Activity Stream

Chris, I am not as adventureous as you. I still have 2 stroke fear from my early years of flying ultralights that quit running quit often. A  4 stroke Avid or Kitfox is a different animal . If I had one I would fly it anwhere that I didn't need the extra seats or wasn't in a hurry. I use my Cessna for Traveling with friends or just the wife and her STUFF she needs to go away for a couple of days. No Kitfox could carry the load that my wife NEEDS to bring along on an overnight trip??? If I ever go light sport we will need to ship her extra stuff in advance just so there is room for her pocket book! But, She loves flying and that makes up for the extra stuff.

How can droop tips limit your view on a Cessna 188 or an ag truck? I have never flown a low wing airplane with droop tips so I am curious how they block your view. If the kitfox preformed the same before and after you changed the wing tips , why waste the money to buy new ones if there is no difference in performance. I have a set of kitfox 4 droop tips, they are paid for, Why should I spend money on different tips if there is negligable difference in the way they perform. Besides the fact that they are ugly.

Yes they are bare metal. No mods, completely stock. Very nice gear! All the bolts and paperwork.

I have 2 Nelson seats ACS part # 13-02919 at $59.95 ea.  Will sell both for $60.00 plus S&H.  Like new condition.

Oops! Re-read your post where you say "If you are flying a  2 stroke Avid or Kitfox on long cross country flights, it is because you love the adventure not the speed, comfort, and reliability these planes provide."

You are correct. If I owned a cross country cruiser there are definitely times I would have chosen to take it! I thought you were saying cross country is not what they are designed for and you cannot understand why anyone would do it with one. I did it because it was the only plane I had......and I do enjoy the adventure which is a bonus.

I flew my little 582 powered MKIV all over the Western US and enjoyed every minute of it. No IFR bells and whistles, no long range fuel tanks. I could carry a small whitewater kayak and all the camping gear I needed to spend multiple days away from civilization. A lot of fuel stops, but that was fun too! I did not have multiple planes to choose from, and I suspect most folks don't. Just because you don't own a plane ideally suited to a particular mission does not mean you shouldn't undertake the mission does it?

Oh I also took the droop tip's off my KF4 and put on the removeable tip's no difference in performance, I flew it off a 300ft remote control airport at 4000ft elevation very high DA's in summer.

Guy's FWIW I flew agtruck's for 25 year's Cessna 188's with and without the drooptips drooptip's are good for limiting your view and for banging your head and that's about all. And we did do side by side testing to see which plane worked best.

 I have the same opinion as akflyer. These planes were designed for recreational flying not long cross country flying. Why do you think the wings fold, so you can drag them cross country, unload, unfold, and enjoy. I never understood the people who take a 2 stroke airplane and add long range fuel tanks, landing lights, every bell, gadget and whistle possible to a plane they will never fly at night or on long cross countries. locally, we have several grass fields that we hop in the light planes and go visit. All are with in 20 miles and that is pretty much the extent of our little groups cross country flying. When I am traveling I fly my Cessna. If I have to go to a light sport license in the future I will buy the fastest LS I can afford and use it for cross country work. If you are flying a  2 stroke Avid or Kitfox on long cross country flights, it is because you love the adventure not the speed, comfort, and reliability these planes provide. Tweaking them is fun, but they are what they are.

Thanks Larry I will pass the info on to an interested party.

If a Cessna 180 worked well they would still build them. Your precedence theory doesn't hold water. I can name dozens of things that are not built or offered anymore that out perform what is available today. You have an opinion, do you have the hands on experience to tell me why droop tips  are no good?

I think Kitfox may have stopped the droop tips because they were going for better cruise with the new wing and bigger engines, instead of the STOL of the early light models - They were also a LOT heavier than the later Hoerner tips.

BTW:  With my extended leading edges, the Cessna 177, 182, 210, Semi-drooped tips fit my Foxy just fine - that's what I am using.

EDMO

Droop tips working on a Cessna wing is a totally different bread of dog than on an Avid or Kitfox.

I cite precedence, again. If they worked well they would still offer them. They don't because they didn't.

Not to mention they are uglier than sin.

Yes it is, Paul.

Should have read post better,as shipped.

Bare metal.

Hey Larry is the KF IV still for sale?

Have you painted or powder coated the landing gear?

I have owned and flown several Cessnas both with and without droop tips. I know they have a positive impact on a Cessnas slow speed handeling. My first 182 had the big Deamer droop tips and flap and aileron gap seals, It was one of the nicest flying old straight tail 182's that I have ever flown. Back when I had that 182 my father had a bone stock 180 and 10,000 hrs of flying time in dozens of Cessnas (skydiver pilot). When ever he would fly my 182 he would just rave about how nice it flew. He wouldn't put them on his 180 because he didn't like the way they looked, "didn't fit the lines of his beautiful 180". The 180 I own now has a horton stol kit with fences, small droop tips, cuffed leading edge, aileron and flap gap seals. It gets off the ground quickly and in more capable hands it will land in a very short distance. I think it would handle better with the larger droop tips but I don't think Horton offers them for this stol kit. I am a fan of the droop tips. I have a few hours in my budies Avid heavy hauler with a stock stol wing, our  model A with the droop tips lands much slower. We will probably do some side by side comparisons in the future after I get more comfortable in our Avid. His plane has the same engine and very similar airframe set up except he is a tinkerer and loves hanging crap all over the place in his plane. He even has a parking brake warning light! Ours has only the basics and is very light, but I weigh a 100lbs more than him so the side by side comparisons should be fairly accurate.

I have a Kitfox 1 clone fuselage, with manual, and lots of parts to sell cheap - but want it picked up in Missouri.

EdMO

I think the ultimate performance, as far as these birds go, would be to use the late Kitfox modified Riblett profile with the plastic leading edge and the Hoerner tips mounted at a 7 degree angle.

EdMO

I should have posted this already, but the kit is sold.  I don't have the crates, but did have the build manual.  Thanks for your interest.  Jim Chuk

Couldn't edit first post.

Do you have the instructions for the kit?

Do you have the crates to ship the kit? thx Marv

The fuel tank won't be an exact fit but should be close enough to work just fine.

From what I've read and heard, the jury is still (way) out on the droop tips.  Many people in the know have opined that you'd be far better off, performance wise, with a flat plate on the end of the wing with a 1-2" lip.

After replacing the fuel lines, filters and exhaust bracket, I test flew my Sky Raider today. Wow, it sure is a nice airplane to fly. Lots of leg room and shoulder room. Great visibility over the nose. Add power, lift tail,pull back and you are flying. 5500 rpm, ias was 76 mph. Not sure what the ground speed was.