I ve flown 2 models of Kitfox. Great speed envelope. They can go fast and slow, especially the 4, so if where you wanna go is a bit of distance ,this is good.
The baggage sucks, too much structure in the way. The junkers flaps are junk, when crank down , roll authority is diminished.
and the vis over the round cowl is poor.

As said above the s7 is like a Cessna. You can fiddle, text, take a piss, read your latest porn mag, and she stays pretty much on track, even in turbulent conditions. Very solid airplane with great control authority even when slow, and a breeze to land in stiff crosswinds.. Got about the same space inside as a cub too.

I understand that the actual cruise of the highlander is below what had been advertised. It is bigger with under cambered wings, so it is more draggy. The super stol has more stuff hanging out, so slower yet I assume. This is fine if where you wanna fly is in your backyard or you are patient. It is a very specific mission plane that's for sure.

The s20 looks exciting. The prospect of all that baggage space is mouth watering. it looks like a great compromise for multiple missions.

All in all if I was a man of greater means and a gas card from a rich uncle. Id get a tricked out 180.

Those are some good points

The super stol is side by side and as my kids are old enough to fly with me more I like that

But there are some trade offs
I'll be loosing some speed and load hauling ability when I give up the cub

I'll be gaining some fuel saving but mostly I'll be gaining stol performance.
I love the CC cub and I have 600 hours on mine and feel like I fly it close to it's potential. I land some reasonable challenging places but after flying the super stol it was obvious to me that the CC would never be able to handle the really rough short areas that the super stol could.

Light with one aboard take off distance seems similar but it's landing distance and rough ground that keeps me out of some places and there the super stol it the better performer.

Heavy hot and high (say 600-700 lbs of people fuel and stuff) the CC will always be tough to beat on take off performance but I never really push it in those condition so I think I can work around it

I really think after flying it that the super stol would let even a marginal pilot land some very challenging areas with a previously unattainable level of safety

Blu,
I gotta admit, I really appreciate the honesty with regards to your reviews on the SuperStol compared to the CarbonCub. Takes a lot to admit a plane of that caliber can be had for nearly half the price. Just a hypothysis but I think most of us on here drool over the Carbon Cub and dream of winning the lottery to allow us to afford one. Yes, there are several on here that can afford to own one but I feel the majority of the forum members are of the 'dreaming' type, myself included.

Back to the OT. I have looked at all the planes mention, yet have only flown in two different ones. The Kitfox as mentioned seems to have the widest speed envelope. The new S-20 sure got my attention last year when it was first unveiled as did the SuperStol. Both of these manufacturers seem to be easy to work with and having been to the Walhala, SC location og Just Aircraft I can vouch for them being laid back and willing to answer any questions. Haven't been to the Rans factory but have spoken with Randy and others at OShkosh to get similar feelings with their operation.

I currently fly both a tandem (RANS S7) and side-by-side (172) aircraft and will definitely reinterate what the others have said about this being very important if you ever plan on flying with passengers. I personally enjoy flying the tandem due to the better visibilty and all around 'seat of the pants' feeling I get with the tandem. Unfortunately my wife is of the type that Mike refers to when it comes to air sickness. She has flown on several hour cross country trips in the 172 without an issue, even sitting in the back seat. But if she rides in the S7, it doesn't take long for her to get queezy. I hate to get rid of the S7 since I have throw a BUNCH of money into it but I am currently on the look out for something side by side for the sole purpose of being able to go places with the wife. Yes, define your mission for the type of flying you do 90% of the time.

No direct experience here, but I've heard several say that the Rans build manuals are excellent and Just are quite the opposite. FWIW

Mark J

WWhunter wrote:Blu,
I gotta admit, I really appreciate the honesty with regards to your reviews on the SuperStol compared to the CarbonCub. Takes a lot to admit a plane of that caliber can be had for nearly half the price. Just a hypothysis but I think most of us on here drool over the Carbon Cub and dream of winning the lottery to allow us to afford one. Yes, there are several on here that can afford to own one but I feel the majority of the forum members are of the 'dreaming' type, myself included.

. I hate to get rid of the S7 since I have throw a BUNCH of money into it but I am currently on the look out for something side by side for the sole purpose of being able to go places with the wife. Yes, define your mission for the type of flying you do 90% of the time.

Thanks Hunter

Your right on about the 90%... For a lot of people the CC or the S20 are probably a better choice than the Superstol. The Superstol is slow so if u want to travel with the wife I think it's going to let u down. The demo I rode in with no fairings and a aggressive climb prop had a cruise of 75-80 mph.....

