Second plane exclusively for fun – straight tail 172 or Kitfox?

What is your choice for the mission described?

  • Straight Tail 172

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • Kitfox IV with Rotax 912

    Votes: 12 32.4%

  • Pacer / Tri-Pacer

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Bonanza, always the best choice

    Votes: 1 2.7%

  • Cirrus with an AOA, anything else would be entirely irresponsible

    Votes: 1 2.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 15 40.5%
  • Total voters
    37
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Yep. The original builder can do annuals if he gets the Repairman Certificate from the local FSDO. Buy an Experimental secondhand and you'll have to pay someone else to do it.
Click to expand...
E/AB do not get annuals
 
Tom-D said:
E/AB do not get annuals
Click to expand...
This was my point. Experimental owners generally do their own, they develope their own maint. Schedule and keep her going. That is the best part of exp., you want to change a seat, an engine, a windscreen, a rudder, gap seals, prop etc etc etc etc etc you can just do it and see if you like it.
 
Tom-D said:
E/AB do not get annuals
Click to expand...
I guess you are fishing for the proper term which would be Condition Inspection which still has to be done by an A&P or the builder with a repairman certificate.
 
Grum.Man said:
I guess you are fishing for the proper term which would be Condition Inspection which still has to be done by an A&P or the builder with a repairman certificate.
Click to expand...

This is my understanding as well. Unless one has the repairman certificate, the condition inspection, annual or whatever you want to call it, needs to be signed off by an A&P.
However, if I want to install a set of skis or a new radio, I can do that myself, without having to ask anybody and without any signoff but mine.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I'd love to have a Kitfox. I even have room in the hangar to store it with the wings folded.
Click to expand...
I knew two guys who shared a hangar, one had a Kitfox, the other had an Avid Flyer. The Avid folded his left wing, the Kitfox folded the right wing and they fit nicely.
 
Aviation would be so much better off if they would relax the rules on certified aircraft to be like experimental ones. Keeps the regs on the ones used for commercial operations but there is no reason to be so strict on a Cessna 172.
 
Grum.Man said:
Aviation would be so much better off if they would relax the rules on certified aircraft to be like experimental ones. Keeps the regs on the ones used for commercial operations but there is no reason to be so strict on a Cessna 172.
Click to expand...
I agree. Some of the regs seem to be in place to keep business going. I have a friend who owns an avionics shop who would hate this, but I'd love to be able to put a new radio in my plane. I can do it as well as he can and save the labor. Also the cost difference between TSO and non-TSO... Icom A220 for experimentals $1195 installed, TSO, $1595. It's the same radio!
 
Tom-D said:
just do it.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much the consensus I have come to as well on my Certified airplane. Most A&P's pay no attention to the avionics much less examine the log book to make sure the installation was done properly.
 
Grum.Man said:
Aviation would be so much better off if they would relax the rules on certified aircraft to be like experimental ones. Keeps the regs on the ones used for commercial operations but there is no reason to be so strict on a Cessna 172.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I just have to think of the major pain, we went through with our old 172’s leaking fuel selector. Because it had some internal corrosion, it took 3(!!!) tries and multiple hundred dollars to finally get it sealed around the shaft. The only new one we could find was around $4,000k (I am not kidding) and even used ones, in a just as questionable condition, were selling for several $100s.

At the same time, Andair makes beautiful, brand new, high quality fuel selectors for the experimental crowd, which cost only a few hundred $$$…
 
Grum.Man said:
That is pretty much the consensus I have come to as well on my Certified airplane. Most A&P's pay no attention to the avionics much less examine the log book to make sure the installation was done properly.
Click to expand...
German guy said:
Exactly. I just have to think of the major pain, we went through with our old 172’s leaking fuel selector. Because it had some internal corrosion, it took 3(!!!) tries and multiple hundred dollars to finally get it sealed around the shaft. The only new one we could find was around $4,000k (I am not kidding) and even used ones, in a just as questionable condition, were selling for several $100s.

At the same time, Andair makes beautiful, brand new, high quality fuel selectors for the experimental crowd, which cost only a few hundred $$$…
Click to expand...
and who the heck would know the difference? There isn't two ASI's that would know the difference between the OEM selector and the new Allen valve.
 
