RV-6 vs Kitfox IV
Richard Chandler
down to considering two completely different planes to concentrate my pipe-
dreaming on. :-) Either a Kitfox IV or an RV-6.
The Kitfox because it seems to be pretty easy, and I understand the kit is
reasonably complete. Although I'd love to see a post from someone who has
built one to know how difficult it really was and what it finally cost.
The RV-6 is fast, and it's all metal, but I've never done serious metalwork
(My buddy has, and would love to help in exchange for getting to fly every
once in a while). It seems much more suited for longer trips (Say, Portland
to Oakland), and can carry two and reasonable load. Plus it has a high
ceiling, good visibility, can be acrobatic, and would make a pretty good IFR
plane too. I'd like to hear from a builder about what it really cost and how
difficult it was.
I'd prefer it if people posted their responses because I DO read this
newsgroup, and I think others might enjoy hearing about the experiences.
--
What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296
Archie Cobbs
>Bwtween pipe-dreaming and discussing with buddies, I've essentially boiled
>down to considering two completely different planes to concentrate my pipe-
>dreaming on. :-) Either a Kitfox IV or an RV-6.
> [...]
>The RV-6 is fast, and it's all metal, but I've never done serious metalwork
>(My buddy has, and would love to help in exchange for getting to fly every
>once in a while). It seems much more suited for longer trips (Say, Portland
>to Oakland), and can carry two and reasonable load. Plus it has a high
>ceiling, good visibility, can be acrobatic, and would make a pretty good IFR
>plane too. I'd like to hear from a builder about what it really cost and how
>difficult it was.
My pipe-dream aircraft is a Glasair 2... which begs the
question, what made you choose the RV-6 over the Glasair? I
like the RV-6 too, but I like fiberglas better than rivets.
The Glasair does all those things you mention. Of course,
price may be the single most important factor, but hey,
this is a pipe dream right, so why not go whole hog?
:-)
Dreaming,
Archie
David C. Matthews
: Bwtween pipe-dreaming and discussing with buddies, I've essentially boiled
: dreaming on. :-) Either a Kitfox IV or an RV-6.
etc.
: The RV-6 is fast, and it's all metal, but I've never done serious metalwork
: (My buddy has, and would love to help in exchange for getting to fly every
: once in a while). It seems much more suited for longer trips (Say, Portland
: to Oakland), and can carry two and reasonable load. Plus it has a high
: ceiling, good visibility, can be acrobatic, and would make a pretty good IFR
: plane too. I'd like to hear from a builder about what it really cost and how
: difficult it was.
No, I'm not building either aircraft, but I did look into (seriously) the
RV-6 (I did get to help a friend with his wing skins, for example).
Here's my observation:
1. Do not kid yourself about the useful load of an RV-6. If
you make it IFR, fill the tanks, and put two people it in
you may be over gross without any baggage (note the *may be*).
2. Watch out for 2 seats! If you like the 2-seat (read less-
expensive) airplanes, question *if* you will really use
such a 'craft as an X-country vehicle. Will you never want
to take a third person?
3. Be consistent with your choice. If you really want a puddle
jumper, get the Kitfox. If you want more speed and sportiness
get the RV. Just pick the plane that will suit you most of
the time. And note that the idea of "I'll just rent the
airplane(s) that do what mine won't" may not be a valid
approach. If you try, for example, to build the Kitfox and
tell yourself that you'll just rent for X-country and speed,
you may find this to not be fun. After spending $ and time
on your very own airplane, do you really want to be in the
rental crowd?
Anyway, I can see pluses and minuses for either choice and thought I'ld
muddy the water for you (I DO think the RV-6 is an excellent aircraft, btw;
the Kitfox probably is too, if I can believe all the good press it gets).
