Which would you prefer and why? Both seem to be very capable aircrafts. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Neither. I'd do a Kitfox SS.

Far better cruise performance than either, as good or better STOL than the Rans, less money than the Super STOL (don't know about the Rans $), lighter on the controls and better handling than either, to top it off, I think they look better in general.

Couldn't disagree more. I haven't flown the Just but have about 20 hours in the Kitfox and around 500 in the Rans S7. I'm much more comfortable flying the Rans but accept that the Kitfox is very good also. Maybe it's just me but I find I can land the S7 much slower than the Kitfox and I prefer the conventional wing/aileron design of the Rans. I fly the Kitfox almost weekly with a friend and I really think he prefers my Rans, he's always wanting to up with me. Of course he's comfortable in the Kitfox and can make it do great things.

Arnie

Now this could be completely wrong, but I feel like no one on these forums like the Superstol. I figured there would be people going nuts over its capabilites, but everytime there's a post about it there's not much excitement. Don't get me wrong, I've never flown one, but all the demo's that I've seen look amazing. So I might be just too gullible

I'd pick the S-20 but then I'm a Rans guy. It's big enough and comfortable and just STOL enough for me.

If there's one thing I've learned in 4+ decades of flying, it's that every airplane is a bit different, even when they are very similar, even when their specs are very similar. It ultimately boils down to, which do you like? The only way to know that is to spend some time with each one, flying each one in circumstances similar to what you'd be using once you had it.

Before taking on any airplane, decide what your real mission is. You won't be satisfied with an airplane that doesn't fit your mission at least a majority of the time.

Let me give you a pretty concrete example, of an airplane which I think just didn't fit the new owner's existing mission. One year at OSH, a beautiful brand spanking new Kitfox with the new (then) O-200D Continental lightweight and a gorgeous wood prop was parked next to my airplane. It had just been delivered to the new owner, there at OSH--he hadn't flown it yet.

I was intrigued with the flaperons and asked some questions about them--and the new owner had no idea what their benefit might be. In the course of the discussion, I learned that he'd just the previous week obtained his tailwheel endorsement in a different airplane (I think a C-140), and he planned to fly the Kitfox back to his home in Ohio in the next few days.

He was really intrigued with the specs for the Kitfox, its short field performance especially. But in our discussion, I learned that not only was he just recently tailwheel endorsed, but he was a pilot with only about 150 total hours, with a wife and 2 little kids. Except for whatever airplane he'd flown for his TW endorsement, he'd only flown 152s, always off of pavement.

While I was standing there, the new owner got in the airplane, and promptly conked his head on the spar carry-through. He'd never even sat in any Kitfox before then.

Did that airplane fit that pilot? I didn't think so, and watching him taxi out a couple days later, I was really concerned that he'd gotten one of those quickie endorsements in which the CFI signs him off, but tells him he really needs another 25-30 hours with an instructor. It was a good thing that there wasn't much distance between where he'd been parked and the end of the row, or he'd have taken out someone else's airplane. I predicted then that that pretty little airplane was going to prove more than he could handle, and that it wouldn't stay pretty very long.

So figure out your mission, and fly both airplanes, for enough hours that you can be objective.

Cary

TxKiger wrote:Now this could be completely wrong, but I feel like no one on these forums like the Superstol. I figured there would be people going nuts over its capabilites, but everytime there's a post about it there's not much excitement. Don't get me wrong, I've never flown one, but all the demo's that I've seen look amazing. So I might be just too gullible

I've seen Steve Henry show his off in a few videos (very impressive), but other than that I've not seen a video of one on a gravel bar or other bush flying destinations. Maybe there aren't enough out there to do this yet?

I have my doubts that the 1000 FPM smack down landing techniques would fair well in some of the places the bush pilots on this site fly into. But what do I know, my bush flying is into smooth, long, flat grass strips in low altitude Wisconsin. Hardly a challenge to anyone here...

Av8r3400 wrote:

TxKiger wrote:Now this could be completely wrong, but I feel like no one on these forums like the Superstol. I figured there would be people going nuts over its capabilites, but everytime there's a post about it there's not much excitement. Don't get me wrong, I've never flown one, but all the demo's that I've seen look amazing. So I might be just too gullible

I've seen Steve Henry show his off in a few videos (very impressive), but other than that I've not seen a video of one on a gravel bar or other bush flying destinations. Maybe there aren't enough out there to do this yet?

I have my doubts that the 1000 FPM smack down landing techniques would fair well in some of the places the bush pilots on this site fly into. But what do I know, my bush flying is into smooth, long, flat grass strips in low altitude Wisconsin. Hardly a challenge to anyone here...

I agree about the smack down landing

I disagree
I Took a super stol for a 2 hour test flight
The landing gear is unbelievable good and the handling and slow flight hard to even describe
It can land places so hard that it would destroy any normal bush plane
I have a kit on order and as soon as it is finished I plan to sell my carbon cub

Blu wrote:I disagree
I Took a super stol for a 2 hour test flight
The landing gear is unbelievable good and the handling and slow flight hard to even describe
It can land places so hard that it would destroy any normal bush plane
I have a kit on order and as soon as it is finished I plan to sell my carbon cub

That's great to hear. I've been waiting for someone to give me some good feedback from this forum I'm playing with the idea of ordering a kit...

Building an S20 over the winter. Will report in.

gbflyer wrote:Building an S20 over the winter. Will report in.

Can't wait!

gbflyer wrote:Building an S20 over the winter. Will report in.

