Kitfox Aircraft Stick and Rudder Stein Air Grove Aircraft TCW Technologies Dynon Avionics AeroLED MGL Avionics Leading Edge Airfoils Desser EarthX Batteries Garmin G3X Touch
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Physical fit and true useful load question.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rossville, TN
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    I'm also new to the site and just figuring the Kitfox out. I'm 6'4" 250. My 5 is 832 lbs empty with 1550 lb gross. With both of us and full fuel we will fit and be below gross and within CG. I'm wide at the shoulder and my height is in my torso. I felt that the bubble doors would provide more shoulder room and comfort than the standard doors so they are being added. No problem with the leg room with the adjusting pedals. Mine has the Rotax 912UL. It's a little anemic with temps nearing 100. With the big loads, the 912 S would be welcome. Lighter, it's a lot of fun as it is.

    DAT

  2. #2

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    Hi Dat, thanks for your input. Sounds like we are built similarly. My height comes from my torso as well. I'm 6'3 1/2" but my inseam is only 32. I'm also wide at the shoulder, I wear a 52 long athletic cut suit coat...have fun finding that on the rack

    Have you installed the bubble doors yet? If so do you feel more comfortable with them? Do they affect flight at all? To be honest I didn't know that was an option. Have a picture of them?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Helena, MT
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    I booked some time with Paul Leadabrand. He does training in a Supersport. I'm tall and big and Paul is tall and thin. The Kitfox has lots of room and performs well.

    If you have any doubt, I would book some time with him and his kitfox. You can find information on the Kitfox site under training.

  4. #4
    Agfoxflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Woodstock, Georgia
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    My first passenger was a CFI who flew at the time a single place Pitts. He was 250 lbs. I am 240. He, being a Pitts driver, was impressed with the flying qualitities. We were shoulder to shoulder but not uncomfortable. My brother is 6 ft 4 in. and he has flown with me in the Kitfox.In fact I believe the Kitfox is more comfortable than the RV-9A that I am flying.
    David E.
    Woodstock, Georgia
    N97DE S5 TD Flying

    N97KE RV-9A Sold
    N96KE RV10 Sold
    Rans S21 Helping Brother Build (Selling)
    Vans RV-14A (On Order)

  5. #5

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    Montana_Jim: Good idea. Biz is taking me to Idaho soon, think I will contact him and see if we can make that work.

    Agfoxflier: thanks for the response, seems to be the consensus that it will be tight with another guy of size in the plane but not restrictively so which I am totally fine with.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    Just to add my piece: I'm 6'4" but not as heavy as some of you. I'm right at 200 lb. My plane is a Series 6 with the bubble doors installed. The engine is the Rotax 912 ULS. The empty weight is 792 lb. Max takeoff weight is supposed to be 1500 lb but we haven't been able to get it there yet. Putting that much weight in the baggage area would put us out of balance.

    My height is in the legs mostly but the leg room is just right. I just put the adjustable rudders as far forward as possible. If I tip my head back, it bumps the rear main spar carry thru tube, but that hasn't been a problem. The bubble doors add to the shoulder room and give great visibility. I haven't noticed any reduction in performance.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Dave S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    1,844

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    Pete N,

    On your original question regarding the useful load; I thought it might be good to share with you how the useful load works out for someone like me who MADE NO ATTEMPT to keep the empty weight down.

    Our plane is a series 7 with the 912ULS; and, it has what most would regard as a lot of extra weight with dual electrical systems (meaning two busses, two alternators two batteries) the optional airbox (which helps, according to Rotax, with extracting the 100 HP out of the ULS) a larger and heavier baggage enclosure, the wingtip mounted standard strobes with one power unit in each wingtip; and, a few other miscellaneous things which bring the empty weight up to 860# - well over what most folk's kitfoxes weigh.

    With an 860# empty weight - that still gives a person 690# empty weight - or you can still put over 500# of people and baggage on board with full fuel. Admittedly I am somewhat of a skinny kid at 160 # and almost 6' but the series 7 as an EAB (rather than a sport plane) is better than anything I have flown before. Even maxed out at 1550 I like it.

    Sincerely,

    Dave S
    KF7 Tribear
    912ULS, Warp Drive

  8. #8

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    Thanks Dave, sounds like you put a nice plane together!

    Purely by kismet my possible Idaho biz trip got pushed to the forefront and I will be in Boise this Wednesday afternoon. I've called Kitfox and talked to John already. If all goes smoothly at my earlier meetings I should be spending Wednesday's later afternoon at the factory. I also called Paul and left him a voice mail, if he can sneaky me in I would love to buy an hour of airtime with him or one of his staff.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Av8r3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Merrill, WI
    Posts
    3,048

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    I'm not tall, 5-9" but I did weigh 235# when I flew from northern Georgia home to northern Wisconsin (Sun 'n Fun trip...) with a 200# 5-10" passenger in my model IV.

    We were definitely heavy, (I was given the call sign "Kitfox Heavy") but the airplane performed more than adequately on only 80 hp (912UL). Easily climbing to 8000+ altitude.

    The fit was cozy, but not uncomfortable.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Av8r3400
    Kitfox Model IV
    The Mangy Fox
    912UL 105hp Zipper
    YouTube Videos

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rossville, TN
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: Physical fit and true useful load question.

    It looks like we pretty much have the interior line for the NFL flying Kitfox aircraft. Much to be said for the design and utility of the plane! There are not many planes flying today that you can load full fuel and 570 lbs of people and gear and still be within the CG. I've had a few 4 place planes that wouldn't do that. The ATC may start giving instruction "cleared to land 36, you are trailing a Kitfox Heavy, caution wake turbulence!"

    DAT
    DAT
    Model V
    912 UL - Xtra
    IVO IFA prop

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •