Some Kitfox Questions

[Flienlow]

NOTE: When speaking of a Kitfox, I am referring to a new Kitfox S7.

I feel I would like a plane that can Morph from Trike, to Tail, to floats. The only 2 planes I know of that can do that are the Kitfox, and the Glasair Sportsman. They both have folding wings too which is a huge win as well.

I will admit the thought of building my own airplane is both over whelming and terrifying to me.

1.Where is the happy medium on investment with the Kitfox? It seems to me the might as well clause would take over real quick the closer you approach 70K. In other words, I may be better suited to buy a used C-182 or the like for the money. And no, it would not be a float plane, Tail Dragger, or be able to fold its wings. It would have stable depreciation, Be IFR equipped, and haul 3-4 people though?

2.Can the Kitfox be turned into a realistic float plane that would haul 2-200+lb guys up fishing, or is that just fantasy?

3.Suggestion for engine package for eventual float flying (if feasible?)

4.What would be the best bang for the buck as far as a flight panel goes? Would a Dynon Skyview system be worth it in this plane, or should one just stick the basic VFR flight instruments for a plane like this? Note: I just went to visit Dynon today in Woodinville, WA. Nice stuff there.

5. How difficult is fabric covering an airplane? I was looking on the KF site, and the directions look vague at best.

6. What is the general opinion on building with a Non standard Power plant such as a Viking Engine?

7. Aside from the Kit, Engine, and avionics is there any other huge expenses that will raise eyebrows from the wife?

8. For those that have built, please name 1-2 things that caught you off guard/ by surprise?

9. For those that have built, would you endeavor to do it again?

Thank you for taking to the time to read!

[rosslr]

HI Flienlow,

I will have a go at responding to your questions.

First, good for you for thinking aircraft ownership through. It is a big step and I think the type of Q's you are asking are a good start - but my advice is not to rush it. Without wanting to sound patronising, I think your Q's indicate that you are in the early stages of exploring your possible aircraft ownership options - particularly those options in the experimental and LSA categories. To be considering the Kitfox SS7, Glassair Sportsman and the likes of C182 indicates to me that you need spend some time clarifying 2 important issues: Your mission and your budget. No one aircraft will do it all.

I will make the following comments in response to your Qs in the hope of helping your decision making process:

Q1: Happy medium? I think the majority of KF owners/builders look at their investment as a long term investment in providing them with affordable, highly capable and fun and safe flying. I agree that spending $70k on a C182 would provide you with 'stable depreciation'! You will find that most Kitfox SS7 aircraft are tightly held for a good reason - they are a very capable aircraft and affordable to run. Many of us have owned and operated Cessnas, Pipers, Mooneys and Beechcraft but have chosen to leave behind that type of aircraft and the flying they provide.

Q2: Others will testify on this one.

Q3: See Q2 response.

Q4: Keep it simple and there are heaps of feature packed and cheap (relative to certified aircraft) modern panel option - this should not be a big issue for you at this stage.

Q5: Fabric covering is not hard and most people report it as being enjoyable.

Q6: Viking? Don't do it - stick to the well supported factory FWF packs. (But hen again, if you are really and experimenter....)And you have the options of some great modern engine packages - see latest Kitplanes Magazine review of available engines.

Q7: I don't know your wife and what makes her raise her eyebrows.

Q8: The great level of willing support from this site and the factory.

Q9: Wouldn't hesitate. And it would be much quicker.

Again, take your time, go and visit a few Kitfox owners, the factory, take a flight for a few hours with Stick and Rudder - this will inform you if this type of aircraft and flying is for you - if not, you get to stick with Cessnas.

Good luck and enjoy the process.

cheers

ross

[David47]

The only thing I would add to Ross's extensive and excellent comments relates to item 7. The propellor could be a large cost if you go for an inflight adjustable or especially a constant speed (electronic). That'll set you back around $7k or so. As per Ross' comment, don't know your wife but this cost might raise her voice a little ....

[aviator79]

I'm very early in the build, so I can't address all of your questions, but I would like to speak to a few.

