Good old number 29

Good old number 29's Activity

1. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    26 February

   A little progress on the cowling. The boot cowling fits tightly and looks good. Everything is tight in the cowling. I'm waiting for more resin to cure, for the lower cowl and exhaust bulge, before tying those parts together, then doing the final fit. 
    
   I'm still working on the airbox. It's tight in the cowl. I ordered a good K&N filter that will squeeze into the narrow slot it needs to fit in. I'll set it up automotive style, with the air intake ducted to the lower box, and two hoses connecting the upper box to the carbs, above the air filter. 
   
   
   
   
   
   

   • 0
2. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    10 February

   Yes, I used clear packing tape with plastic, and it works well. Because the cling wrap was prone to wrinkling, I tried using painter's film for the outlet side of the radiator baffling. It made a smoother surface, but did not release easily from the epoxy. The tape is fine. Painter's film, no. I've used 6 mil poly for other things, and it works great. It took some effort to peel the painter's film off the inside of the duct. Anyway, it all worked as intended, with a smooth outer surface, and minimal extra epoxy filling wrinkles on the inner surface. 
   On the radiator inlet, two layers of 4 oz fabric made a decently strong duct. On the outlet, which I was able to wipe tighter, with no excess epoxy, due to its straight, flat sides, two layers of 4 oz. fabric was flimsy. Resin does add meaningful rigidity to some parts, though maybe not the same strength as glass. Also, the inlet had more angles, corners, and curves, with less flat, straight, surface area, allowing the walls to flex less. 
   
   I ended up with four good layers of 4 oz on the outlet, which is light and strong. I haven't weighed it, yet, but the inlet is 6 oz.
   Inlet and outlet both have 28 sq. in. openings. The inlet will be belled open at the cowl, while the outlet will have an additional duct coming off the side, for cockpit heat, with the back end open at the back, bottom edge of the cowl.
   
   I have the upper and lower boot cowls laid up, and the front top of the cowl. Four layers of 6 oz bi-directional fabric made the same approximate rigidity and thickness as the original. 
   
   I'm not a huge fan of epoxy, but it sure is nice to do the work inside. I grew up working with polyester resins, and still have an appreciation for how quickly it can be made to set up, and how hard its finish is, versus epoxy. I think fewer layers could have been used for my radiator shroud, with polyester. But, no way would I be doing that in the house, and not with a styrofoam form. 
   There is still work to be done to the cowling, molding bumps to clear the exhaust pipes, top and bottom, fitting the airbox, which I intend to integrate into the lower cowl, shaping the front, with the air inlets, and the lower cowling.
   Shown here, upside down, the radiator should have plenty of airflow, with the intake duct catching air from the inner radius of the prop. I can add volume to the inlet, on one side, if I need to increase flow, but I believe that it will be sufficient. The incoming air is pinched off a bit, with the duct tapering down to 2" in height from the radiator, at the rear. But, the opposing pressure on the outlet should also be lowest there, as it exits the opposite side, which should facilitate the even flow of cooling air through the entire surface of the radiator. 
   
   I'll do some final smoothing, inside and out, and hit it with a coat of paint.
    
   Now, back to work....
   
   

   • 1
3. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    5 February

   With the radiator, I made a form with foam and cardboard taped onto the radiator, and covered with plastic. The glass will pop right off, and I can throw out the form. It fits perfectly to the radiator. 
   
   

   • 0
4. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    5 February

   And now, to wait. I stuck cling wrap on the old cowl, and used it as a form, to lay my fiberglass over it. Less chance of sticking it to the cowling than if I used wax. You can see wrinkles in the cling wrap, under the glass, but the top is smooth. 
   
   I laid a single layer to the length needed to make a boot cowl. There have been times I wanted one, to run with the cowling off. It trashes the windshield if the cowling isn't bracing it. Then, I covered it with another layer of cling wrap, so the next layer didn't stick to it, and lapped the front section over it. It will need to stretch forward about an inch, and the overlap allows me to do that. 
   
