Kitfox Build

[BurnieM]

Airmaster electric or MT hydralic or some other hub ?

 

[Lyndon]

No. I have the type 3 gearbox for future proofing, but I'm going for a fixed pitch. The kitfox IMO does not require a constant speed. Nor does the gearbox like a heavy propeller. 

Lyndon 

[RossK]

Have you considered the Catto 3 blade? Designed for 916 powered Stol aircraft.

Catto 3 Blade

[skippydiesel]

56 minutes ago, Lyndon said:

No. I have the type 3 gearbox for future proofing, but I'm going for a fixed pitch. The kitfox IMO does not require a constant speed. Nor does the gearbox like a heavy propeller. 

Lyndon 

Check out E-Prop.

I don't have one but they have been receiving pretty constant good reviews. https://e-props.fr/

 

"Nor does the gearbox like a heavy propeller" - the biggest issue is not so much weight (there is a max recommended?) prop balance is the biggest issue.😈

Edited Friday at 04:03 AM by skippydiesel

[Lyndon]

57 minutes ago, RossK said:

Have you considered the Catto 3 blade? Designed for 916 powered Stol aircraft.

Catto 3 Blade

No. Im going with what is proven. 

Lyndon 

[skippydiesel]

16 minutes ago, Lyndon said:

No. Im going with what is proven. 

Lyndon 

?????????????😈

[facthunter]

The undercambered wing gives a Low Vne and You might have trouble at higher Levels. As they are on a hot day 2 up 4000 ft is about it for the 80 HP motor..  Nev

[BrendAn]

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

Have you flown one?  That Power would make it exceed Vne in climb. Nev

a lot of 916 getting fitted to  kitfoxs in the USA now.

[skippydiesel]

On 11/07/2025 at 7:42 PM, BrendAn said:

a lot of 916 getting fitted to  kitfoxs in the USA now.

Sounds like something the Yanks might do😈

[skippydiesel]

On 11/07/2025 at 2:26 PM, Lyndon said:

No. Im going with what is proven. 

Lyndon 

I was hoping with my ???? you would expand on this statement😈

[Thruster88]

18 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Sounds like something the Yanks might do😈

There is a lot of very high density altitude ops in the USA so it is a no brainer to use a Rotax TURBOCHARGED 916. If I was building a 916 would be my engine of choice and you know how much I like Lycoming. 

[skippydiesel]

17 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

There is a lot of very high density altitude ops in the USA so it is a no brainer to use a Rotax TURBOCHARGED 916. If I was building a 916 would be my engine of choice and you know how much I like Lycoming. 

True o king of Lycoming BUT there is a MUCH smaller turbo normalised Rotax called the 914. Amongst Rotax lovers, the 914 was much favoured for trans Alp/ Pyrenees/ Amazon/Rocky flying

 

At first glance the Rotax 916 seems to be a tad over the top for such a lightweight/STOL type airframe.

 

I admit I don't know what changes may have been done to the Kitfox design, since it first came out with the 80-100 hp variant, to accomodate 160hp or for that matter what useful attributes, such a large engine, may confer on the aircraft.😈

[BurnieM]

912UL (80hp) are used in very few aircraft these days when for a little more you can get at 912ULS (100hp).

The carbed 912ULS is still popular in the US but the injected 912IS (still 100hp but more efficent at cruise) is more popular in Europe.

 

The turbocharged 914 (114hp) is based on the 912UL.

The turbocharged 915 (144hp) is based on the 912IS.

The turbocharged 916 (165hp) is based on the beefed up 915 but with similar efficent cruise consumption.

Most models using a 915 seem to have moved to the 916.

 

Most models with a 914 , 915 or 916 are using a constant speed prop.

 

 

[Lyndon]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I was hoping with my ???? you would expand on this statement😈

Of course, the E prop is a proven propeller for the Rotax engines, light, reliable. Smooth, balanced, long TBO and in their thousands out there. The prop you talk about is new, brand new. I believe Trent Palmers 915 Rotax with 600 hrs on it ate itself, ( a very expensive engine full of metal now. ) now it could be just bad luck but E prop make a big deal about Rotax engines, light propellers and  gearbox longevity. It's goes without saying I'm in this camp.