Tom-D said:
When you can afford the 985, you won't worry about its fuel consumption.
Click to expand...
To a point. I own two of them and I do have to pick and choose my trips for the year due to the fuel budget.

On the other hand, the OP was looking for an entire second airplane for less than $30k.
 
German guy said:
Exactly. I just have to think of the major pain, we went through with our old 172’s leaking fuel selector. Because it had some internal corrosion, it took 3(!!!) tries and multiple hundred dollars to finally get it sealed around the shaft. The only new one we could find was around $4,000k (I am not kidding) and even used ones, in a just as questionable condition, were selling for several $100s.
At the same time, Andair makes beautiful, brand new, high quality fuel selectors for the experimental crowd, which cost only a few hundred $$$…
Click to expand...
I've become sort of an expert on 120/140 fuel selectors. I know them better than most mechanics. Pull them apart, clean them up, put some fuel lube on them and they're good to go. My mechanic looks at it and signs it off.

Tom-D said:
and who the heck would know the difference? There isn't two ASI's that would know the difference between the OEM selector and the new Allen valve.
Click to expand...
The problem is when you have an accident and they tear the plane apart. I know this because I was in a bad crash where the mechanic installed the wrong valve in a Luscombe before I bought it. The valve broke, only allowing enough fuel to flow through to fill the bowl and give me enough to taxi, run-up, and take-off. Unfortunately it stopped short of being enough to fly away...

The previous owner had all of the logs back to 1946, and he had receipts for the many years he'd owned it. I didn't think anything about handing all of this off to the FAA (I would never do that again.) They went through the cases of books, receipts, etc, until they found a receipt, with an empty bag stapled to it saying it was a fuel selector valve and clearly had written in marker, "Not for Use on Aircraft" That is interesting since it was purchased from one of the big aircraft supply stores. Anyway, they found it and brought it to my attention. I admitted I'd never been through all of the records and had missed this. Eventually they decided to blame it on carb ice and claim that I was flying heavy (with no proof) and close the case. They told me the only reason they didn't pursue going after the mechanic was because he was based in California and they didn't have the resources. Of course they deny telling me this.

Long story short, make sure if you're using the wrong part you may have an issue with insurance. If I had died in the crash, I'm not sure what my wife would have gone through on my life insurance if they determined I was flying a plane with illegal parts. The advice I give people if you're ever in an accident, is shut your mouth and call an attorney. The FAA is not there to help you. I've told my wife if I were to die in a plane crash in my plane to give the records to a friend of mine who can make sure they disappear. I don't want somebody going through the logs back to 1946 looking for a discrepancy that could void the policy.
 
Hank S said:
Get a biplane! Look into things like Hatz, Skybolt, etc. Then there's a guy in St. Louis making WWI kits (mostly single place under $10K, but with some two-place kits for $14K) and a two-week quick build that let's you trailer home a completed fuse and wings. If only I had somewhere to put one . . . .
Click to expand...
Who's the guy? Website? Email? Phone number? Home address?
 
Lowflynjack said:
I've become sort of an expert on 120/140 fuel selectors. I know them better than most mechanics. Pull them apart, clean them up, put some fuel lube on them and they're good to go. My mechanic looks at it and signs it off.


The problem is when you have an accident and they tear the plane apart. I know this because I was in a bad crash where the mechanic installed the wrong valve in a Luscombe before I bought it. The valve broke, only allowing enough fuel to flow through to fill the bowl and give me enough to taxi, run-up, and take-off. Unfortunately it stopped short of being enough to fly away...

The previous owner had all of the logs back to 1946, and he had receipts for the many years he'd owned it. I didn't think anything about handing all of this off to the FAA (I would never do that again.) They went through the cases of books, receipts, etc, until they found a receipt, with an empty bag stapled to it saying it was a fuel selector valve and clearly had written in marker, "Not for Use on Aircraft" That is interesting since it was purchased from one of the big aircraft supply stores. Anyway, they found it and brought it to my attention. I admitted I'd never been through all of the records and had missed this. Eventually they decided to blame it on carb ice and claim that I was flying heavy (with no proof) and close the case. They told me the only reason they didn't pursue going after the mechanic was because he was based in California and they didn't have the resources. Of course they deny telling me this.

