D

diamond

Well Known Member
RV-12 vs Kitfox SS7

For those of you who have flown both of these planes, I'm interested in hearing your candid assessment of the difference in ride, capabilities, landing and take off, etc. The reason I ask is because when you lay the performance stats of these planes side-by-side, there are a lot of similarities despite the fact that they are two very different planes by design. When I have asked folks about comparisons between a Kitfox and an RV9, the answer has been "different missions", but do the Kitfox and RV12 have more similar missions? If so, why would you prefer one over the other? I realize this is an RV forum so there will be a bias toward the 12, but still interested in hearing from those who have flown both aircraft.
 
Last edited:
RV-12 looks better

Is the Kitfox VII the same as the Kitfox S7? What is the website that lists the performance?
I think that the RV-12 looks better.
The Kitfox has struts and drag. It can not be as fast, can it?
The Kitfox has fabric requiring eventual expensive replacement.

I predict that the RV-12 will have a much higher resale value not only because of Van's Aircraft good reputation but also because the RV-12 can be registered as an E-LSA. Future owners can legally perform the annual inspection (after taking a 2 day course). What other manufacturers of SLSA sell E-LSA kits and provide the paperwork required to register them as E-LSA?
Joe
 
Kitfox VII is not an LSA

They do have different "missions". The RV-12 is an LSA and can be flown without a medical. From a quick search on the Internet, the Kitfox VII has a max takeoff weight of 1550 lbs, exceeding the LSA limit of 1320 lbs.
 
The Kitfox Super Sport 7 is "sport plane compliant" according to the description on their website. Here's the website listing the specs and performance.

http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/s7ssspecs.htm

As I said, the performance numbers are similar. The RV12 cruises faster, but only by 10 mph. It also seems to accomplish a little better fuel efficiency. Both use the Rotax 912S. The Kitfox however has shorter takeoff and landing distances, 3 times the baggage capacity, lower stall speed, higher climb rate, longer range, and higher flight ceiling. So other than the RV12 looking cooler and flying only slightly faster, what other arguments are there for an RV12 over a Kitfox? Someone mentioned resale, which is a good point, but a Kitfox probably has pretty good resale as well. The Kitfox is tube and fabric, which I know nothing about. Is it easier to build such a plane than an all metal RV? Thanks for the input.
 
* High-wing vs Low-wing. This comes down to pilot preference.
* Metal vs Fabric. Metal has better longevity, looks better over time, harder to build and requires inspections for cracking. Fabric requires replacement every ~10 years along with repainting (obviously), has more drag and may require patching from time to time.
* Vans probably has better support given the size of the company and number of builders. Kitfox has had financial problems in the past but seems to be stable at this point.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Metal has better longevity, looks better over time, harder to build and requires inspections for cracking.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on why metal is harder to build than fabric? My novice brain would have thought working with all that fabric, resins, sanding, etc, would be harder, or at least less desirable.
 
Well, I live in Alaska, so the kitfox would fit my mission much better which is bush flying. I haven't seen an RV12, but I suspect that you would want to stick to pavement runways given the lightweight nosegear.

As far as fabric goes, it's hard to get any lighter/stronger, and yes, while you must replace the fabric every 10-15 years, it's also WAY easier to repair if you get into trouble. Cut a hole, weld in some new tubes, and patch. A really good fab guy could do it in a weekend.

So the only way to answer this question is to determine your mission. For me kitfox would work much better, but for many others the RV-12 is the better airplane.
 
diamond said:
For those of you who have flown both of these planes, I'm interested in hearing your candid assessment of the difference in ride, capabilities, landing and take off, etc.<snip>
Click to expand...

diamond said:
The Kitfox Super Sport 7 is "sport plane compliant" according to the description on their website. Here's the website listing the specs and performance.

http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/s7ssspecs.htm

As I said, the performance numbers are similar. The RV12 cruises faster, but only by 10 mph. It also seems to accomplish a little better fuel efficiency. Both use the Rotax 912S. The Kitfox however has shorter takeoff and landing distances, 3 times the baggage capacity, lower stall speed, higher climb rate, longer range, and higher flight ceiling. <snip>
Click to expand...

I think you answered most of your questions. :)
 
Go fly a Kitfox and tell us if you think there is any comparison.

Its a function of dangling the flaps off the back of the wing and also using them as ailerons (RV-12 wing surfaces are attached to the wing and were designed as ailerons and are also used as flaps). Comparisons are not all about numbers, you need to go touch stuff, sit in it and fly it (preferably not with a salesman). Although model X has apparently better field performance than model Y, the handling characteristics may mean most pilots are unable to benefit.

Pete
 
disclaimer: 0 hrs in kitfox & RV-12

While the mission may or could be similar. The strengths and capabilities are different between those planes. One will favor speed, comfort and pavement. The other will be equally happy in the backcountry and MIGHT carry more and will be slower.
here's a couple thoughts:
1. 10mph is noteworthy, when you are only going 100mph to begin with and have a 25mph headwind.
2. both planes(if Lightsport) have a 1320 gross. Both planes empty are ~750#. my guess is when you start loading it they will carry the same amount.
3. Vans kits are complete packages, Kitfox is not
4. Resale will favor the RV-12(at least for now). low hr Kitfox's can be bought for a fraction of the build cost.

