Skyfox and Gazelle Differences

[Guest Crash Lander]

Reading here, I get he indication that a Skyfox is different to a Gazelle. The Gazelle I fly has a badge on the dash that says "Skyfox Gazelle".

 

So, I thought That Skyfox was like Ford, and Gazelle was like Falcon.

 

Can someone clear this up for me please?

 

 

[Admin]

Chris

 

The aircraft in your Avatar is a Gazelle (proper name is Skyfox Gazelle).

 

You are sort of right by saying a Ford Falcon in the name of a Skyfox Gazelle.

 

The Skyfox is the origional aircraft that is a tail dragger. Skyfox then released a tri-axle version of the Skyfox and called it a Gazelle.

 

It is important to also note that whilst the undercarriage on both aircraft are different to each other, there are also many other subtle differences between the two.

 

Hope this helps!

 

 

[Guest Crash Lander]

ChrisThe aircraft in your Avatar is a Gazelle (proper name is Skyfox Gazelle).

You are sort of right by saying a Ford Falcon in the name of a Skyfox Gazelle.

 

The Skyfox is the origional aircraft that is a tail dragger. Skyfox then released a tri-axle version of the Skyfox and called it a Gazelle.

 

It is important to also note that whilst the undercarriage on both aircraft are different to each other, there are also many other subtle differences between the two.

 

Hope this helps!

Ah! Now I understand! Skyfox is Fairlane. Gazelle is LTD! ;) Gazelle's rule!

 

How does everyone know my real name ayway?:;)5:

 

 

[slartibartfast]

I think your buddy from HK, Simon, gave it away and then you signed your reply.

 

Quote:Originally Posted by nomis

Chris,

 

Hello from Hong Kong. Good to hear the Gazelle is back in the air. Will have a fly when back in May. Hope Kirsty and the boys are well.

 

Simon

 

Hey! Simon! Fancy seeing you here! I just found this place the other day!

 

I see you just have 1 post too, so you must have just found it too! Great minds think alike eh!

 

I'm going up again at 8 in the morning, weather permitting of course, but looks promising at the moment.

 

What a buzz to see you here!

 

(Still trying to figure out how you knew Crash Lander was me!)

 

Say hi to Erika and the boys for us!

 

Chris

 

________

I'd say he guessed by your location and avatar.

By an amazing coincidence, Simon's username is exactly the same as his real name but backwards. The world's a funny place.

 

If you don't want us to know your name I'm sure we can all forget it. We can call you Bruce.

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest Crash Lander]

I think your buddy from HK, Simon, gave it away and then you signed your reply. I'd say he guessed by your location and avatar.

 

By an amazing coincidence, Simon's username is exactly the same as his real name but backwards. The world's a funny place.

 

If you don't want us to know your name I'm sure we can all forget it. We can call you Bruce.

 

Ross

It's not that I didn't want anybody to know, it's just I didn't know how everyone suddenly knew it!

 

If you'rs gonna call me Bruce, just don't use a lisp! Bruth ith thuch a thweetie!

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that! :confused:

 

 

[Guest osprey5]

Hi Bruth the Crash Lander - If you get the chance to fly an 'original' Skyfox give it a go. Flying taildraggers is a real buzz (well the t/o and landing is!) otherwise the Gazelle and Skyfox are similar.

 

 

[rick-p]

The real truth of the matter is that most couldn't fly a Skyfox properly because there weren't too many instructors, at the time, out there, that could impart the required wisdom needed to fly one, to their student.

 

The initial Skyfox CA21 was a very difficult aircraft to land in fact some of the early models couldn't be properly 3 pointed, you had to wheel them on.

 

Unfortunately a lot of instructors didn't either know or just didn't want to teach wheel on landings.

 

Good for stiff cross wind landings.

 

There were so many Skyfox's damaged because of ground looping etc that basically insurance companies gave up insuring them.

 

Someone at the Skyfox factory got half smart and decided to put a training wheel up front which resolved the problem somewhat.

 

The CA22 (TD) was an improvement in the handling stakes but the CA25 (Gazelle) fixed most of the problems in the gound handling, landing and take off configuration that the original CA21 experienced when first out.

 

Teething problems will always occur when another design is copied but given certain changes so as to avoid law suits.

 

The Skyfox is a copy of the Kitfox 2 which was also called a Skyfox.

 

The ailerons were segmented on the Australian Skyfox to help offset flutter due to the greater flexibility in the OZ Skyfox's wing to that of the US Kitfox.

 

The original Kitfox had a much stronger wing spar to that of the OZ Skyfox.