   The inlet for the radiator is basically done. Just waiting for it to cure. It was a challenge to clear the motor mount. Besides that, the radiator angles at basically a straight line from the inlet to the outlet, and the fittings are both on the same end, so I had to fight all that. I'll attach heat ducts from the outlet baffle, into the cockpit. 
   
   

   • 0
5. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    4 February

   This is how simple it was to make clearance on the firewall, between the footwells. Just snipped both sides in to the top corner, where feet never could go, anyway, and bent the center section out to match. 
   
   
   

   • 1
6. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    4 February

   There, that's better. 
   
   
   
   
   
   

   • 0
7. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    3 February

   Slow progress here. Last month was too cold to weld in the unheated shop, and windy to boot. 
   I wasn't satisfied with my first mount, so I cut it apart, pulled the belt guard off the engine, shaved 3/4" off each footwell, and slid the motor back 2". Then, I cut the mount back apart and got another inch out of it. I don't even know where the extra inch came from, but I made the most of it. The most work, that is.
   On the firewall, I just cut the top of the footwell back, at an angle from the bend, then bent the sides of the center section out, to rivet back in place. No new material, still enough room for the pedals. Quick, easy adjustment.
   I cut the pipes at the bend and turned them 90º, so they exit rearward, side by side.
   Configuring the pipes that way made room to stuff the radiator in the cowling. I'll duct and baffle it so it has full airflow properly directed through it, and out the cowling, with a duct for cabin heat, rather than putting a heater core inside.
   I'm also working on a ram air duct in the cowling. No reason not to make good use of that fan on front, if not putting the air to work for better performance.
   I have my old Powerfin on it, in one picture. Not enough prop, but it just feels like something is missing, without it.
   To make weight and balance....... Yeah, it's heavier than the 503. I can lose 26 pounds just by switching back to the smaller, 8.00 x 4" tires. More, if I put the Kitfox landing gear back on, with the 3/4" axles and smaller brakes. The two wing tanks each weigh 13 pounds, so it wouldn't be hard to take 60 pounds off, if I stopped caring about fuel capacity.
   I'm adding a 10 lb battery, for the electric start. That might end up all the way in the tail, with bigger cables than I would have wanted. Any weight I can take off comes from near the CG, so it doesn't do much for balance, it only reduces empty weight. Yes, I could shift some weight back if I mounted the radiator underneath, but I like it clean and protected, so it's in the cowling.
   I should re-cover the fuselage. The original dark blue paint of the Arctic Tern paint theme was a Dupont automotive enamel, which is cracking and ringworming. Otherwise, the fabric is okay. I've painted over the worst of it, to protect the exposed fabric, but the time is coming. Could lose some weight, from the plane and my wallet, with Oratex.
   Since this is the last Victor 2 I had in stock, I went ahead and mounted the intake crossover, which I also had on hand. It's supposed to make it run more smoothly and efficiently, not that I care much about that. Well, maybe a little.
   I don't have pics, but I got the exhaust hangers tacked in place. Need to tack three radiator mounting tabs, then on to the cowling.
   I wanted to do carbon fiber, but I got some 4 and 6 oz glass, instead, in the interest of getting it done at slightly less than the highest possible cost. I can always use that as a form, if I want to replace it with carbon, later.
   The prop is still hanging. I have a rather hefty Helix H60V, that would do, but I might get an H40, possibly a fixed-pitch, to try to keep the nose light. I looked into E-Props, but they said it won't hold up on this motor. I'd've felt bad about putting a competitor's prop on it, anyway, being a Helix seller. It was tempting to go for that 6 pound, 78 inch four blade, just for the weight factor, but I know I'll ultimately be happier with the stronger, higher quality Helix.
   Not all the pics would load, but I'll try to add some separately. Anyway, the wind is ripping, as it has for most of the winter, but the glass is nice and warm, downstairs,  just waiting to take shape. Time to make it happen.
   