Long story short, make sure if you're using the wrong part you may have an issue with insurance. If I had died in the crash, I'm not sure what my wife would have gone through on my life insurance if they determined I was flying a plane with illegal parts. The advice I give people if you're ever in an accident, is shut your mouth and call an attorney. The FAA is not there to help you. I've told my wife if I were to die in a plane crash in my plane to give the records to a friend of mine who can make sure they disappear. I don't want somebody going through the logs back to 1946 looking for a discrepancy that could void the policy.
Click to expand...

Every time we discuss this wrong part controversy, some body calls out this boogyman. I've yet to see a case where the insurance company could prove the owner operator had reason to know the wrong part was installed or that the policy had the verbiage to say that they were required to know which parts were the correct ones.
Most policies I have bought simply says the aircraft must be airworthy. When the aircraft is annualed and signed off as airworthy that is good enough for the insurance company. 99 times out of a hundred, the insurance claim is paid long before the NTSB determines the cause.
 
Tom-D said:
Every time we discuss this wrong part controversy, some body calls out this boogyman. I've yet to see a case where the insurance company could prove the owner operator had reason to know the wrong part was installed or that the policy had the verbiage to say that they were required to know which parts were the correct ones.
Most policies I have bought simply says the aircraft must be airworthy. When the aircraft is annualed and signed off as airworthy that is good enough for the insurance company. 99 times out of a hundred, the insurance claim is paid long before the NTSB determines the cause.
Click to expand...
Probably true, but not something I'm willing to take a chance on.
 
Kitfox: Rotax parts aren't cheap so that can get spendy (just like a Lycoming). Plus Rotax is fussy about who they sell overhaul manuals to (unlike Lycoming). If you have the time, airframe issues are pretty easy and relatively inexpensive to deal with. You would want to fly the Kitfox in question to see if it actually comes close to the advertised speeds (and if it was built straight) - there is a tendency for specs to come out of the marketing department - not engineering. The performance of my Merlin GT (another Avid clone) is real sensitive to weight - I would suggest a minimalist approach to the interior...

The original builder likely did not screw up the primary structure, but fuel / electrical systems / accessories can be a real mess in some homebuilts. The good thing is that you can straighten it out yourself. The downside is that you probably have to straighten it out yourself. A "major alteration" is supposed to involve the FAA (read the operating limitations).
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Kitfox: [...]
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice.
We have a number of very experienced technical advisors, who happen to be A&Ps, in our EAA chapter. I will consult with them in any case, if we buy a plane, even if it is certified.

I heard so many good things about the Rotax 912s and there are also quite a few reports of people whose engines made it to +2000 hours without the slightest hiccup, that a 912 would be my first choice in a light experimental, even if the parts are relatively expensive. Our airport is 1D2, just outside of Detroit. If you look it up on Google Maps, you'll understand why reliability is on the very top of my priority list... ;)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Kitfox: Rotax parts aren't cheap so that can get spendy (just like a Lycoming). Plus Rotax is fussy about who they sell overhaul manuals to (unlike Lycoming). If you have the time, airframe issues are pretty easy and relatively inexpensive to deal with. You would want to fly the Kitfox in question to see if it actually comes close to the advertised speeds (and if it was built straight) - there is a tendency for specs to come out of the marketing department - not engineering. The performance of my Merlin GT (another Avid clone) is real sensitive to weight - I would suggest a minimalist approach to the interior...

The original builder likely did not screw up the primary structure, but fuel / electrical systems / accessories can be a real mess in some homebuilts. The good thing is that you can straighten it out yourself. The downside is that you probably have to straighten it out yourself. A "major alteration" is supposed to involve the FAA (read the operating limitations).
Click to expand...
Read Note 9&10:

Overhaul: The Rotax 912 series engine must be overhauled in accordance with the approved overhaul manual.

Each of the documents listed below must state that it is approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency or, for approvals made before September 28, 2003, by Austro Control GmbH. Any such documents, including those approved under a delegated authority, are accepted by the FAA and are considered FAA approved.

● ● ● ● ●

Service bulletins, Structural repair manuals, Vendor manuals,

Aircraft flight manuals,
Overhaul and maintenance manuals

These approvals pertain to the type design only. ---END---
 
Tom-D said:
Read Note 9&10:

Overhaul: The Rotax 912 series engine must be overhauled in accordance with the approved overhaul manual.