Quick build or standard build? Really interested in this also....

It's a quick build and we had them paint this one too. Way more into flying than building.

I have 2 recommendations:
1. Visit the factory where the planes you are considering are fabricated
2. Consider your range of mission profiles and if you are going to buy a plane, buy one that meets the most of your needs.

I seriously considered buying a Rans S6S once upon a time. I visited the factory and was very impressed by the dedication each of the workers demonstrated. On my tour, the factory workers were all eager to show what their contribution to the kits was. That was impressive. I got to fly the plane with Randy Schlitter and it handled well on the ground and in the air. The S-20 wasn’t designed yet and the baggage access for the S6S was a mess and that put me off.

I also visited the Maule factory and Maule Flight before buying my MX7-180C. I got the same feeling of dedication and knowledge from each of the workers there. I even got a couple of hours of dual time with Ray Maule.
I’ve only owned 1 specialty aircraft, a Pitts S2A. It was a hell of a lot of fun, but during the time I owned it, I spent a lot of money renting other airplanes because the Pitts had such a narrow mission capability. It really wasn’t good for anything other than tying the sky into knots, but it did that really well.

Like most pilots, I can only afford one plane at a time. I’d love to have an aerobatic plane, a backcountry plane and a big, comfortable fast cross country machine, but my wallet says: “NO WAY”. So, any plane I buy has to be the best compromise for the wide range of missions I fly. That is why I like the S20 and the Maule more than the Super STOL, even if they don’t have the absolute short field capabilities the Super STOL has. I currently base my Maule on a good sized grass strip. I’ve also operated out of a 1,100’ X 50’ grass strip comfortably. I could probably go shorter and narrower, but I’ll never plop down on short gravel bars, or really tight clearings. My MX7-180 doesn’t have the power to weight ratio to get me out of a really tight spot so I don’t put myself in any. The Maule does have a large baggage area and cavernous doors for baggage access. That makes it easy to load my dog and/or camping gear for trips into the woods. It also makes it easy to load suitcases and other goodies for more refined vacations with my wife. I do a lot of longer cross country trips and the Maule is fast enough to make those practical and the visibility makes all flights a joy.

So, seriously think about the range of missions you will want/need to fly and choose accordingly.

First, I have zero experience flying either of these planes. The problem in answering your question is that hardly anyone has ay substantial experience flying either of these planes. They are both very new designs. Is there even one S-20 customer built flying yet? Being new designs, there are going to be mods as experience by builders and operators increases.

That said, as Cary points out, look at your mission and your comfort factor and go from there.

Rans has been building kits for a loooong time. For the builder, that has to be a serious plus....they understand the problems in designing a kit airplane, and they know how to make the build easier and smoother for the builder.

Just Aircraft also has experience in this regard, but not as much as Rans, I believe.

Also, the S-20 is based on the S-7, of which there many, many examples flying. The wings are virtually identical, and there's really not much new in that well proven design approach. The Highlander is a new design. That's not bad, just something to consider.

As Cary noted: What's your mission? The Just airplane looks to be a very capable serious off airport machine. I suspect the S-20 will do well in that category as well, but the gear on the Highlander is going to tolerate the rough better than the Rans gear, IF yore going into really rough stuff......but not many do.

Two other fundamental considerations: Tandem seating vs side by side and large baggage vs small.

The Highlander is tandem seating, while the S-20 is side by side. Are you going to fly alone most of the time? Or with a non flying spouse/friend? The back seat of a tandem airplane is a purely evil place for anyone who is even slightly inclined to air sickness. And, the first time your spousal unit practices the technicolor yawn may be he last time they are going flying with you. This may sound silly, but trust me, if you're going to carry many passengers, a side by side seating aircraft is going to be a lot better choice.....unless you get your jollies from someone puking down the back of your neck.

One of the things I've never liked about the Rans S-7 design is there's not much baggage space. Understand that I'm not talking about loading one of Therese things up with bricks, but in my world, there needs to be SPACE for bulky but light things like sleeping bags, wing and engine covers,etc. The S-20 has a huge baggage compartment. The Highlander I looked at had a much smaller baggage.

So, again, what are you planning to do with the plane? Long cross countries, carrying all your camp gear, or mostly bashing around the local weeds?

FWIW, I think both of these airplanes will be real winners in the missions for which they are designed.

And, again, I've never flown either.
MTV

The Highlander has side by side seating. I've never flown either but I would prefer the Highlander based just on what I see in the demonstration videos.

My parter has flown them all extensively and being one o those engineer types has researched them all to death as well. He liked the Kitfox a whole bunch and was leaning that way heavily until he flew the S20. There was no decision left to make in his mind after that. He's not particularly fond of the S7 we built and are flying now, but not because of flying qualities. It just doesn't fit him. He's not a big guy, it just doesn't "sit" well for him. He likes the side by side. That's what sold him on the Kitfox initially.

The Kitfox and Just wing is of a design you have to control all the time. The Rans is kinda like an old 172, gawk out the window, bounce around in the turbulence and your still upright and level with little effort. The others not so much, and not that it's a good/bad thing either way, it's just all personal preference. Me, I'd take either, especially if someone else would build the damned thing.

MTV i think that you were thinking of the S-7 when you said Highlander.

ExperimentalAviator wrote:MTV i think that you were thinking of the S-7 when you said Highlander.

Maybe. But at my age, who knows what I was thinking.... In any case, that's an important criteria, just not in this case..

I really don't think you'd go wrong either way.

MTV