Unfortunately, YOU have to do the soul searching and pick the plane that
suits you. I do think it's interesting that of the folks I know that
are in the speed (read Glasair, RV, etc.) crowd, I know some that would
gladly trade their plane for a Kitfox on floats! Some people discover
that what they really want is Sunday afternoon just being off the ground
at minimal expense, not setting any local speed records!
Hope all this stuff helps.
Regards,
David
P.S. I've been through what you're facing, and found my own solution(s)!
If you interested, I could offer more specific advice about my
own choice.
: I'd prefer it if people posted their responses because I DO read this
: newsgroup, and I think others might enjoy hearing about the experiences.
: --
: What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
: "Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
: The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
: Rich Chandler, DoD #296
--
dcm (d...@oti-hsv.com)
__|__
---o-(_)-o---
Jim Schinnerer
: My pipe-dream aircraft is a Glasair 2... which begs the
: question, what made you choose the RV-6 over the Glasair? I
: like the RV-6 too, but I like fiberglas better than rivets.
: The Glasair does all those things you mention. Of course,
: price may be the single most important factor, but hey,
: this is a pipe dream right, so why not go whole hog?
: Dreaming,
: Archie
I must admit to having the same RV vs Glasair debate as part of a pipedream
I had about two years ago. I settled on the RV for several reasons.
First, the cost. Second, I felt that there were several advantages to
metal, that is, pretty easy to work with, no temperature dependencies,
could leave the plane in the sun, every spam-can mechanic could help you, etc.
Finally, at the time of my pipedream, I was living in the Portland area,
and saw the factory 6A at the Oregon Air Fair.
As for the Kitfox IV, you're really talking about a significantly different
mission. You must first decide what you will do with your plane, then
decide which one fits. The kitfox may be a little cheaper, and be completed
faster, but would you be wishing for that IFR speedster a little later?
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------------*
| Jim Schinnerer - PP-ASEL-IA | Hewlett Packard |
| | Fort Collins, CO |
| email - schi...@larry.fc.hp.com | (303) 229-6621 |
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------------*
Phillip Kramer x5-2904
my friend build a Kitfox IV. Having never built a kit
plane before I can't tell you if it's easier or harder to
build then others but it's certainly doable.
So far we've put about 300 man hrs into it and we're
half done. (I should mention he paid for the quick
build wing and the powder coating) Now MANY of
those man hours have been one guy working and 2
guys watching. Time has also been spent figuring
thinks out over and over again. Like what size bit do
you use before you ream a 3/8" hole. Better
organization could EASILY have cut off 75 hours.
Our 300 man-hours were done in 3 or 4, 4 day,
weekends, 14 hours per day, with 2-4 guys working
at once.
The manual is fairly good but not great. Many
misprints or errors because the manual was
converted from other Kitfox manuals. About four or
five times we had to stop working because we
couldn't understand the manual and tech support was
closed.
Tech support is 8-12 1-5 MST Mon-Fri. They are
very helpful and happy to serve. (We once called, on
the Fri after Thanksgiving ,in desperation. They
were closed but one guy happen to be there because
he had left something in the office. He answered the
phone, talked to use for about 35 min and then sent
us a fax).
In all if you have a little handy man in you and are
not stingy on long distance calls to tech support you
should do well with this project.
$$$$$ We haven't decided on the engine but it'll cost
us (read him) about 23-25 K without radios.
Earl Brabandt
>Richard Chandler (mau...@claris.com) wrote:
>
>I do think it's interesting that of the folks I know that
>are in the speed (read Glasair, RV, etc.) crowd, I know some that would
>gladly trade their plane for a Kitfox on floats!
Or how about an RV-6 floatplane that does about 150kts? It's under development
and it has flown. 180HP, Hartzell CS, and 1800 lb max. gros weight. No it's
not a 6g aerobatic airplane in this configuration, but the RV-6 isn't a 6g airplane
at the factory suggested 1600 lb max. gross weight either. Eustace Bohay, a builder
in B.C., has done some good work on this and he's spent the bucks to back it up
with engineering analysys too. Many RV-6 builders (including myself) are hoping
that he completes his plans to offer this Zenair float conversion for sale.