 

The Kitfox had flaperons whereas the Skyfox trim is a bungee trim on the elevator, this may have some adverse effects particularly in the area of downward forces on the tail plane.

 

The original tail fin was smaller whereas on later skyfox's and kitfox's it was given more area, mainly height.

 

All these things, including the very narrow main gear, made for some very interesting landings, at times catching the uninitiated by surprise, with varying results.

 

A very experienced instructor once told me that if you can fly a Skyfox without incident then you can fly anything.

 

Rick-p

 

 

[barandbrew]

Hi Rick

 

Just an observation on your comment on the wing spar on the kitfox verse the skyfox.

 

I have seen a kitfox wing disembled and the thing that surprised me was that although the wing looked the same as my Gazelle the kitfox spar which looked the same didn't have the "i" beem running down the centre that the Gazelle has. I am not an engineer but I'd have money that the spar with the "i" beem support would be stronger

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

[Guest Sabre]

....so where does the Eurofox come into play..Is this a modern version of the Skyfox???

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Thanks for reminding me! Guy in Melb took delivery this month of a new Eurofox from the Horsham dealer. Up to 110 knots cruise at 5,200rpm. Cruise slow at 4,800rpm @ 90'ish knots.

 

Apparently it's a very nice machine and I'll hopefully get a ride shortly.

 

Has the 7 inch Dynon dash and Avmap and one very happy owner in the cockpit.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Well, I'm glad that somebody cleaed that up about Gazelles versus Skyfox's.

 

Unfortunately my experience of them is limited to the time (Sept 2004) I was on route from Heck Field to Cooloola Cove in my trike and landed at Caloundra to refuel (2-stroke trikes don't go very far on a 44L tank of fuel against 20kt headwinds).

 

Anyway my Skyfox experience was that as soon as I parked next to a taxyway, "SkyFox 757" promptly taxied out and did his engine warm up with prop wash blasting my trike from a mere 10 meters away. It took 3 radio calls to get the SOD to move . . . and both pilot and pasenger to hold the trike down until he did.

 

Sorry for the grumble, but you just don't forget stupidity like that.

 

 

[Geoffrey]

Hi Rick

 

Having flown a Citabria for many happy years in South Africa, I have been looking around for something similar in Australia, but in the RAA family. Can you halp me with a brief diifference between the CA21 and CA22. I got the specs on a CA21 that is for sale and the cruise is quoted as approx 60 kts as against 80kts for others that I have looked at. I am aware that the engine makes a difference but are there fusilage differences as well?

 

Regards

 

 

[Guest danda]

I have never even seen a Gazelle however I am going up to Goulburn next week weather permitting to fly one and to be honest I am looking forward to it I want to have a go at as many aircraft as I can till I find one that will suit the need I have for it. I'm hoping although I haven't made the appointment yet to fly the Lightwing at the oaks the next day.

 

Looking forward to catching up with the people at the oaks.

 

Don

 

 

[Guest Sabre]

Confusion reigns..lol check this out

 

Kitfox

 

and

 

Eurofox

 

 

[Admin]

I have never even seen a Gazelle Don

Don, there are some pictures of the Gazelle in the Photo Gallery of the site

 

 

[Yenn]

The Gazelle would have to be one of the easiest airplanes to fly, even I can do good landings in them straight away and I wouldn't call the Skyfox hard to land. A Thruster would have to be far harder.

 

 

[Guest danda]

I have seen pic's of them but not in the flesh so to speak.

 

Don

 

 

[rick-p]

John,

 

I assume that the "i" beam you refer to is the strip of metal inserted inside the main spar, basically, for the full length of the spar.

 

As far as I'm aware the strengthening beam was only used up to the Kitfox model 2 and thereafter they moved to a slightly heavier walled spar. I'm not 100% certain of this and will stand corrected if someone knows better.

 

I have not seen this stengthening fillet used past the Kitfox 2.

 

Also I think that it was only used in later versions of the Skyfox and or some Gazelle's.

 

Regards,

 

Rick

 

 

[rick-p]

Ian I agree with you that the Gazelle is an extremely nice plane to land apart from I think, only in the early model, that there was a little drop (freefall) of the nose wheel to the ground when speed dropped off (washed off) on landing rather than a smooth progression of the nose wheel to the point of surface contact.

 

As for landing a Skyfox, they got better as the models improved from CA21 onwards being given a bigger tail fin etc which helped dramatically landing characteristics and ground handling at low speeds with in stiff x-wind.

 

The CA21's were nearly impossible to 3 point unless you taped up all the gaps in the elevator as basically the way the aircraft was rigged it was more comfortable with wheel on's.

