Rebel Verses Kitfox
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:52 am
Wow guys, I feel like Rebel owners were just regarded as a bunch of fibbers in regards to the overall Rebel experience. There is a discussion on the teamkitfox forum where a guy posted the question of possibly building a Rebel. While I suggested it is a great airplane, another poster sure didn't have much nice to say. Here is his post:
"I have known 4 people over the years that had Rebels, 3 of them on floats, and none of them kept the plane.
Curious, I asked them all why they didn't stick with the Rebel, but never got a definitive or collective answer from them. But here is what I did get: One said performance was not good with the 0-320 and amphib floats, cruising only at 85 mph at 9 gph. Another said cockpit uncomfortable because you sit pretty flat on the floor compared to most other aircraft. Another with an 0-360 on amphibs said it had very poor load carrying ability and felt the wing was too short (same issue with the Murphy Moose, especially on floats). The last guy said he had to install an 0-320 because the 0-290 didn't have enough power on floats, and felt it just never met his overall expectations. All of them said the Rebel flew ok, but at the same time none of them raved about how much fun they are to fly (like most of us do with our Kitfoxes). I flew one with an 0-320 on Murphy amphibs and actually was thinking I might maybe want one (for pretty much same reasons you mentioned), but after flying it realized while it was overall ok, it just didn't excite me enough to want to own one.
For comparison, my Model 4 Kitfox amphib is way more fun to fly and outperforms the Rebel on less than half the fuel. And I'm pretty convinced if you built a new Kitfox Super Sport float plane with a 912 or 914, or if on wheels you equipped it with a 125+ hp aircraft engine, and made baggage as big as possible, you would have a better performing airplane than the Rebel. And it would burn less fuel, haul the same or more, could still be an LSA, and has the great feature of folding wings. And in a crash, the Kitfox has a chromoly steel fuselage (notice they use that in race cars, not aluminum or composite...).
I'm not bashing the Rebel, as overall I think they are good airplanes, and honestly have considered one. But compared to a late model Kitfox I really don't think there is a comparison. However, comparing a Kitfox to a lot of airplanes will be that way, as it has well above average performance for such low horsepower, and the fun factor is off the charts. That's probably why there are so many Kitfoxes out there, and so few Rebels. For similar money on the used market, and if I did'nt care about being a LSA, I'd go for a 0-360 powered older Glastar. But again, the Kitfox SS would be more fun and cost effective to own imho.
Take your Kitfox to that Alaskan beach. It will be the most fun you can have "
Wow, I feel like we were all just called big fibbers and the Rebel is a POS!!! I'm going to have to forever hind my great admiration for all things Rebel! ;)
"I have known 4 people over the years that had Rebels, 3 of them on floats, and none of them kept the plane.
Curious, I asked them all why they didn't stick with the Rebel, but never got a definitive or collective answer from them. But here is what I did get: One said performance was not good with the 0-320 and amphib floats, cruising only at 85 mph at 9 gph. Another said cockpit uncomfortable because you sit pretty flat on the floor compared to most other aircraft. Another with an 0-360 on amphibs said it had very poor load carrying ability and felt the wing was too short (same issue with the Murphy Moose, especially on floats). The last guy said he had to install an 0-320 because the 0-290 didn't have enough power on floats, and felt it just never met his overall expectations. All of them said the Rebel flew ok, but at the same time none of them raved about how much fun they are to fly (like most of us do with our Kitfoxes). I flew one with an 0-320 on Murphy amphibs and actually was thinking I might maybe want one (for pretty much same reasons you mentioned), but after flying it realized while it was overall ok, it just didn't excite me enough to want to own one.
For comparison, my Model 4 Kitfox amphib is way more fun to fly and outperforms the Rebel on less than half the fuel. And I'm pretty convinced if you built a new Kitfox Super Sport float plane with a 912 or 914, or if on wheels you equipped it with a 125+ hp aircraft engine, and made baggage as big as possible, you would have a better performing airplane than the Rebel. And it would burn less fuel, haul the same or more, could still be an LSA, and has the great feature of folding wings. And in a crash, the Kitfox has a chromoly steel fuselage (notice they use that in race cars, not aluminum or composite...).
I'm not bashing the Rebel, as overall I think they are good airplanes, and honestly have considered one. But compared to a late model Kitfox I really don't think there is a comparison. However, comparing a Kitfox to a lot of airplanes will be that way, as it has well above average performance for such low horsepower, and the fun factor is off the charts. That's probably why there are so many Kitfoxes out there, and so few Rebels. For similar money on the used market, and if I did'nt care about being a LSA, I'd go for a 0-360 powered older Glastar. But again, the Kitfox SS would be more fun and cost effective to own imho.
Take your Kitfox to that Alaskan beach. It will be the most fun you can have "
Wow, I feel like we were all just called big fibbers and the Rebel is a POS!!! I'm going to have to forever hind my great admiration for all things Rebel! ;)