   
   
   

   • 0
8. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Simonini engines    3 February

   This has been an interesting year, and kind of tough for business. The Victor 2's that I ordered, last January, at a cost of about $8,500 each, have all sold. With the onslaught of tariffs starting last April, tanking the exchange rate, and an increase in Simonini's prices, the last Victor 2 I got delivered, in June, cost $10,500, at the previous 10% EU tariff. As it happened, that was the last Victor model produced, to date, due to supply issues with castings, cylinder sleeves and plating, crankshaft splines and couplings, and ignitions. The production date has been pushed back, a couple times, but the latest is that they'll have more ignitions and be able to produce more engines by mid-February, '26. With the current tariff and exchange rate, my posted list price of $12,000 isn't enough to purchase and ship an engine. At no point, in the past year, has my posted price been equal to, or greater than, the cost to replace the engine I was selling. In the ten months since the first eight engines were delivered, last April, costs have increased by 50%. I haven't been able to raise prices fast enough to keep up. Fortunately, I had the foresight to order those first engines when the exchange rate was at its recent lowest rate, and before tariffs were slapped on us.
   Simonini is a small company. They've made some 20,000 engines, which is really impressive for a family company with four employees. The Victor series has been in production for 20 years, but the Victor 2 has averaged only 14 per year. Last year, they made 7, and I sold 5 of those. As prices have skyrocketed, it's gotten harder, but without production, it's impossible. When they get back in production, I expect that we'll be at $13,000, which reflects the break-even point of drop-shipping a single engine directly to the customer. I'm not going to carry stock and ship bulk at this price.
   The tariffs and ceasing of production was an expensive and untimely irritant. The announcement of the initial tariff rate came during the first days of Sun N Fun, putting a damper on that show. The last tariff rate increase came as I set up for Oshkosh, along with the news that the Victor series was out of production. Thank God for alcohol. No, I'm kidding, but it was enough to drive a man to drink. Here, eight months later, I'm keeping busy with little parts and pieces, and waiting for good news.
   We still have Victor 1's in stock, along with 250's. The more I deal with other stuff, the more inclined I am to build an ultralight, or get into powered parachutes. Light, simple, cheap, and unregulated.
   One bright side of the business has been Helix Props. We haven't been selling high volume, by any means, but they make some awesome props, and are absolutely reliable and easy to work with, shipping right way. If you haven't gotten a look at Helix props, take the time to check them out. They are top notch. They have absorbed the tariff costs, for the time being, keeping our price the same, but for the exchange rate, which is of course 16¢ higher than last January. In regard to quality and precision construction, Helix is clearly the best composite prop manufacturer.
   It seems like everyone is into E-Props, these days. I've heard the spiel, seen the props, looked at the numbers, and have been told that they won't sell me a prop for Simonini's Victor engines, because the props come apart with the vibration. Blaming the customer and engine, of course, but it's clear that their props are pretty flimsy. That's why they work. The blades flex under a load, effectively reducing pitch under high load, then springing back at cruise speed. So, their strength is rooted in their light construction, which is also their weakness, literally. The blades aren't some super efficient design, allowing them to magically be more effective and efficient, they're built light enough to flex and lose some pitch when under a load.
   I once suggested building a wing that would do that, and was sternly warned about the dangers of flex and flutter. The idea has its merits, but weakness is still a weakness, and there are reasons that we want rigidity. Maybe, with modern composites, it's an idea whose time has come. But, if a bit of vibration makes it come apart, it's probably still best to have a solid structure.
   So, here I am, in the middle of nowhere. It looks like the best option to power a Kitfox is still to rebuild the engine from an '84 Ski-doo Alpine. Unless, of course, we're talking about a new Kitfox, in which case only an $80,000 Rotax 916 will do. Maybe 12 or 13 grand isn't bad for a new Simonini, if you can get one. It's just disappointing, and hard on business, to have prices go up so much, especially when the increase is split between paying the government for nothing, and trading dollars at a higher rate, because of their trade policies. Thank God I quit drinking.
   It's like we're right back where experimental aircraft really took off, but almost in reverse. A new kit costs as much or more than a comparable certified plane. In fact, you can buy a nice ditch banger for the cost of a new Rotax. Or, whatever you call an old plane that you can bounce around in. I don't think that the new Mosaic rules are going to help that, in any regard. The cost of eggs might be down, but anything to do with aircraft is sky high. Unfortunately for me, I also sell eggs, when the chickens comply. I might have to slap a tax on myself to produce more eggs. 
    
