Talk:Denney Kitfox

Belite Aircraft and the Kitfox Lite

Cited information about Belite Aircraft "acquiring the production rights" to the Kitfox Lite has now been removed from this article three times:

• Twice by User:Kitfox1 with edit summaries "rights were not sold.. incorrect statement." and "Rights were not sold."
• Once by User:74.47.186.46 with the edit summary: "Production rights to the Kitfox Lite were not sold - we still own them" (IP address registered to Frontier Communications of America, Inc. Rochester, NY - Kitfox is located in Homedale, Idaho)

Given this it is hard to determine if the problem here is content vandalism or just conflict of interest editors.

If this is just vandalism then your edits will be reverted and you will be blocked from editing.

If these two editors actually work for Kitfox then please be informed that you are in a conflict of interest and should not edit this article. Instead you should bring your concerns here to the talk page for resolution, as per the COI policy.

Right now the article cites a Belite press release and and AvWeb aviation media story that clearly states that Belite "acquired the production rights" to the Kitfox Lite. If this information is not correct then another reference will have to be presented that says this, like a Kitfox press release. If the design was "stolen" or there is some other commercial dispute about the rights to the design then there will be proof available as press releases from Kitfox, court documents or similar. Regardless, if this is some sort of commercial or legal dispute then it will not be removed from this article, but will form part of the story, as a controversy.

So if this is a disagreement or controversy please discuss it here and we will find the best way to resolve it. If it is vandalism then it will be reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reference: OTRS ticket 2009080810020923 and emails from Kitfox company staff)

Kitfox has confirmed in an email to the Foundation that their corporate position is that they did not "sell anyone the rights" to the Kitfox Light - this was an independent (and legal) derivation from older plans but not a sale of any Kitfox brand / manufacturing rights per se. They state that while Denny has perfectly reasonable rights to the plans and to manufacture the airplane, that the statement of transfer of brand or manufacturing rights to the prior plane was incorrect.

This is in a sense a minor detail regarding trademark - however, minor trademark details can be a major legal issue, and we need to respect the business and trademark owner's rights.

Our policy on Conflicts of Interest does not prohibit them from editing the article. They need to be open about who they are - the account name of User:Kitfox1 is sufficiently clear on that point - and not edit in ways that would violate our policy on neutral point of view (NPOV). They have not, to my review, done that. They're making a reasonable factual correction, which is entirely reasonable under NPOV and COI concerns.

I have asked that Kitfox release an official, citeable statement to that effect, which we can then include as a reliable source reference citation.

In the meantime, I would like to request that their comments be considered reasonable and accurate, and leave the phrasing as they had edited it. We do sometimes have reliably sourced, verifyable, properly cited wrong (or misleading) information in Wikipedia. When we have reason to believe it's wrong, and an email from the owner of Kitfox from a kitfoxaircraft.com address seems to provide reasonable justification for that belief, then we should correct it even if we have the sources still.

We need to eventually get the correction citably on the record, and hopefully Kitfox will do so in reasonably short order, but in the meantime let's leave it in the most correct statement phrasing.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned on User talk:Georgewilliamherbert thanks for handling this matter. I look forward to some kind of statement or press release from Kitfox Aircraft indicating what their version of the story is. At that point hopefully we can cite that document and the first and second AvWeb stories and Belite's press release references and provide a reasonable statement as to the story or at least the nature of the controversy. As of today neither the Kitfox website nor their latest news page has any information, but since this is obviously an important issue for the company I am confident they will make a statement very quickly.

In the meantime, since all sources seem to agree that the Belite aircraft is a "derivative" of the Kitfox Lite, what I would like to propose is to update the article to indicate the following under a new section, citing the three refs above:

===Derivative designs===

In early 2009 the Belite Aircraft, a new company based in Wichita, Kansas produced a derivative of the the Kitfox Lite single-seat ultralight design. Belite extensively redesigned the aircraft to incorporate carbon fibre wings, struts, spars and ribs with the aim of lowering the empty weight to about 245 lb (111 kg).

I'll leave this proposal up here for the next week, prior to incorporating it into the article. If there are any objections, please post them here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about this being an important issue for Kitfox. I just rechecked their website and there is no announcement or press release to offer a different version of what Belite and AvWeb are saying. Perhaps this will appear in another week or so?