Lyndon 

[Lyndon]

6 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

912UL (80hp) are used in very few aircraft these days when for a little more you can get at 912ULS (100hp).

The carbed 912ULS is still popular in the US but the injected 912IS (still 100hp but more efficent at cruise) is more popular in Europe.

 

The turbocharged 914 (114hp) is based on the 912UL.

The turbocharged 915 (144hp) is based on the 912IS.

The turbocharged 916 (165hp) is based on the beefed up 915 but with similar efficent cruise consumption.

Most models using a 915 seem to have moved to the 916.

 

Most models with a 914 , 915 or 916 are using a constant speed prop.

 

 

The 915 is now redundant. It's 1200 TBO makes no sense to purchase it.

Lyndon 

[Methusala]

Earlier Kitfoxes were powered by 582's. They were the ones with undercambered airfoils. My guess is IV's had "Speedwing" capable of 80+ kts cruise.

Edited yesterday at 04:03 AM by Methusala

[facthunter]

The Gazelle still  had it with  a speed limit of 85 kts especially IF any "G" involved. Any more weight in the Nose would  require some in the rear and that's not a good idea. They are a small dia steel tube  fuselage that sometimes gets corroded. Doesn't have a fail safe pitch actuation either. This is NOT a design I would "Hotrod". Nev

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, Lyndon said:

The 915 is now redundant. It's 1200 TBO makes no sense to purchase it.

Lyndon 

Supposedly there is a 915 coming with a 2000 hour/15 year TBO.

They have been saying this for more than 2 years so ....

 

 

[facthunter]

Maybe it's just Breathing heavily?  Nev

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Lyndon said:

The 915 is now redundant. It's 1200 TBO makes no sense to purchase it.

Lyndon 

Dont know where you are getting your information - Try https://www.flyrotax.com/p/products/engines

 

The 912UL (80 hp) has 2000 hr TBO😈

[Lyndon]

Yes your quite correct. But I was referring to the 915. 60k for a 1200hr engine or 70k for a 2000hr engine. 

Both ridiculous prices but no-one is going to buy the 915.

Lyndon 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Dont know where you are getting your information - Try https://www.flyrotax.com/p/products/engines

 

The 912UL (80 hp) has 2000 hr TBO😈

 

[skippydiesel]

20 hours ago, Lyndon said:

Yes your quite correct. But I was referring to the 915. 60k for a 1200hr engine or 70k for a 2000hr engine. 

Both ridiculous prices but no-one is going to buy the 915.

Lyndon 

 

Sorry - had my wires crossed.

 

Any rational for fitting the 916 to the Kitfox?😈

[Lyndon]

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry - had my wires crossed.

 

Any rational for fitting the 916 to the Kitfox?😈

Rational? It's the preferred engine for this kit. 

Lyndon 

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Lyndon said:

Rational? It's the preferred engine for this kit. 

Lyndon 

Really! How interesting.

 

I assume  there have been significant changes, to the original airframe (that I had  a ride in about 1991) to accomodate such an increase in hp - do tell😈

 

[Lyndon]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Really! How interesting.

 

I assume  there have been significant changes, to the original airframe (that I had  a ride in about 1991) to accomodate such an increase in hp - do tell😈

 

I have no idea.  I'm not the man who knows. I just bought a kit from what I understand is a very popular plane. It's a completely standard off the shelf kit. I would think after my dealings with Kitfox most of the aircraft are 916 powered. Maybe some 912 IS but nothing with a carby is catered for now in a new build. That's not to say you can't fit a lot of different engines. But firewall forward kits production / stock are Rotax. If you ask the owner, John McBean the Rotax 916 is their bread and butter. Like most aircraft today I think. 

Lyndon 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry - had my wires crossed.

 

Any rational for fitting the 916 to the Kitfox?😈

Rational? It's the preferred engine for this kit. 

Lyndon