   

   • 1
9. 
   
   

   Good old number 29 added a post in a topic New beginnings    21 Nov 2025

   I got the fuselage stripped. I doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. I picked up a free sandblaster, that appears to be in working order. We'll see how deep the pitting is, once it's blasted. 
   
   
   
   
   
   

   • 2
10. 
    
    

    Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    18 Nov 2025

    I'd like to get these on a dyno. Simonini calls it 100 and 110 at 6,200 rpm, depending where you look. That's about double the 49 or 52 hp that Rotax rated the dual carb 503s. 
     
    I'm sure you can get 110 from it. Lots of 800 cc snowmachines are making 200 hp at 8,000 rpm. I might do some testing with mine, to find its strengths and weaknesses. 
    

    • 1
11. 
    
    

    Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    18 Nov 2025

    Regarding the 503, I'm not exactly sure why it happened, but it appears that a piston ring might have snagged the exhaust port, breaking off bits of piston and ring, hammering them into the head, and wearing the cylinder in that area. 
     
    The crank and rods seem tight, without any play. Cylinders and pistons were in spec, except the damage, with pistons replaced about 150 hours prior. De-carbon had last been performed about 40 hours prior. No sign of detonation or scuffing. Besides the obvious damage, the cylinder was worn in 1/16", immediately above and below the exhaust port, the width of the port. No sign of detonation or high temps. Timing was within spec, with points having last been adjusted within the past hundred engine hours. 
     
    I had recently switched to richer main jets. Prop pitch was fairly high, still set for summer. Takeoff took a little longer than expected, and EGTs were on the cold side, around 1,000° F. 
     
    Cruising 65 mph ias at 2k msl and 5,980 rpm, I followed some back roads out toward the hills, then winding back toward the highway. About half an hour into the flight, the sound of the engine suddenly changed, and rpm dropped to 5,500. I did not hear any hammering, only the change in pitch and rpm. 
     
    Immediately turning back toward the nearest airport, I pushed in the throttle and rpms came back up. I wondered if I had bumped the button on the throttle during the last throttle adjustment, thinking it might have not been locked in, and just popped back out a little. 
     
    Fuel level was fine, valve confirmed open, ignition switch on. 
     
    But, as I continued, I realized that it wouldn't pull much over 6,000 rpm, even firewalled. Though I could maintain airspeed and altitude, and did not seem to be deteriorating further, it was clearly not making full power. Number 2 cylinder was running cool, around 900° F.
    I wondered if a spark plug had fouled, or if points, condensor, coil, or plug wire had failed, or maybe a spark plug blew out, or head gasket or cylinder stud failed, or maybe a rare instance of carb ice. I was always cautious with the single spark plugs of this early 503, but they never gave me a problem in flight. I tried more and less throttle, seeing if it would pick back up. 
     
    I checked my fuel valve. Fuel level was fine. Ignition was on. 
     
    So, following a straight path back, giving myself two options for landing on either the highway or the beach, and making a high approach, I landed uneventfully. The engine died after I dropped the throttle, on the ground, despite pushing it back it to try to taxi. 
     
    Turning the prop, it was immediately obvious there was no compression on one cylinder. 
     