I am concerned that despite being asked to make a clarifying statement of some kind, that Kitfox has not done so and may not do so at all. Based on the limited information about the Kitfox e-mail mentioned by User:Georgewilliamherbert above I can conclude that what we have here is a commercial controversy between Belite and Kitfox. Belite states in their 1 June 2009 press release that they "have acquired the production rights to a previously designed aircraft, the Kitfox Lite". Kitfox apparently disagrees, as mentioned above when they say that they did not "sell anyone the rights". I believe that this controversy should not be ignored, but should form part of the article. I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees that this should be in the article. Once again I will wait at least a week or so to see what opinions are expressed.

In the meantime, since there have been no objections for more than a week to my previous post, in accordance with WP:SILENCE we have consensus to insert the above text on "Derivative Designs" into the article, so I will go ahead and do so. - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well another week has passed without comment so this once again constitutes a consensus to continue. I will add some text to the article about the controversial nature of the manufacturing status of the Belite. I would like to reference what Kitfox Aircraft has to say on this issue, but unfortunately upon checking Kitfox website and their latest news page there is still no statement on this issue. Since more than two weeks have passed since they were asked to make a statement I can only conclude that it is not an important issue for the company. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It has now been getting on for two years since this was tagged and the company has not issued a statement on this issue, so I can only conclude that it isn't important to them after all. Without a reference to use we can't leave this up forever, so I have removed the un-cited text. I believe the issue is still well covered with cited text. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

From tolk:Denny Kitfox

Skystar the lastest fatality filed for Bankruptcy. Complete filings and info here Kitfox Info

[[1]]

"Some handling problems were experienced with the Kitfox"

The refs cited for this statement don't support it. The refs are two engine failures and one broken aileron part, so not "handling problems" at all. The ref for the TCDS doesn't seem to impose mandatory mods for handling either. Is this statement in error? - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay lacking any answer to this, I'll remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been away! I propose to reinstate much of this. The LAA ref DOES list the required modifications. Apparently, although the Kitfox was not inherently dangerous, apparently it would yaw alarmingly to the right with left aileron (and vice versa), which could take the unwary by surprise, particularly when landing, and this led to a number of accidents. The LAA's mods were designed to reduce this unfortunate tendency. Also, the LAA set up a training scheme to alert Kitfox flyers to the issue, and this action led in due course to a wider LAA Pilot Training Scheme. Arrivisto (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That is fine, but none of the refs cited say that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

S7 performance dispute

Following some recent edits and reverts, I tried to look into this. Myself flying a Kitfox derivative, I thought the figure of 150 mph unlikely to begin with. Not disposing of the books referenced to, and finding the referenced websites unavailable, I searched the Kitfox web site, and found (at http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/index.php/supersport-specs) really 120 mph cruise speed mentioned, not even over 120 mph. The web page neatly details that the published figures are for "standard" conditions, including the 100 HP Rotax 912S. So I think we may question any reference to 150 mph. Though the plane may perhaps be a tad faster with a more powerful engine, a 25% increase in cruise speed seems very unlikely.

< rant > why must US'ans always use units that nobody else uses? Airspeed is mostly measured in knots, sometimes in km/h, but mph is ridiculous. Just like their AWG wire sizes, runway lengths in feet &c &c < / rant > Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The over 150 mph can still be found at http://kitfox.lazair.com/skystar/Aircraft_History.htm , apparently copied from older material from the manufacturer. It seems little reliable to me, though, seeing that the manufacturer's own website gives a more sober (and, IMHO, much more realistic) figure. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I just went though the paper refs cited and they all indicate about 123 mph. I am not sure where the higher figures came from. As far as the US manufacturers obsession with using MPH, it is generally understood that it makes the aircraft sound faster than if it is expressed in knots. Of course km/h sounds faster yet. It is just "scary" marketing, because anyone with a pilot's licence shouldn't be fooled by that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner.. the 150 mph was accurate for the 914ul powered Series 7 with the Hoffman CS prop as tested by SkyStar Aircraft test pilots. It was a True Airspeed at altitude. As Kitfox Aircraft we chose to publish TAS at altitudes more commonly flown with the Kitfox with the most common engine choice. Speeds vary widely due to engine, prop and build choices. Kitfox1 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denney Kitfox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513193616/http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/KitfoxHistory.htm to http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/KitfoxHistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Canadian factory?