1.) The acquisition costs are a secondary or tertiary consideration here. It is much, much more expensive to own and operate a C182 than a Kitfox. I'm in a club that operates a C177. Do you know how much a tail tiedown "eyebolt" costs for a C177? I do. $900. No joke. I knew certified planes were expensive to maintain, but I had no idea how expensive until I owned part of one. And if you buy a 70s vintage 182, even a well-cared-for one, it's still a 40 year old airplane. Things will break, you won't be allowed to do the repairs yourself, and the parts will be costly. You'll have six cylinders to maintain, overhaul, and feed with gas. Now, if you want a 4 place with IFR capability, then maybe those expenses are worth it, but you should be honest about what 80% of your flying will look like. $100 hamburgers or serious cross-country travel? If you need an IFR 4 place occasionally, can you fly your Kitfox over to an FBO to rent a 182? My point is that both the flying and ownership experiences are wildly different between these two airplanes. A $70k Kitfox vs a $70k 182 is not an apples to apples comparison in any sense except purchase price.

4.)Dynon Skyview IS a simple VFR flight system. Unless you have a nostalgic connection to "steam gauges", these affordable, modern avionics are one of the big advantages to experimental vs certified. You won't get a glass panel in a 182 for $70k.

5.)The Kitfox covering instructions are sparse because they are intended as a supplement for the Poly Fiber manual which is available free online. EAA also teaches several classes per year around the country to learn theses skills. For fun, you can order a practice kit and try it. I built two practice kits. It's not too difficult.

[neville]

1. I purchased the firewall aft kit in spring of 2012, with nearly every option the cost was under 25k. The build manual is excellent. I called the factory one time to clear-up an instruction. Your 70k for a completed aircraft is reasonable. As construction continued I ordered the fire wall forward kit (4.5k )followed be the engine and that followed by the avionics. My kit was completed and flying in one year and one month.

4. Dynon/Advanced gives the most options for inclusion of extras such as Angle of Attack,charts, and ADS-B

5. A polyfiber manual was included in the firewall forward kit. I had never done any fabric work but after attending an EAA fabric work shop (at Pane Field every fall) it was simple and enjoyable . Agree with Aviator 79.

7. Agree with Rossir. Stay with engines recommended by Kitfox.

8. Great support from factory and completeness of kit.

9. Yes.

[Flienlow]

Thank you guys!

And Rosslr you are right, I am in the early stages. but have been debating this issue for years.

I am not ready to spend 10,000 hrs building an RV yet. Per a previous post, I toured Cub Crafters and 305k for Cub is too much. A lean build on a Sportsman is 200k. Yesterday at Dynon I learned a bunch of their guys got together and built / own one. So perhaps fractional ownership on something like that might be a way to get more of an airplane and mitigate costs. - But then you share it with someone else for good or bad.

Then there is Dave. Dave is my friend who is pretty well heeled. He just bought a drop dead gorgeous C-185 with floats and absolutely stole it for under 130k.
A true 6 place with 300hp and Cruises at 170mph. He can travel with Passengers, gear, do light STHOL, and Float flying.

BUT... It stays in a $500/month Hangar, he just put in a $300 battery, he is waiting for the final bill on the Annual, and who knows how many $900 eye bolts it will need. Did I mention it CHOPS GAS?

So... Now you are thinking "See why we all have a kitfox here?" I couldn't agree more with your choice. However, if I want to fly from KPAE to YKM in a Kitfox I have a few issues. 1st. the Daughter or wife would stay behind. 2. that is an big mountain range to be crossing with a very light 100hp AC.
3rd $70k+ seems like a lot just to beat the air into submission on day VFR, doing $100 hamburger runs. (I wish they were still that cheap!!)

Please, I am not saying I am right here. I guess I am showing my decision loop which always brings me back to square 1 of undecided. I am also willing to look like a fool by asking questions before wrongly parting company with a lot of money.

Your thoughts and opinion are very appreciated! Thank you!

[Clark in AZ]

I agree with all that have posted. It sounds to me like you really need to focus on what your "mission" will be? The 80% rule, what the majority of your flying will be?