    I was running fresh 90 AKI octane, with the last fuel, from the previous day, being mixed 50:1 with Pennzoil petroleum oil, and fresh fuel added that morning, mixed 80:1 with Amsoil Sabre. I've run Sabre at 100:1, a few times, with no issues. Since I just never felt totally comfortable with that, I opted for mixing it at 80:1. 
     
    The last time I de-carboned the cylinders, I was thinking about how the carbon kind of ends up in the rings, if you don't pull the jugs off. Maybe a ring stuck. Maybe the top edge of the piston caught the exhaust port and broke off. Maybe the piston had a defect, and just happened to break there. Maybe the carbon from de-carboning caused the ring to stick out. Maybe the sticky oil caused it to stick. Maybe a piston ring broke. Bits of piston and ring pounded the head, embedding pieces in the piston and head. It looks to have impacted 50-100 times, which would have taken less than a second, at that rpm, and factoring in multiple pieces breaking loose. 
     
    All's well that ends well. I landed safely, with no further damage. The 503 needs a piston, cylinder sleeve or complete cylinder, and a head. The crank should be done, as a precaution, but it was about time for that, anyway. Besides the single ignition, this provision 4 case and crankshaft uses some smaller main bearings, another point I was cautious about. 
     
    Maintaining a safe altitude, and constantly planning for an emergency landing, kept me from feeling panicked at any time. There was a good road beneath me when it happened, with plenty of time to pick a good straight spot, and see any power lines. The engine did not go out. It ran until I landed. It's unfortunate to have to replace half the engine, but I'd already planned the upgrade, and had several engines on the shelf, to choose from. 
    

    • 0
12. 
    
    

    Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Bringing a Kitfox 1 back to life    18 Nov 2025

    The old 503 finally gave up, 41 years after it was built. I had already planned on doing the upgrade to the Simonini Victor 2, and the interesting end of the 503 means there is no reason to put it off any longer.
     
    
    The Victor 2, sitting on Simonini's aluminum mount and "silent blocks", put the prop flange at the exact same height as the 503, on its original aluminum bed mount for the Kitfox. The carbs, exhaust, starter, and engine mounting plate weren't going to clear the old engine mount, so I set about welding up a new one. I wanted to keep the original fwf and engine, so it can always go back to its original form. 
    
    The Victor 2 is bigger and heavier than the 503. It's about 2" longer, and an inch taller, to the top of the spark plug caps, as compared to a 582 with a C box. That is not counting the 582 starter, and relocating the coils from the back of the Simonini. I already had the 503 apart, so I didn't get dimensions on its height. It's a pull-start. 
    
    The model 1 through model 4 1200 have the same engine mount locations on the airframe. Interestingly, the footwells on the model 1 are wider than on the model 4. The space between the footwells, on the firewall, is about an inch narrower on the model 1. The footwells stick out into the engine compartment the same distance, at the same angle. 
     
    As is, I left the coils on the Victor 1, and mounted it far enough forward its ring gear cover to clear the footwells on the model 1. Thrust line and prop flange height are same as before, but 4" forward. If I modified the model 1 footwells to match the model 4, or raised the engine an inch, and relocated the coils, I could slide the engine back two inches, and still have the same half inch of clearance. 
    
    I don't want to raise the engine, because of visibility over the nose, but am considering changing the footwells and mount, to move it aft. I'm confidant that mounting a battery further back in the tail will bring the balance to where it was, either way. 
    
    I can swap the heavy landing gear and 25" Airwheels back to the Kitfox gear and four-wheeler tires, to make up the weight difference. I'm considering building a unique, new, lightweight landing gear. We'll see about that, if and when it happens. 
    
    Yes, the loops on the twin pipes would stick up above the natural plane of the cowling, and restrict visibility. The single exhaust can easily be made to fit within the cowling. I'm going to do thrust tests with both, prior to committing to one or the other. The dual exhaust is 1/2 pound heavier. I could save 10 pounds by duplicating them with lighter material, no problem. Particularly so with the single exhaust. 
     