I'm lucky (foolish) enough to have a second plane for travel so for me the extreme STOL ability, side by side seating and excellent visibility (better than the CC to my complete surprise) is enough to offset the slow cruise

Just my thoughts but from what I've seen the S7 is as good as the CC in landing STOL performance when both are light (really depends more on the pilot) but the CC out performs the S7 in take off especially when heavy (two 200 lbs men) so no reason to think the S20 won't be similar

Really if you plan to land at airports and backcountry strips the CC, S7,S20, highlander (probably the Kit Fox as well but I don't have much experience with them) will do any listed strip in Idaho or Utah with ease, provided u do your part.

It's only when the majority of the places you want to go are ridges, random clearings and short gravel bars that I think the super stol offers substantially more capability.

Blu wrote:

WWhunter wrote:Blu,
I gotta admit, I really appreciate the honesty with regards to your reviews on the SuperStol compared to the CarbonCub. Takes a lot to admit a plane of that caliber can be had for nearly half the price. Just a hypothysis but I think most of us on here drool over the Carbon Cub and dream of winning the lottery to allow us to afford one. Yes, there are several on here that can afford to own one but I feel the majority of the forum members are of the 'dreaming' type, myself included.

. I hate to get rid of the S7 since I have throw a BUNCH of money into it but I am currently on the look out for something side by side for the sole purpose of being able to go places with the wife. Yes, define your mission for the type of flying you do 90% of the time.

Thanks Hunter

Your right on about the 90%... For a lot of people the CC or the S20 are probably a better choice than the Superstol. The Superstol is slow so if u want to travel with the wife I think it's going to let u down. The demo I rode in with no fairings and a aggressive climb prop had a cruise of 75-80 mph.....

I'm lucky (foolish) enough to have a second plane for travel so for me the extreme STOL ability, side by side seating and excellent visibility (better than the CC to my complete surprise) is enough to offset the slow cruise

Just my thoughts but from what I've seen the S7 is as good as the CC in landing STOL performance when both are light (really depends more on the pilot) but the CC out performs the S7 in take off especially when heavy (two 200 lbs men) so no reason to think the S20 won't be similar

Really if you plan to land at airports and backcountry strips the CC, S7,S20, highlander (probably the Kit Fox as well but I don't have much experience with them) will do any listed strip in Idaho or Utah with ease, provided u do your part.

It's only when the majority of the places you want to go are ridges, random clearings and short gravel bars that I think the super stol offers substantially more capability.

I really enjoy your evaluation of these 2 planes blu. My one question is takeoff. All the videos i have seen have not shown super short takeoffs from the Superstol, and by the specs the S20 has a shirter takeoff roll. Just wondering what you have found for the takeoff performance of the superstol. I mean sure, its great to land in 50 feet and super slow, but if you need 400 to get back off, then whats the point?

A1Skinner wrote:Just wondering what you have found for the takeoff performance of the superstol. I mean sure, its great to land in 50 feet and super slow, but if you need 400 to get back off, then whats the point?

Just to add to that line of enquiry... and how much weight can it get in/out of a known length spot?
It's all very good making demo videos with 2 gallons a side, and a Jockey at the controls.
With two 'real men' and fishing gear for a day (or two), does the significant advantage still exist?

delete

Pretty hard to compare loaded T/O performance between a 180 hp Carbon Cub ( ...yeah it's an LSA) and a 100hp Rans, Just, or Kitfox.

The Rotax powered birds suffer greatly when approaching gross. I doubt a CC could legally carry two men and more than 15 minutes of fuel, but I'm sure it would leap off the ground with it.

gbflyer wrote:Pretty hard to compare loaded T/O performance between a 180 hp Carbon Cub ( ...yeah it's an LSA) and a 100hp Rans, Just, or Kitfox.

The Rotax powered birds suffer greatly when approaching gross. I doubt a CC could legally carry two men and more than 15 minutes of fuel, but I'm sure it would leap off the ground with it.

Assuming you want to operate it LSA? [I'm guessing] the aircraft is capable of carrying like any other Cub?

So I guess the story is they are a great off-airport play aircraft, with some limitations around day-tripping with a friend + gear, which makes sense.

No doubt it can haul anything a regular Super Cub can. I'm pretty sure the factory built Carbon Cub is a LSA. It has to be real close to #1000lbs empty with Bushwheels. That doesn't leave much payload. Built on your own CC as an EAB and certify the gross as high as your inspector will sign off on.

Come on courierguy...we know you want to.

gbflyer wrote:Come on courierguy...we know you want to.

Was thinking the same thing! Come on courierguy, tell us (or better yet post video) what an S-7 wing will do with that big bore Rotax!

Battson wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:Just wondering what you have found for the takeoff performance of the superstol. I mean sure, its great to land in 50 feet and super slow, but if you need 400 to get back off, then whats the point?

Just to add to that line of enquiry... and how much weight can it get in/out of a known length spot?
It's all very good making demo videos with 2 gallons a side, and a Jockey at the controls.
With two 'real men' and fishing gear for a day (or two), does the significant advantage still exist?