As has been stated, there is no one aircraft that will fill all needs. The whole "certified" thing did it for me. As you stated above with Dave, all the extra expenses associated with a certified aircraft really make it no contest.

Good luck with your decision. You're going about it in the correct way, ask lots of questions and do your homework.

[Esser]

Well my 2 cents. The $100 hamburger is only $30 in a kitfox. The 180 will cost about $100-$120 An hour to operate. The kitfox is about $20-30. That right there should throw any gas guzzling certified plane out the window in your search. We flew a Cherokee for years and 95% of the time the back two seats were empty. You can rent a plane if you need 4 seats.

Every aircraft you mentioned is waaay more expensive than an S7 so I find it slightly interesting you are balking at the 70k price when it will be the cheapest to own and operate out of all othe planes mentioned.

If it is your first build, I 100% recommend sticking to tried and true engines that the factory supports.

Another eye raising item is the firewall forward kit,it’s about $5,000

All in all I think you should buy a model IV 1200. My friend just bought one on floats with a 912ULS and constant speed prop for 40,000 CDN. It carries a little less but it is half the cost, gets you flying right away, and gives you time to decide if it’s big brother would be what you want. He lives in Golden, BC and big mountains are no problem. At 10,000’ he still is climbing 1000’ a minute solo.

If you go the used route, there are very few major cost surprises unless you don’t do your due diligence when inspecting before you buy. You will probably sell it for the same price you paid for it.

[efwd]

Decisions, decisions, decisions....
First major item to decide on, Do I really want to spend years building? 13 months is unbelievable. Awesome. I will possibly be finished in that amount of time but add an addtl year. I have significant free time since my boys are with me only 1/2 the time. I too have three soles to consider. I will be leaving one behind every time but it will never be me :D. I will spend a fair bit more than 70K. I have nearly every option, 912is motor, Dual screen Garmins with Auto Pilot and ADSB in and out. I live in the LA Basin not in the sticks.
As was stated, this is a long term thing for me. I desperately need a hobby and I enjoy turning wrenches. For me, letting go of some money was a sanity issue. What was I going to do with my free time? I have no vices, no expensive habits, activities etc etc. Owning a Kitfox for the next 20-30 years... I will have saved that much money over 20 years by not renting a hangar. This has been one purchase I have not had any buyers remorse on. There will be unexpected costs for sure. Mine was a $1200-$1400 exhaust for the engine that I should have known didn't include the exhaust. Most other expenses come in the way of things that you didn't consider, like the qty of paint needed. I bought only half the qty I truly needed initially.
As to the consideration of doing it again? I have not even finished this one but have already contemplated building a second since I am enjoying it so much. What am I going to do after work every day when its done? Certainly not watch TV. The second can be built much more leisurely and I can spread the cost over many more years. A radial engine on the next one.
Eddie

[jiott]

I also agree with all that has been said, but no one tackled #2 so I will take a stab at the useful load capacity part of it and let others address the float plane part.
The useful load issue is probably the weakest point of the Kitfox, as well as any Light Sport aircraft at 1320 lbs gross, so if you don't need the Light Sport rating I would highly recommend you build and register the Kitfox at its max engineered rating of 1550 lbs. If you go Light Sport, the SS7 at about 820 lbs empty+ 160 full fuel+ 2x200 people, adds up to 1380 lbs, so you see you already exceed the 1320 lb limit and you have no capacity for any baggage. So to make this work you will be flying your fishing trips with only 1/2 fuel in the tanks. At the 1550 lb rating you are in fine shape with full fuel and enough extra capacity for 170 lbs of baggage (which by the way you will not be able to use all because of rear CG limits). I have not figured in the weight of floats.

These weight issues are not unique to Kitfox, but to all light 2-place aircraft, in fact Kitfox is better than some. So again, your main mission has to be carefully defined.

By the way, I cross the Cascade Mountains in my light 100 hp Rotax Kitfox SS7 all the time, maybe twice a month, and think nothing of it (other than careful flight planning). It is so reliable that I often fly quite low over the mountains; not saying this is smart, but shows my trust in the Kitfox.