My former skydiving club at Baldwin Airport was run out of a hanger that was previously a LSA/ultralight factory. I always thought the factory was KitFox, but there's nothing here mentioning that. Then I thought maybe I was confusing it with Zenair, but no mention there either. Anyone know? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And two seconds after posting... looks like it's Merlin Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A hangar if you please - hangers is what a man carries between his legs. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad you found the answer, I was going to say it was likely Macair, back when they were building Merlins. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

How to change a heading name

Good afternoon from Idaho. My name is John McBean - Kitfox Aircraft. Not sure how to, or even if it can be done, change the heading name. There really is not such thing as a "Denney Kitfox" They are simply a Kitfox aircraft, manufactured by Denney Aerocraft, then SkyStar Aircraft and for the last 14 years Kitfox Aircraft.

When doing a search for Kitfox via Google or other Search engines it shows up as a Denney Kitfox.

Anyway, if there is a way to change that it could be helpful from getting calls asking about a Denney Kitfox.. As if it might be another manufacture.

John McBean Kitfox Aircraft --20:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Kitfox1 (talk)

Thanks for your note. Aircraft naming conventions are outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). Basically we use manufacturer-designation (if any)-name. Hence Cessna 172 Skyhawk or Grumman American AA-1. We decide the names of aircraft and all other article names based on WP:COMMONNAME. In the case of the Kitfox it is still most commonly called the Denney Kitfox, which is why you get calls for it. We would never rename it just Kitfox, that would be like moving Cessna 172 Skyhawk to just Skyhawk. If it were commonly known by the current company name it would end up as Kitfox Kitfox or perhaps Kitfox Aircraft Kitfox. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you... consider the actual manufacture of any experimental is actually the builder of the aircraft. Not the manufacture of the kit. So Denny Kitfox is not correct either. Simply Kitfox would be more correct. Cessna is the manufacture of the Aircraft.. therefore Cessna 172 Skyhawk is correct. Kitfox1 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

May I be allowed to disagree? Many aircraft are not named after the builder but rather after the designer. For example almost all planes from the Soviet Union -where design and production where strictly separate. There was no Tupolev factory, for example, if I remember alright. (we might wish to update our article on naming conventions accordingly). So if this Kitfox was designed by Mr. Denney I think "Denney Kitfox" is very correct naming. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We do use the designer's name in many cases, such as when numerous manufacturers have built an aircraft and none predominate, or when the designer is better commonly known than the manufacturer. Both are indeed applicable here, as the lede section explains: ...designed and originally manufactured by Dan Denney and his company Denney Aerocraft of Boise, Idaho. So the current name is right on two counts, the designer and the original kit manufacturer. As far as the argument made that the person who assembles the kit is the the manufacturer: while both the US and Canada take that position legally in their registration listings, it isn't really relevant here. This article is about the aircraft kits and and kit manufacturer. It is isn't about each individual person who assembles a kit, so we don't need to hang this on the technicality of who any government considers the manufacturer. We also come back to WP:COMMONNAME, which is our overriding policy on how to name articles and that also supports "Denney Kitfox". We aren't going to call it just "Kitfox" as that ignores all our guidance and policy cited, would be inconsistent with the titles of the thousands of other kitplane article titles we already have (like Glasair Sportsman 2+2 and Van's Aircraft RV-8) and would be too easily confused with the animal species: Kit fox. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, please bear with me a moment (blue text indicates a link to the page referred to). Wikipedia has an article naming policy in which we are required to use a common name for the type. It has an explanatory supplement for official names. Within that site-wide policy, we also have a guideline on naming conventions for aircraft (While we are here, the "manufacturer" would be the manufacturer of the kit or, if there is none, the seller of the plans). Exceptions are allowed in various special circumstances, such as to disambiguate or if the end result would just look silly. For example simply "Kitfox" would not obviously be an aircraft; moreover the page already exists as a "disambiguation" list between the animal, the aircraft and a computer games brand.

In the outside world, the type is widely referred to as the Denney Kitfox. See for example this UK Light Aircraft Association data sheet. On the other hand I did a search on "Kitfox aircraft" and got plenty of hits with no in-your-face prefix of "Denney".

I would suggest that within our naming system, a good case can be made for either Denney Kitfox or Kitfox Aircraft Kitfox (Personally I have no preference either way). We are happy to hear your expert views on why one might be better than the other, but ultimately we will have to form a community consensus for change before any change of title can be made. I hope this helps a bit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)