Each of the documents listed below must state that it is approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency or, for approvals made before September 28, 2003, by Austro Control GmbH. Any such documents, including those approved under a delegated authority, are accepted by the FAA and are considered FAA approved.

● ● ● ● ●

Service bulletins, Structural repair manuals, Vendor manuals,

Aircraft flight manuals,
Overhaul and maintenance manuals

These approvals pertain to the type design only. ---END---
Click to expand...
Dude.

You lost me.

I have service bulletins, maintenance manuals ("line" and "heavy") but not an overhaul manual.

What are you trying to tell me?
 
Is this second airplane going to be hangared? I'm not much of a fan of kitfoxes, or amateur built aircraft from unknown builders for that matter, so my preference would lean toward the Cessna. If it were me though, I'd be looking for a 170, which is at least a little more fun than a 172 and can be had in the $30k price range.
 
Brad Z said:
Is this second airplane going to be hangared? I'm not much of a fan of kitfoxes, or amateur built aircraft from unknown builders for that matter, so my preference would lean toward the Cessna. If it were me though, I'd be looking for a 170, which is at least a little more fun than a 172 and can be had in the $30k price range.
Click to expand...
How many times can you remember an aircraft falling apart? How many were certified and how many were experimental? If you bothered to look at and analyze how amateur built experimentals are built you would change your tune.
 
Citabria 7ECAs can be found near $30k sometimes.

Two things O-300 Skyhawks:

1) Takeoff performance is sluggish, especially in the Summer. I get about 500 ft/min in warm weather, almost 1000 ft/min in the winter. I love the space, in it, but want at least 2000ft for takeoff if there are any obstacles. Me with full fuel on 1800 ft runway, and 75ft trees were a little closer than I want, in the Summer. But it will land on a postage stamp if you don't mind heavy braking.

2) It holds 39 gallons useable and I conservatively plan 7 gallons an hour. 5 hours plus a half hour reserve and I would want to get out and stretch way before that.
 
Brad Z said:
Is this second airplane going to be hangared? I'm not much of a fan of kitfoxes, or amateur built aircraft from unknown builders for that matter, so my preference would lean toward the Cessna. If it were me though, I'd be looking for a 170, which is at least a little more fun than a 172 and can be had in the $30k price range.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will be hangared.
As Acrodustertoo said, experimental don't just fall apart. The structure can be inspected, in case of the Kitfox, the fuselage came welded from the factory. As Geoffrey said, the most critical part in experimental is the fuel- and the electrical system. In case of a low and slow plane, like the Kitfox, the fuel system is the main concern.

And its not like A&Ps wouldn't do stupid things - our old 172 had the cigarette lighter directly connected to the battery, without a fuse or anything else in between. :eek: :confused: I found this only by accident...
 
I've never flown a kit fox though they look super cool. Seems to me like the 172 though more suits what you're looking for

I've always said the 172 is the easiest plane in the world to just lazily go up and fly around in, easy, simple, true. Therefore my vote goes to that

Deep down inside we all know the real answer is bonanza. If bonanza wasn't a choice I would have taken this poll as false and spam
 
Acrodustertoo said:
How many times can you remember an aircraft falling apart? How many were certified and how many were experimental? If you bothered to look at and analyze how amateur built experimentals are built you would change your tune.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. It's my personal opinion and you're entitled to your own. I won't try to convince you otherwise. In my opinion, E/AB are great...for other people.
 
German guy said:
Yes, it will be hangared.
As Acrodustertoo said, experimental don't just fall apart. The structure can be inspected, in case of the Kitfox, the fuselage came welded from the factory. As Geoffrey said, the most critical part in experimental is the fuel- and the electrical system. In case of a low and slow plane, like the Kitfox, the fuel system is the main concern.

And its not like A&Ps wouldn't do stupid things - our old 172 had the cigarette lighter directly connected to the battery, without a fuse or anything else in between. :eek: :confused: I found this only by accident...
Click to expand...
You asked for thoughts, I shared. Sounds like you really like experimentals and Kitfoxes in particular so go with that.
 
Super STOL.

I could land this in the horse pasture or possibly somewhere else on my own property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top