    I could gain visibility if I lowered the mount, if I didn't move the engine back. I'm not really losing sight over the nose, from what I had, since I can turn the cowl down more in front of the cylinders. No matter how else I change things, or not, the new cowling will be necessary. 
    
    I'd love to hear any input on changing the thrust line, and also the forward distance to the prop. Is the 912 longer than the 582? I see that my model 4 landing gear angles slightly forward from its mounting point, as opposed to the straight 90° to the mounting bracket on my model 1. I'm guessing that change was made at the model 3, when they started putting the 912 in it. Does anyone know? The original gear legs on mine are also about 2" shorter than later model 1s. 
     
    I hope you're all happily building and flying. See you out there. 
    

    • 1
13. 
    
    

    Good old number 29 added a post in a topic Simonini engines    21 Apr 2025

    Sun ‘n Fun was a blast, as you might expect. From there, it was right back to blow’n snow. I am ready for some fun again.
    
    We’re already gearing up for Oshkosh, where we’ll be in the Homebuilts area, in Booth 625, right across from the Kitfox display. We’ll be there with a complete complement of Simonini motors, and Helix props. That will be July 21-27, 2025. 
    I hope to do some thrust testing, possibly this week, if the spring weather breaks. Unfortunately, we sold out the dual exhaust, so we’ll have to wait for the next shipment to come in, to get thrust numbers on it. We have it in the works, along with some other good stuff, like the Victor 2 intake equalizer plenum, and more gear ratios, including the 4:1, which might be used for towing gliders. 
     
    We will be taking a closer look at the Victor 2 Super installation on the Kitfox 1, and the Model 4. There were some changes in the firewall forward, over the years, so we’ll get a good look at how it mounts on the original flat plate, versus Kitfox’s later cradle style side mount, as well as answering how the exhaust fits. 
     
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    IMG_3766.heic
    IMG_3713.heic
    IMG_3708.heic
    IMG_3663.heic
    IMG_3642.heic
    

    • 2
14. 
    
    

    Good old number 29 added a post in a topic New beginnings    20 Mar 2025

    That looks really good. $800 is a great deal for blasting and painting, too.  I rented a sandblaster and compressor when I did the tail feathers on #29. I’ll probably do the same for this one. 
     
    I’d thought about the 912, like Jim suggested. It seems like that’s what everybody wants, too. I just saw a post on one of the Facebook groups, someone asking the price for a Kitfox IV with a basic gauge panel -no glass- and a 912 UL. The answer was $40k-$50k. That’s crazy, but that’s what they’re going for, and it’s what people want.
     
    There were several considerations that kept me from taking that route. I’ve never seen a used 912 for sale, in Alaska, that wasn’t attached to a plane. I’ve seen them in the lower 48, usually going around $6k. That’s not the kind of thing I want to buy without looking at. If I could work it out, I’d be in for $10k before I got it on the plane, just getting it up here and putting a prop on it, and it’s still a used engine. 
    
    But, I’m not the type of guy that wants the standard Ford. Nothing against it. To tell the truth, I’d take a 172 over a new Kitfox, and have something safer, more practical, and more reliable, for less money. Yes, I just looked down on Ford, only to say I’d rather go for the Buick of airplanes. But, this is a different kind of bird, and it’s going to be light and nimble and fun. If not a Ferrari, at least a Mustang with a six speed to shift. 
     
    Since I just got set up to sell Simonini engines, and I have several Victor 2 Supers, that I already paid for, it makes sense to build the plane with one. I like the two-strokes, personally. I grew up riding snowmachines, and a bad KX 250 that couldn’t keep the front wheel on the ground, besides my little Kitfox. I know that’s not for everyone. Like with the KX, as well as the Rotaxes, people have gotten away from the light and simple, choosing the bigger and heavier machines. 
     