 

I think the proof of the degree of difficulty operation is in the fact that no insurer really wanted to take them on in the end because of the number of ground loop incidents resulting in damage to these earlier Skyfox's.

 

Any that were reinsured were done so at a substantial premiums.

 

Also mate you ain't a dam bad pilot for gnome.

 

Regards

 

Rick

 

 

[rick-p]

Geoffery I think that apart from a larger tail fin and adjusted rigging and maybe tighter skin there wasn't a great deal of difference.

 

Your cruise speeds are close to the mark but once again there was some variance not only between models but also from aircraft to aircraft.

 

I suppose that it's not unlike mass produced cars, I have heard that you should always try to avoid buying a car that was built either just before Christmas or Easter as the mind is not on the job and the job is being rushed to be completed before the pending holidays.

 

Off course the very early Skyfox's had Aeropower motors in the whereas the first Kitfox's had 532's and then 582's.

 

I really think to know all the differences between the 2 models of Skyfox's that you would need to have one of each side by side and then compare and measure up everything including noting all angles and rigging and how taut the skin was on each of them.

 

I don't know whether this is of much help to you, but there maybe someone out there who knows the complete story.

 

Possibly you could talk to Tony Kerr at Gympie Aviation Queensland he was one of the Skyfox factory employees when the factory was in operation.

 

Regards,

 

Rick

 

 

[Guest Sabre]

He is a bit of the US history if your interested;

 

Denney Aerocraft produced the first Kitfox kit in November of 1984 in a small factory in Boise, Idaho. The Kitfox was designed as a lightweight, two-place sport aircraft with excellent STOL (Short Takeoff and Landing) performance and the ability to operate from short and unimproved airfields. The Kitfox features folding wings and is easily trailered, allowing owners to share hangar space or keep their Kitfox's at home in a single car garage. Six Model 1 Kitfox's were delivered that first year. Since 1984, over 4,000 Kitfox kits have been delivered to builders throughout the United States, Canada, and over 42 foreign countries. Under Dan Denney’s leadership, the Kitfox evolved from the original Model 1 to continually improved versions referred to as the Models 2, 3, 4, and Classic 4.

 

In June 1992, SkyStar Aircraft Corporation purchased the rights to produce the Kitfox kit from Denney Aerocraft. SkyStar immediately began development of a completely new Kitfox, the Series 5. This larger aircraft was designed to fit the needs of a growing segment of the marketplace that wanted a “Weekend Cruiser.” These pilots wanted a recreational airplane that combined the best attributes of the Kitfox with greater useful loads, certified engines, increased cabin space, and larger cargo capacity. The Series 5, which offered both a taildragger (the Outback/Safari) and a tri-gear (the Vixen/Voyager) configuration, answered these requests and became one of the most successful introductions in the history of the kit plane industry.

 

In January of 2000, an employee group acquired SkyStar Aircraft, and an exciting new chapter began for the SkyStar team. SkyStar announced the new Kitfox Series 6, an airplane that incorporated all of the best features of all versions of the Series 5. The Series 5 evolved into the Series 6, and then the Series 7. In October of 2005, Skystar encountered financial difficulties and ceased operations.

 

In April of 2006, the assets of Skystar were acquired by Kitfox Aircraft LLC, a newly formed organization operated by John and Debra McBean. The McBean's own and operate Sportplane LLC, a Kitfox specialty supply firm they founded after John's departure from Skystar in 2003.

 

 

[Geoffrey]

Tks for thatRrick, I will give him a call and also try and get some air time in a few different models.

 

Regards

 

 

[Guest nsmflyer]

I heard the other day that the Gazelle has a total airframe time of 3000hrs then the airframe is a throw away, hence meaning the whole plane would be throw away except for some salvagable pieces ie engine,instruments,wheels etc.

 

Is this Fact or Fiction???

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Fortunately what you have heard is purely fiction.

 

There is however a wing-only life of 4,000 hours, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the wings must be replaced.

 

You'd better inform your source on this one! Perhaps they were using that as a line to get a nice cheap Gazelle!

 

 

[Big Kev]

What do Skyfoxes generally weigh in at, max and min? (Gazelle weights can be found in the basic specs thread.)

 

I'm looking at a min of 240 kg useful to make any UL worthwhile. What I have discovered is that the cost moves dramatically to the right as useful load goes up, as it should- but out of my range.........

 

I'm also trying to get my head around the rego types. I'm looking at buying an aircraft and being taught to fly in it. Did I see something about not being able to be taught in an aircraft you didn't build, if it doesn't have factory certification?

 

 

Big Kev