Earl Brabandt RV-6 N66VR (in progress)
Matthew W. Blake
that the Keep It Simple (KIS) aircraft is sort of the Fiberglass
equivalent.
Anyone know any experiences with them?
Matt
David Cohn
David C. Matthews <d...@oti-hsv.com> wrote:
>> <deciding between the RV6 and the Kitfox>
>Richard Chandler (mau...@claris.com) wrote:
> 3. Be consistent with your choice. If you really want a puddle
> jumper, get the Kitfox.
Ah, I think this is my cue:
%define RAMBLE on
My housemate and I went through this discussion two weeks ago -- one
of his colleagues is building a Kitfox. He estimated that the 'fox
would cost around $27K and a year or two to complete. Let's compare
that with the Skyranger.
Skyranger Kitfox
built 1946 1994
contruction tube and fabric same
seating side-by-side stick same
top speed ~105 mph same?
engine C-85 Rotax
certified? yup nope
fly it now? yup wait a year or two
cost $10k ~$27k
I lose out a bit on the short field performance, but other than that,
my little old taildragger has all the percs of the "modern" Kitfox. As
does any Cessna 120/140, Chief, Luscomb, etc.
Please feel free to get on my case about this, but I can't see much
reason to build a Kitfox unless you're really in it for the
*building*. There are a mess of beautiful antique *certified* aircraft
that fit the mission profile for a lot less money. (And of course, if
you're interested in building, why not buy a basketcase and restore
it?)
We talked about the RV4/6 as well, but there's nothing that clearly
fits its profile. The Grumman AA1(ABC)'s have the sporty fighter-plane
feel and range, and are a lot cheaper, but lose on short field
performance. The Siai-Marchettis have the feel and the performance,
but are expensive to buy and maintain. Constant speed prop and
retracts, sort of the same bill that you'd face with a Lanc/Glassair.
Of the kitbuilts, the open cockpit runabouts and the RVs seemed to be
the only ones that had a clear niche.
I flew the factory demo 6A a couple of weeks ago, and came away with a
goofy grin on my face. I could see wanting to build this plane. So, my
much considered opinion is, as Richard Chandler said: "define your
mission." Then I'd say, if you want a puddle jumper, buy one; if you
want something to blow holes in the sky with, consider building an RV.
Just my thoughts...
%define RAMBLE off
-David "Pablo" Cohn work-> MIT Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences
co...@psyche.mit.edu play-> Commonwealth Skyranger NC33395
Lar Kaufman
a certified aircraft is the desire to know the guts of what you are entrusting
your life to. Another is that if you are not a licensed aircraft mechanic,
you are rather limited in the maintenance you can do on your aircraft. Note
that I don't even mention repairs, which are mostly forbidden to mere owners
and operators.
Assuming you want to get under the cowling or into the fuselage yourself,
this is not a simple choice at all. Unless you *do* happen to be licensed,
or know someone who is willing to risk their license and livelihood to sign
off on repair work or inspections they didn't do.
-lar
--
Lar Kaufman personal account: la...@ps.com
Eric Damm
> Bwtween pipe-dreaming and discussing with buddies, I've essentially boiled
> down to considering two completely different planes to concentrate my pipe-
> dreaming on. :-) Either a Kitfox IV or an RV-6.
>
> The Kitfox because it seems to be pretty easy, and I understand the kit is
> reasonably complete. Although I'd love to see a post from someone who has
> built one to know how difficult it really was and what it finally cost.
>
> The RV-6 is fast, and it's all metal, but I've never done serious metalwork
> (My buddy has, and would love to help in exchange for getting to fly every
> once in a while). It seems much more suited for longer trips (Say, Portland
> to Oakland), and can carry two and reasonable load. Plus it has a high
> ceiling, good visibility, can be acrobatic, and would make a pretty good IFR
> plane too. I'd like to hear from a builder about what it really cost and how
> difficult it was.