[rosslr]

Dear Flienlow,

Once again the Kitfox group here have kicked in generously with their time and experience. And I am sure there will be others yet to do so, particularly in regard to the float Qs.

However, I note that you conducted a similar exercise on this forum in 2012, asking very similar Qs and getting similar responses. I cant help but wonder if you are not entertaining yourself by getting the group here to jump hoops for your entertainment!? I hope not. In the spirit of openness I would have appreciated it if you declared this is the second time you have posted such Q's and explained the reasons for doing so 4-5 years after the first round to allay any thoughts that this is just a theoretical exercise on your behalf.

That said, I hope you find the responses useful and that you make a decision soon that you can live with comfortably.

cheers
ross

[Ramos]

Ross, I can't answer for Flienlow. However, your post could apply to me to a certain degree. Some of us have the passion and the determination and even concrete plans. Then, you get up one day and life gives you an unexpected/unwelcome surprise. Next thing you know, all this fun stuff is delayed. Please don't exclude those of us who have yet to achieve ownership. You guys are key players in keeping the likes of me moving forward. I can't tell you if I will be purchasing in the next 12 months for sure. I hope so, and I BELIEVE so. That being said, I have a limited budget and commitments that have to come first and they don't always go as expected or hoped for. I do not believe that makes me a 'poser' or less than sincere or, a person who does not value other people's time.

If I had to pay you guys what your time is worth, I'd never have anything left over to purchase an aircraft! ;)

Respectfully,
Jon Ramos

[PaulSS]

Regarding Q4, I think it's worth taking a look at the MGL product. Certainly significantly cheaper and more options to configure and change things to your design. It's not necessarily easy as the manual is not well written but, thanks to some great videos and information from a very helpful chap on the MGL Forum, it is suddenly making a lot more sense and give you a chance to do things that you cannot with Garmin, Dynon etc. I think the likes of these companies have a more polished result in their displays but you pay for it and then continue paying with all the updates etc, whereas with MGL you can do a lot of it yourself.

[Delta Whisky]

Flienlow - when talking money with a spousal unit, some of us convert costs into AMUs. (Aviation Monetary Unit) Although more stable than the Bit Coin, it's daily value floats and isn't traded on the commodities market so conversion can't be accurately determined. Having said that, most of us recognize 1 AMU is roughly $1K. HTH with one of your questions. - if you get my drift.

[av8rps]

I can appreciate those that take their time in determining what diection they want to go with their aircraft decisions. So even if these are repeat questions from years ago I don't have a problem if we discuss it again, as we probably will come up with new, additional information that can help the poster as well as others that may have similar questions.

I'm a seaplane guy, so I'll try to adress his questions or concerns regarding that aspect as briefly as I can. If others want more info about that I'd be happy to answer more in later posts.

First, a new Kitfox built reasonably light would make a phenomenal seaplane. If flown experimental at 1550 lbs you could have a 750 lb airplane with an 800 lb usefull load. And for the record there are newer model Kitfoxes on amphibs that the builders set gross weight at 1750 lbs and have operated that way for years quite safely. Very few planes can boast having the ability to carry up to 133% of its own empty weight.

And a big benefit of the 912 Kitfox is that you only need to carry around 25 or 30 lbs of fuel an hour because it burns such little gas, so most of that 800 lb (or up to 1000 lb) usefull load can be used for carrying floats, people, and gear. Oh, and a set of amphib floats will typically only add 175 to 200 lbs to the empty weight of the aircraft. So the available payload is really quite useful :cool:

So lets compare that to your average production plane. A Cessna 185 will burn 100 lbs of fuel an hour, and a set of amphib floats will add 675 to 750 lbs to empty weight. So that 300 hp Cessna becomes a good 2 seat airplane, 3 maybe? A friend with a Cessna 180 on Edo 2705 amphibs has a 714 lb useful load. Do the math of what that can haul after putting 4 hours of fuel in it and you will find a Kitfox amphib will haul at least as much. Plus, aside from top speed, the Kitfox will perform better, and all on about 1/3 the amount of fuel.