Best thing you can do is locate the local EAA chapter or find the nearest airport bums and start hanging out. Put the word out you are willing to buy gas and/or breakfast for some flight time in any and all planes available. This will be the cheapest $$$ you'll spend for aviation good time & knowledge. Good luck.


ps-how's the flight training coming along?
 
Last edited:
Question those numbers

Diamond,
How do you know both planes have similar performance? Some manufacturers exaggerate or else do not tell you under what conditions the testing was done. Read the pilot reports of completed kit projects. Van's airplanes meet the advertised performance numbers. Look at the fine print at the bottom of the Kitfox web page. It says, "Performance figures are calculated using average pilot weight." The FAA average pilot weighs 170 pounds. How much do you weigh? Notice Kitfox does not say at Gross Weight. Maybe there is half fuel and no passenger or baggage. Van's ad does say at gross weight. Make sure that you are comparing apples to apples.http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12per.htm The Kitfox does have a bigger wing, longer span with more area. So it will take off shorter and climb faster. A bigger wing with struts will have more drag and have a slower cruise speed. A bigger wing will also give a rougher ride in bumpy air. The Kitfox is good for short or rough fields. The RV-12 is better for longer trips. Either one will be fun to fly. Take your pick.
Joe
 
Mich48041 said:
Some manufacturers exaggerate or else do not tell you under what conditions the testing was done.
Click to expand...

And some manufacturers make it difficult to even compare two of their own models. For example, RV12 cruise speed is listed with the condition 7500'@5500rpm, whereas the RV9 cruise speed is listed as 75%@8000ft. How am I suppose to compare the cruise speeds of those two planes? Does 5500rpm equate to 75% for the Rotax? How much speed difference is there between 7500' and 8000'? Keep in mind I'm a new guy looking for a plane kit.
 
Kitfox

For what it's worth, I spent five days filming in the Idaho mountains with the guys/gals from Kitfox in early september. These are OUTSTANDING STOL aircraft. Cruise like a 172 with much less fuel burn. We were in and out of various mountain strips of a variety of lengths with ease. Climbing out over mountains to 10,000 feet was a piece of cake (again, comparing to the 172 I currently fly). Ground handing in the dirt with stock tires, nosewheel aircraft was great. The taildragger / tundra tire birds were insane - landing on long beaches, etc.

The people running Kitfox are smart, passionate and dedicated. I spend two days filming in the "factory", and the workmanship I witnessed was also top notch. I got to fly one out of the mountains, making a canyon run from Smiley Creek, up and over 9,900 feet, following a river down to the Boise class B. What a blast! They handle great - but like most aircraft of that type, you gotta keep those feet moving in the twists and turns!

It's a little odd flying behind the Rotax, but you get used to t quick, and it's a great power plant for the platform. Electric variable pitch/CS props. Much lighter than the 100HP Lycoming - which is an option. One guy had a Rotec radial on his.

Out here in MN, there's not much "bush" to fly into - that the 172, or an RV-9 can't handle. If I lived in or near the mountains, I'd certainly be giving the Kitfox a hard look.

In their preferred environment, they fly a much different mission than any RV, in my opinion.

They also build a mean LSA, glass panel, turnkey.

Forrest
 
MNForrest said:
It's a little odd flying behind the Rotax, but you get used to t quick, and it's a great power plant for the platform. Electric variable pitch/CS props.
Click to expand...
Just a quick note that if you're building an aircraft to be LSA compliant, it has to have a fixed pitch prop; ground adjust is Ok. No in-flight adjustable pitch props for LSA.

TODR
 
diamond said:
And some manufacturers make it difficult to even compare two of their own models. For example, RV12 cruise speed is listed with the condition 7500'@5500rpm, whereas the RV9 cruise speed is listed as 75%@8000ft. How am I suppose to compare the cruise speeds of those two planes? Does 5500rpm equate to 75% for the Rotax? How much speed difference is there between 7500' and 8000'? Keep in mind I'm a new guy looking for a plane kit.
Click to expand...

which is the reason you need some touchy feely experience. Get some flight experience in some different types of planes and let the EAA chapter mentor you in your decision.

in answer to your Q: the difference between 7500 and 8000 isn't enough to worry about. 5500rpm is the max continuous RPM for the Rotax, it will do that all day. Don't know if that is considered 75%

an internet forum is not the best place to get the unbiased truth.
 
diamond said:
Does 5500rpm equate to 75% for the Rotax? How much speed difference is there between 7500' and 8000'? Keep in mind I'm a new guy looking for a plane kit.
Click to expand...
For the 912S, 5500 RPM is MCP. However, it's a little noisy and thirsty at that setting. The engine is quieter at 5200 RPM and fuel consumption goes down too. You don't loose much cruise speed this way.

We tend to pitch the 912S for 5000-5200 RPM static, which produces about 5400 RPM WOT cruise. However, this changes a LOT with density altitude. This is why for the Rotax, I really recommend a prop that is easy to repitch like the Sensenich.

Takeoff and climb performance are rarely an issue with LSA - with 100 Hp, 1320 MGTW and low stall speed, they tend to have much short takeoff and landing requirements. As such, you can optimize the prop for cruise flight and suffer the reduction in take off and climb performance.

BE SURE that your prop changes do not cause you to exceed any of your operating limitations or the LSA speed requirements, or technically, your airworthiness certificate is invalid.

TODR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.