Rich,
I have been building my Kitfox IV for the past year and a half.
I am quite pleased with the kit for the most part (some minor
quality control issues were found) as well as the factory
support from Skystar. I have spent close to $22,000 for a fairly
well equipped aircraft. It has the optional wing tanks, a 65HP Mosler
(VW type) engine, Ellison throttle body injection, CD stereo, ICOM
panel mount COM radio, a full engine instrumentation package, ELT,
a deluxe interior package from Alexander Aeroplane, and basic
VFR instrumentation. All that is remaining to be purchased are the
finishing supplies (Stits process) for another $500 or so. This is
obviously a fun type VFR only aircraft. If it is your intent to fly
IFR often, the RV6 may be a much better choice. You need to evaluate
what it is you are going to be using your aircraft for. An occasional
IFR trip could be made using a rental aircraft but more frequent renting
defeats the purpose of owning.
Another aspect to consider before you commit to such a long term
project is why do you want to build vs. purchasing a ready-built
aircraft. Many of us builders choose to build because we enjoy
the actual building process itself - not just a way to get an
aircraft for less money (which is not necessarily the case anyway).
It is DEFINITELY a long-term commitment that has sacrificed many
a relationship, and caused problems for those who decide part way
through the process that building doesn't suit them for a number of
reasons. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade my experience building
for anything! It has been a fantastic learning experience (both skill
as well as patience!) for me and I'll probably build another someday.
Talk to as many builders and kit manufacturers as possible. Join the
EAA's local chapter and pick everybodies brain that you can. Fly
any aircraft that interests you, if at all possible. Read all the
publications you can find such as EAA Sport Aviation, Kitplanes, etc.
Take your time and make the right choice based on YOUR needs and wants.
Good luck and keep us posted on your decision.
Eric Damm, Kitfox IV N93ED
Mike Pflueger
>
> My housemate and I went through this discussion two weeks ago -- one
> of his colleagues is building a Kitfox. He estimated that the 'fox
> would cost around $27K and a year or two to complete. Let's compare
Huh? Was that the base Kitfox with minimum instruments, no radios,
and no paint?
SkyStar's literature says about $27K for a IV or Speedster, but that's
only part of the story. Add to that paint, misc materials, tools,
enough instruments and avionics to make it useful, and a couple little
niceties (cloth seats, powder coating, etc.) and you're quickly
approaching $40K by the time it's all done! Looked to me like one
would have $33K or so into even a minimal Fox - and that's foregoing
the timesaving features of the QuickBuild wings, powder coating, etc.
--
Mike Pflueger, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ PP-ASEL
INTERNET: pflu...@agcs.com
UUCP: ...!{att | ncar!noao!enuucp}!gtephx!pfluegerm
Work: 602-582-7049 FAX: 602-582-7624 Packet: WD8KPZ @ K7BUC.AZ.USA.NA
Richard Chandler
> goofy grin on my face. I could see wanting to build this plane. So, my
> much considered opinion is, as Richard Chandler said: "define your
> mission." Then I'd say, if you want a puddle jumper, buy one; if you
> want something to blow holes in the sky with, consider building an RV.
Actually, I was discussing this with my co-conspirator. The things I want to
do are travel, carry a bit of cargo, and not spend huge gobs of money (I
know, I know, we are talking about aviation). He wants something that is
Aerobatic capable, and can go high (with oxygen). He was leaning towards an
RV-4 but I'm not so pleased with Tandem seating, even if it does give a
better view.
Question: Are there other designs in this class?
Defining travel: Trips from Portland to Seattle, the SF Bay Area, and Orange
County to visit friends.
Other criteria are ease of construction, and the fact that my co-conspirator
has metalworking experience is definitely a factor. (Now I have done a fair
amount of woodwork in the past. I've also done some auto work, and
electronics). I guess I was considering the Kitfox for if I didn't have any
help.