    For some reason, people have a hard time taking a step back, after they make things too complicated. We add more and more, then pretty soon, the cars are driving themselves, the planes fly without us, and we just watch them on YouTube. I don’t  want a $200,000 Kitfox, even if I could afford it. Guys are paying $50k for a basic KF4. That’s stupid. Go buy a Taylorcraft with a C90, and spend the other $20k on fuel. Just my opinion. 
     
    For my money, I’ll take the orphaned fuselage, put some love into it, and keep it light and simple, like it was made to be. Yes, it was designed to handle the 912, but also the 582, and a lightweight two-stroke with a good pedigree, and more power, for less money, makes something a little leaner, a little meaner, and a little more unique than every Model 4 that people are lining up to pay too much for. 
     
    Besides, I like the idea of keeping two-strokes in the mainstream, and supporting a good, family-run business, like Simonini, to say nothing of my own. Since I do have my own business at stake, I think I need to put my money where my mouth is, and show what the engines I’m selling are really capable of. 
     
    Nothing against the 9 series, but if we all do that, that will be all there is. 
    

    • 3
15. 
    
    

    Good old number 29 added a post in a topic New beginnings    20 Mar 2025

    That looks really good. $800 is a great deal for blasting and painting, too.  I rented a sandblaster and compressor when I did the tail feathers on #29. I’ll probably do the same for this one. 
     
    I’d thought about the 912, like Jim suggested. It seems like that’s what everybody wants, too. I just saw a post on one of the Facebook groups, someone asking the price for a Kitfox IV with a basic gauge panel -no glass- and a 912 UL. The answer was $40k-$50k. That’s crazy, but that’s what they’re going for, and it’s what people want.
     
    There were several considerations that kept me from taking that route. I’ve never seen a used 912 for sale, in Alaska, that wasn’t attached to a plane. I’ve seen them in the lower 48, usually going around $6k. That’s not the kind of thing I want to buy without looking at. If I could work it out, I’d be in for $10k before I got it on the plane, just getting it up here and putting a prop on it, and it’s still a used engine. 
    
    But, I’m not the type of guy that wants the standard Ford. Nothing against it. To tell the truth, I’d take a 172 over a new Kitfox, and have something safer, more practical, and more reliable, for less money. Yes, I just looked down on Ford, only to say I’d rather go for the Buick of airplanes. But, this is a different kind of bird, and it’s going to be light and nimble and fun. If not a Ferrari, at least a Mustang with a six speed to shift. 
     
    Since I just got set up to sell Simonini engines, and I have several Victor 2 Supers, that I already paid for, it makes sense to build the plane with one. I like the two-strokes, personally. I grew up riding snowmachines, and a bad KX 250 that couldn’t keep the front wheel on the ground, besides my little Kitfox. I know that’s not for everyone. Like with the KX, as well as the Rotaxes, people have gotten away from the light and simple, choosing the bigger and heavier machines. 
     
    For some reason, people have a hard time taking a step back, after they make things too complicated. We add more and more, then pretty soon, the cars are driving themselves, the planes fly without us, and we just watch them on YouTube. I don’t  want a $200,000 Kitfox, even if I could afford it. Guys are paying $50k for a basic KF4. That’s stupid. Go buy a Taylorcraft with a C90, and spend the other $20k on fuel. Just my opinion. 
     
    For my money, I’ll take the orphaned fuselage, put some love into it, and keep it light and simple, like it was made to be. Yes, it was designed to handle the 912, but also the 582, and a lightweight two-stroke with a good pedigree, and more power, for less money, makes something a little leaner, a little meaner, and a little more unique, than every Model 4 that people are lining up to pay too much for. 
     
    Besides, I like the idea of keeping two-strokes in the mainstream, and supporting a good, family-run business, like Simonini, to say nothing of my own. Since I do have my own business at stake, I think I need to put my money where my mouth is, and show what the engines I’m selling are really capable of. 
     
    Nothing against the 9 series, but if we all do that, that will be all there is. 
    

    • 0