Another friend has a 180 hp amphib Husky and it only has a 384 lb useful load. At 10 gph with 4 hrs of fuel, it legally can't even haul a pilot unless he weighs less than 145 lbs. And a Husky is perceived as a premium seaplane in that community. And for the record, a Super Cub can't legally haul what a Husky can. So dont' let them fool you, by comparison a Kitfox can make for a very practical, good performing, and super cost effective, FUN seaplane.

But if you really need 4 seats and you want amphibs, you're gonna need a Beaver. For that you'll need 30 gallons an hour and a half million dollars. Oh, and the Kitfox is likely to pass it in cruise flight ;)

[alanr]

I would like to chime in here with the length of time decision making process.
In 2014 I came within a hairs breadth of placing an order for a SS7. Probably I upset John McBean at the time due to me messing him around. I am in the UK and £/$ exchange rate was very good at the time and I bitterley regret not doing it. My family talked me out of it!...A bad move listening!
Having built and owned a Sportcruiser previously I went off and built a Bristell NG5, its a quickbuild kit here in the UK, it took me 18months and its great..I love it.
However I still want to build a Kitfox!!.....But now the £/$ exchange rate is awful and the kit will cost me far too much if I keep the Bristell.
I keep returning to this forum though and wishing..If only I had done it back in 2014 because I still want one!...I keep thinking and hoping that one day I will. Sometimes perhaps you just have to go for these things and to hell with the consequences....

[Flienlow]

If you go Light Sport, the SS7 at about 820 lbs empty+ 160 full fuel+ 2x200 people, adds up to 1380 lbs, so you see you already exceed the 1320 lb limit and you have no capacity for any baggage. So to make this work you will be flying your fishing trips with only 1/2 fuel in the tanks. At the 1550 lb rating you are in fine shape with full fuel and enough extra capacity for 170 lbs of baggage (which by the way you will not be able to use all because of rear CG limits). I have not figured in the weight of floats.
.
'
The only difference between these 2 is documentation correct? When you buy the kit it is rated for 1550lbs and tested to 1700lbs. What is to stop you from registering it E-LSA and operate at the higher gross?
-I suppose technically this would be illegal, but just about every C-150 out there does the same thing.

You can always register it as E-AB later correct? If I understand this correctly for our purposes (KITFOX AC) If you would want to add a constant Speed Prop, or make air frame modifications, that is when it would need to be registered EAB? I am sure there is more such as does KitFox include lighting and ect in the standard build? What other things would you want that may force you into building EAB?

From my internet Scroungings:
EAB: You are the builder. You will be the only person eligible for the repairman certificate. No class requirement for repairman certificate. Minimum 40 hour phase I. May make any mods you like. Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the aircraft ineligible for sport pilots.

ELSA: KF is the builder. You and any subsequent owner may take 16 hr class for repairman certificate. Minimum 5 hour phase I. Must build exactly per plans. Modifications after certifications as long as the mods don't take the aircraft out of LSA parameters. Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the airworthiness certificate void.

[avidflyer]

Whether you build and list it as having a gross weight of 1550 or 1320, you will still want to be in the experimental amateur built category. It's not the category the plane is registered in that makes it legal for a sport pilot to fly it, but whether that plane physically meets the limits established for sport pilots. (gross weight, number of seats, stall speed, ect, ect) JImChuk

[Frontier Fox]

[QUOTE=jiott;69893]
The useful load issue is probably the weakest point of the Kitfox, as well as any Light Sport aircraft at 1320 lbs gross, so if you don't need the Light Sport rating I would highly recommend you build and register the Kitfox at its max engineered rating of 1550 lbs.

Hey Jim

I’m a little confused on this point. Maybe you can straighten me out.
What is the advantage of having a Light Sport aircraft? Does it have to do with your rating? I am getting my private pilot so would it be best to get my future build rated at 1550?
Is there a difference in the way the kit is built? And last will I be able to perform repairs and annual inspections.