M Baker/Sage Research Corp.
I spoke with the deisgner of the KIS and the founder of the company after
reading about it and the IO-240 engine in the February Sport Aviation.
Pretty neat airplane. Not quite as large or heavy or fast as the RV and a
little more expensive - $16k vs. $11k for the kit, but the KIS uses a
smaller and less expensive engine - an IO-240 is $14k new compared to $17k for
an O-320.
The KIS is MUCH simpler to build than the RV. Tri-R, the makers of KIS,
manufactured a lot of the hi-temp molded composites used by Lancair, they
claim 800 hours box-open to ready for inspection build time.
I plunked down the $25 for the literature and the tape and intend to fly it
at Sun'n'Fun. More after I get the literature!
Mickey Baker
mba...@inca.gate.net
G A Venkatesh
In article <mbaker.7...@inca.gate.net> mba...@inca.gate.net (M Baker/Sage Research Corp.) writes:
>bl...@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Matthew W. Blake) writes:
>
>>In comparison to the RV6 family, it appears (in the adds anyway)
>>that the Keep It Simple (KIS) aircraft is sort of the Fiberglass
>>equivalent.
>
>>Anyone know any experiences with them?
>
>The KIS is MUCH simpler to build than the RV. Tri-R, the makers of KIS,
>manufactured a lot of the hi-temp molded composites used by Lancair, they
>claim 800 hours box-open to ready for inspection build time.
>
The KIS seems to be more of a fiberglass equivalent of a Murphy Rebel than
the RVs. However, its main competitor appears to be the partly fiberglass
Pulsar, especially now that a certificated engine has been used in it.
I would definitely look into both of those if I was seriously considering
building one of that type.
venky
Mark B. Muller
is made for the water, but lands on land as well. It does 140mph cruise on
160 HP, fixed prop.
Mark Muller
mul...@ecn.purdue.edu
Richard Chandler
> In comparison to the RV6 family, it appears (in the adds anyway)
> that the Keep It Simple (KIS) aircraft is sort of the Fiberglass
> equivalent.
Well, I don't want to muck with composites. Neither me nor my buddy have any
experience with them, and there are temperature and moisture problems up here
in the Pacific NW.
Someone e-mailed me an interesting comparison between their Kitfox and a
friend's RV-6. The most stunning part was the price of the engine. $17,000
for an IO-360!!! That's close to twice the cost of the airframe!
I don't count the cost of the instruments in the comparison. If the both get
a KX-155, what's the difference?
I did hear that you have to do a lot of your own parts forming with the RV-6
kit. What do other builders of metal planes have to say about tools and such?
> Anyone know any experiences with them?
Wouldn't mind hearing about them.
Randall Henderson
> Well, I don't want to muck with composites. Neither me nor my buddy have any
> experience with them, and there are temperature and moisture problems up here
> in the Pacific NW.
>
> Someone e-mailed me an interesting comparison between their Kitfox and a
> friend's RV-6. The most stunning part was the price of the engine. $17,000
> for an IO-360!!! That's close to twice the cost of the airframe!
Well sure, if you want to go fast, you'll have to pay for it. Although
you could get an RV with a used engine in the air for a comparable price
to the Kitfox.
I chose the RV-6 because it's the best balance of short field performance
and high cruise speed. And although the engine is more expensive, I prefer
the idea of proven technology. Not to discount the Kitfox or the Rotax as
being unsafe, just personal preference.
It seems kind of funny to me that this Kitfox vs RV-6 discussion is even
going on - it's like comparing apples to oranges, really. I've never
heard anyone comparing the Piper Cub to, say, the Globe Swift, for example.
They're really quite different in terms of mission profile, it just depends
on what constructin materials you like and what you want to use your plane
for. I don't see cost as being as big of an issue. At $10,000 the RV-6
airframe kit is pretty much the best buy around, and a person doesn't HAVE
to get a brand new engine.
