group. Link (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSgIDq-jhb-sBp7hqeTS3sA)

Youre thinking of Greg Miller. Link (https://youtu.be/MQkdtHM-w7I)

[TY2068]

Well no "Sage" advice here as I'm low time in my Kitfox IV. I will however say that I personally wouldn't want to try either of those mentioned options at my low skill level. 1100' strip with 35' tall trees to clear on approach, no thanks. Now I'm sure some guys here scoff at this and can land on a piece of fly paper and make it stick. I however haven't been able to land and stop shorter than around 300' and that's only over a 4' fence. What looks doable on the ground will not look so doable from the air. A 900' "box canyon" strip terminating at a barn would scare the heck out of me as soon as my nose was pointed at it.

[av8rps]

Thanks so much. Great detail, it's like you know what I'm thinking. You explained things very well.

I'm pretty sure that a used Kitfox is going to do the trick. I've got a good field, don't have anyplace far off to travel (snip snip)

I think I'm going to take the course up in Idaho soon. Has anybody done this? Snip snip

Kitfox looks real good for keeping my hand in flying without breaking the bank.

Again, thanks for the great detail in your post.

I'm glad my ramblings helped. I do think a Kitfox would be a good fit for you, but it would be great if you could do some training with Stick and Rudder as that would not only be a great time, but that would tell you if a Kitfox is really what you want.

And hey, I do think Timberwolf made some good points about other potential choices. I like the planes he suggested and wouldn't mind owning any of them. In fact I kind of see the Kitfox as the LSA version of a Maule, as they share a lot of the same capabilities. But thus far my Kitfox satisfies my needs, and I'm saving a bunch of money all while having a blast with it... for the last 3 decades ;).

[tjentzsch]

While I have always liked Maules, I don't think they are really comparable to a Kitfox. Here's my short list why I think a Kitfox would be a superior recreational airplane for two people; (ok, maybe not a short list...)

- Purchase price will be much less if comparing apple to apples. In other words, don't compare a new Kitfox to an old Maule. A new Kitfox will be less than a new Maule, and a used Kitfox will generally be less money than a used Maule. And don't kid yourself, the $50,000 used Maule is likely to need some work. Plan on more like $80,000 to get a decent one. By comparison, a 50K used Kitfox is likely to be a nice airplane that isn't likely to need any big dollar repairs anytime soon.

- Operational costs between a Kitfox and a Maule are for sure apples and oranges. I own a certified factory built aircraft in addition to my Kitfox, and the cost to maintain it is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than maintaining my Kitfox. And when you own a factory built aircraft you will learn to hate checking your mail, as when they send those nice little mandatory "Airworthiness Directives" you know it's going to be a lot of money for something that probably doesn't even need to be done. I once paid 10 grand for a 4 pound box of bolts and 8 short pieces of 4130 strapping to comply with a "wing spar reinforcement" that even the chief engineer of the company said wasn't needed on my airplane. But unfortunately, the FAA decided to include every model in the AD, whether it was needed or not. And the odd thing is that most of us were happy to pay 10k for a box of bolts, as the first idea the company and the FAA had was to replace both of the wings, at $130,000 EACH! Another example, the engine has had 5 AD's for the oil pump gears to be replaced, each time using a different combination of gear materials, only to end up with generally the same set up the engine came with. And that engine is known as one of the most reliable, bulletproof in the industry. Just pay attention to classified ads for the factory built planes "Crank AD complied", "Prop AD complied", "Tail reinforcement AD done", etc, etc. Owners spend a lot of money, and time on AD's. You will never get a mandatory AD on a Kitfox experimental as that doesn't exist since you are the manufacturer. You will get service bulletins, but compliance is at your discretion (and hopefully good common sense). And if you built the plane yourself, it typically is not a huge deal as you can do it yourself and save labor costs.