Thanks

Joe G

[Esser]

If you are a private pilot go with the 1550. There is no real benefit to handicap your machine to only 1320 if you don’t need it. Plus now you can have an in flight adjustable or constant speed prop too. If you build you can do all the repair work and inspections.

The LSA has lighter duty gear. That’s the only physical difference.

[Frontier Fox]

Esser

Thank you for the clarification.

I was not aware that there was a difference in the gear. Is it still Grove gear or something different? I imagine I will need to specify 1550 when I order. Didn’t notice that on the order form and it was not mentioned when I was at the fly-in last summer.

Joe

[Esser]

Maybe they don’t have different gear anymore. It was still Grove gear but on my 2012 order sheet you had to order the HD gear

[Ramos]

If you are a private pilot go with the 1550. There is no real benefit to handicap your machine to only 1320 if you don’t need it. Plus now you can have an in flight adjustable or constant speed prop too. If you build you can do all the repair work and inspections.

The LSA has lighter duty gear. That’s the only physical difference.


Correct me if my understanding of the rules is incorrect. Some have gone to a Sport Pilot ticket to enjoy less restrictive medical requirements. If Mr. Private Pilot registers @ 1550, then 'drops down' to Sport Pilot at a later date, he is no longer qualified to pilot that aircraft, correct?

Also, would a given KF have a better re-sale value at 1320 or, 1550? I won't pretend to know. Seems the 1320 would have a broader market but the 1550 would have fewer units to compete against.

[Esser]

I’m not in the states but I thought you guys passed the no medical thing last year.

Either way try to find a 1550 Kitfox SS7 that is for sale for longer than a week. I don’t think you have to worry about resale.

[jiott]

With the new Basic Med rule I don't think resale at 1320 or 1550 matters nearly as much anymore. But yes, if you drop down from private to Sport pilot you must fly a Light Sport aircraft to be legal.

Kitfox used to offer the Grove Gear in either the standard or heavy duty (1550) option. I ordered the 1550 gear, as most folks did, even though I was going to register as Light Sport. I think now they have standardized on the 1550 gear, so it is no longer an option. If I am wrong on this, someone will correct me.

[avidflyer]

Hey Jim
I’m a little confused on this point. Maybe you can straighten me out.
What is the advantage of having a Light Sport aircraft? Does it have to do with your rating? I am getting my private pilot so would it be best to get my future build rated at 1550?
Is there a difference in the way the kit is built? And last will I be able to perform repairs and annual inspections.
Thanks
Joe G[/QUOTE]

I'll give it a shot. The advantage of having a light sport qualified aircraft would be you can fly it if you are a sport pilot or if you sell it to a sport pilot he can fly it. If you don't intend to ever fly as a SP, then it probably doesn't matter. If you were going to keep it light sport elegible, you would probably try to keep it as light as possible so you would have a larger useable load. Kits could be built the same what ever your gross weight was going to be. As far as performing repair, maintenance, or alterations on an experimental amateur built aircraft, any one can legally do them. You can only do the annual conditional inspection if you are the registered builder and have been issued a repairman's certificate for that airplane by the FAA. Otherwise an AnP can do the inspection and he doesn't need to be an IA either. JImChuk

[Mikerv9a]

[/quote] From my internet Scroungings:
EAB: You are the builder. You will be the only person eligible for the repairman certificate. No class requirement for repairman certificate. Minimum 40 hour phase I. May make any mods you like. Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the aircraft ineligible for sport pilots.

ELSA: KF is the builder. You and any subsequent owner may take 16 hr class for repairman certificate. Minimum 5 hour phase I. Must build exactly per plans. Modifications after certifications as long as the mods don't take the aircraft out of LSA parameters. Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the airworthiness certificate void.[/QUOTE]

Actually, S-LSA; KF is the builder and it has to be build to the exact configuration approved under the license approval obtained from the FAA. NO subsequent modifications (even radio substitutions) can be made to the airplane without manufacturers pre-approval.

E-LSA; YOU build the airplane to S-LSA standards. Subsequently to FAA licensing, you can make changes to the airplane.