> I did hear that you have to do a lot of your own parts forming with the RV-6
> kit. What do other builders of metal planes have to say about tools and such?
>
> Wouldn't mind hearing about them.
You don't have to form parts much with the RV. You do have to do a lot
of fitting and drilling and assembly work. Ribs, skins, bulkheads, etc.
come pretty much sheared/formed to size and shape, but there's still a lot
of trimming and fitting to do, and with the exception of the wing spar
and center section, you have to drill pretty much all of the holes.
Not an easy project by any means, but a very satisfying one. I suspect
that the Kitfox is easier.
--
Randall Henderson
ran...@edt.com
Charles K. Scott
avid...@aol.com (AVIDFLYER) writes:
> The Avids are better airplanes for less $$.
I really don't wish to start an argument but it's my understanding that
Mr. Denny, the founder of the company that originally built the KITFOX
once worked for AVID aircraft and split. The two share many many
similar features the most obvious being the all flying aileron, the
basic fuselage and wing construction, the landing gear, the size and
weight and the performance characteristics. They may have moved in
different directions recently but for a while they seemed almost
identical.
This is an opinion only. Corky Scott
Chris Ruble
Yes the Kitfox and avid are almost identical. Skystar (Kitfox) seems to
market their products more agressivly, and most likley passes on the higher cost of
advertising. In any case, I,m sure that you will have fun building and flying
eather one.
The RV-6 on the other hand is not even in the same class as the Avid or the
Kitfox. This is a classic example of Apples and oranges. The Avid/Kitfox are
low and slow airplanes, while the RV-6 is a high performance / sport aerobatic
machine. This like comparing a light pickup truck to a Corvette.
I would suggest, if you are planning on spending 30,000+ dollars, that
you go fly the airplanes. All of the kit manufactures are more that willing to
give demo rides with some stick time. There should be little doubt after the first
30 seconds of flight, and zero after 20 minuites.
P.S. Yes... I'm building an RV-6.
____________________________________________________________________________
| |
| ( ) |
| ( ) ( ) Chris Ruble |
| /\ )( ) Gotta love it! cru...@cisco.com |
| / \) /\ ) ) / Piper PA-28-180 |
| / \/ \ ) __|__ N8085W |
|/ \ \ _____(o)_____ Shelter 92, SJC |
|________\___\___!_ ! _!_____________________________________________________|
AVIDFLYER
KF STOP. before you do anything, compare it with the Avid Flyer line of a/c.
Contact Avid A...@AOL.com. He is a factory rep and will send you a FREE video &
info pack if you are seriously considering the KF. All he wants you do do is
compare before you lay out the $$$$. The Avids are better airplanes for less
$$.
Fly safe, Go Avid
AVIDFLYER
Buxton Richard L.
<2ng3r8$q...@search01.news.aol.com> : avid...@aol.com (AVIDFLYER) writes:
Actually, Dean Wilson of AVID AIRCRAFT, INC. was the brains
behind the airplane itself. Look at the different aircraft they have
produced (Bandit, Catalina, Magnum, Mark IV, and the Explorer). These
aircraft are significantly different from one another which requires a
high degree of design talent.
On the other hand, the KITFOX has been limited to moderate and
small improvements over the original AVID FLYER from 1983. However, Dan
Denny has undertaken a 75% scale, P-51 project which should be nothing
short of spectacular. It is unclear to me whether or not Mr. Denny has
utilized the services of engineers to help finalize the design.
I do not want to sound too negative about the KITFOX (the VIXEN
is very "foxy"). Both SKYSTAR and AVID are GREAT, GREAT companies, but I
still prefer the versatility and value of the AVID birds.
As for KITFOX/AVID vs. the RV series, it depends on what you want
to do. VANS also has a GREAT company to do business with. Maybe the MAR
94' issue of 'USAviator' can help.