- While an average stock Maule will operate out of a 900 ft field, if there are any obstructions the pucker factor will be high. 900 ft with obstructions will not be great in a Kitfox either, but the pucker factor will be a lot less for sure. There is no question that an average Kitfox will go in and out of a smaller place than an average Maule. It's really pretty simple, the Maule has a lot more speed and inertia than the Kitfox, so it needs more room. I used to fly a very light Avid Flyer (predecessor to Kitfox) out of a 300 ft model airplane runway on my dads farm for years (with two people many times), and not once was it a big deal. My buddy that owns an early and light 180 Cessna always said he was going to do it just to show me he could go in and out as easily as I could, but after flying a few approaches he forfeited our bet, admitting it was too tight.

- I fly my Kitfox 912 powered amphib currently for around $10 an hour in fuel. I would anticipate a Maule will burn 5 to 6 times that, or more. Mess up a prop on a Maule? Expect to spend 8-10k to fix that problem (assuming you didn't also damage the crankshaft, that would be another 15-25K). A NEW prop for a Kitfox would be anywhere from $700 to 3k depending on how fancy you want to get. And assuming it was a 912, a prop strike is not likely to damage the crankshaft, but you may need to go through the gear box for probably 2-3k.

- Storage? I can fit 3 or 4 Kitfoxes in a standard hangar with the wings folded. Heck, I don't even need a hangar. A garage or an enclosed trailer works. Anticipate 15 minute for getting her ready to fly, and you are good to go. Storage area not an issue? Well let me tell you, if you ever have a breakdown somewhere it is a pretty handy option to know you can haul it home on a U-Haul trailer if you need to (you can haul a Maule home if you take it all apart, but you won't have it ready to trailer in 15 minutes). Oh, and traveling with your folded wing Kitfox behind your motorhome is a blast. Nothing like discovering the country with your plane and your camper.

- LSA vs the new Medical option; Unless you need more seats, or have a high desire to go really fast, the LSA option is pretty hard to beat. As long as you have a drivers license you are good to go. No red tape or strings attached. Want a 1550 lb gross weight Kitfox? Well then you will need to do the new medical, as it exceeds the LSA max flying weight. But at least you will have all the other benefits of a Kitfox yet.

- Versatility; My 80 hp Kitfox amphib is a blast. I commonly fly with friends that have Husky amphibs, which can easily hit 400k to obtain new, and $150k for an older used one (that incidentally can't legally haul two people, as typically will only have a 380 lb useful load, but burns 60 lbs of fuel an hour). I put my Kitfox amphib together by buying a project and finding a used set of floats. So I have a whole 25k in it with a bunch of sweat equity (although realistically it is probably worth twice that today?) and I can do everything their Husky's can, on less than half the fuel. And I beat them off the water so bad it is embarrassing to them (so I don't do that anymore). Oh, and just imagine if I put 4 grand and an afternoon worth of effort to put a Zipper kit into my 912 to increase the horsepower by 35%! Then I'd have a real rocketship. With all that said, find another airplane that can do what my little 80 hp Kitfox can do. You'll be hard pressed to even come close. And of course you can put amphibs on a Maule, but you will need something like an M6 - 260 to make it perform on amphibs. And you won't find one of them for 50k. The floats alone are likely to cost that much.

I could go on and on why I think the Kitfox is such a great personal aircraft, but I think you get the drift. And hey, I'm not bashing the Maule, as I said earlier I like Maules. But the hassles associated with owning another factory built aircraft is likely to keep me from ever owning one. For the pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox is truly a premium aircraft.

And the low costs associated with operating a Kitfox is one of the things I like best. You can go out for 3 or 4 hours of flying and only burn 10 to 15 gallons of fuel, so you'll never have to feel guilty for draining the family's funds a couple hundred dollars every time you go out.

There's a reason the GA crowd refers to their flying as the $100 hamburger... and today it is more like the $200 hamburger. But in a Kitfox, the hamburger is more like $25 :)

These are the reasons exactly why a KF feels like a perfect fit for me.
I love the folding wings ( males storing so easy)
I love the operating cost
I love the side-by-side seating
Power is not a huge issue for me as I will be new to flying and the ease or operation on the KF seems to fit the bill nicely.
Plus, building it "sounds" fun now but Im sure there will be some SOB moments when I will want to throw the darn thing away.

For a first time aviator, the KF seems to check all the boxes for me. Now I just need to figure out logistics to build her and get a loan :)