Kinda two questions in my mind, how does the Superstol do light and how does it do heavy.

For me the question of how it does light is most important. Because that's how I explore. Even if I am on a trip with a lot of gear I always unload all but 10 lbs of survival gear and try to be half tanks or less for any new off airport exploration.

Below is a link to a video I shot of the super stol light and at low altitude (2000' msl or there abouts ) it was a warm day around 75-80 degrees and light wind maybe 5 mph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj6_CYLhNi0

For me this is good enough take off performance.
I have found that I am alway limited by landing distance in the CC (I know many planes are the opposite) if I can get on the ground take off is easy for a couple reasons
The most obvious reason is that it takes off shorter than it lands (at least with me at the controls )
But the bigger reason is that once on the ground I can move the plane to the extreme end of the area use a J take off, move smaller rocks and generally scout making the take off area effectively larger than the landing one I only scouted by air.

On the heavy side I can't say specifically, we did fly with two aboard and on the day I shot the video it seemed to add only a couple plane lengths to the run. The demo plane had only the stock 912. Troy had just flown a big bore kit 912 in a customer plane and seemed very impressed with the results but I didn't get to see it in action.

I plan to put a turbo 914 (possible a 912 with the big bore) in mine so I'm hoping it will be pretty decent even here in colorado but that's really just speculation at this point. I do feel pretty safe saying a super stol with a turbo 914 will get two guys and reasonable gear out of any official strip in the west that I have visited.

I believe the Superstol will out preform the S20 or S7 in take off assuming equal weight and HP due to the wing design, slats, and angle of attack on the ground... Of course these same things are why it's slower that the rans planes as well.

Not meaning to get this thread to far off topic....I really like the performance of my S7 flying it solo but have noticed that it feels like a slug with two aboard. Let me explain a little more, with just me the little bugger gets up and off terra firma, then climbs like crazy when I am alone, even with full fuel.

I rarely fly it with a passenger but when I have, I was amazed at the amount of extra runway and the much degraded rate of climb. As an example, I hadn't flown a passenger in probably at least six months. My wife flew into the local airport for a visit so I flew up to get her in the S7. She of course had a carry on bag along so I was getting close to GW. When I took off, I at first thought I may have had the parking brake on, take off roll was probably double what I was normally use to and the overall feel of the plane had changed. Took me a second or two to realize the extra weight made a huge difference on performance.

I have a few hours on the Zipper kit but can't really give say much other than it is a good upgrade with noticable performance gains.

WW: You better hope your wife doesn't read your last post

This whole thing about the LSA type aircraft flying a bit different when packing a passenger....as compared to a 200 hp+ 1600 lb. plane makes me want to . I imagine an Airbus A380 pilot watching a lightly loaded 737 takeoff and climb out, and then saying "yeah but lets see what happens when you load another 200 passengers"! OF COURSE it makes a bigger difference, that comes as a surprise? Speaking for myself, the rare times I take a passenger I'm always a bit surprised it flies so well, with such a large percentage of the gross weight added. For sure still much better then most general aviation aircraft, as far as runway requirements. I take 200 lb. passengers out of my 400' strip anyway, no problem, land them there also.

WWhunter wrote:Not meaning to get this thread to far off topic....I really like the performance of my S7 flying it solo but have noticed that it feels like a slug with two aboard. Let me explain a little more, with just me the little bugger gets up and off terra firma, then climbs like crazy when I am alone, even with full fuel.

I rarely fly it with a passenger but when I have, I was amazed at the amount of extra runway and the much degraded rate of climb. As an example, I hadn't flown a passenger in probably at least six months. My wife flew into the local airport for a visit so I flew up to get her in the S7. She of course had a carry on bag along so I was getting close to GW. When I took off, I at first thought I may have had the parking brake on, take off roll was probably double what I was normally use to and the overall feel of the plane had changed. Took me a second or two to realize the extra weight made a huge difference on performance.

I have a few hours on the Zipper kit but can't really give say much other than it is a good upgrade with noticable performance gains.

I think its true for all light planes. I know the CC at 5000' msl goes from a roughly 100' take off plane with just me to 200-250' with my 240 lbs buddy and some gear...... it really doesn't matter at all from any back country strip I can think of but it would make a big difference on that 150' gravel bar

So having said that, lets imagine you have a fairly uniform gravel bar at your favourite fishing spot. It is somewhere between 200-300 feet long, depending on the water level. Assuming you don't know precisely how much room is available until you arrive there. Summer DA usually north of 4000, and you prefer not to rely on using water for landing or T/O as there could be a "step" at the windward end of the gravel bar, depending on the local wind. This is a pretty common scenario around here.

Does owning the SuperSTOL allow you to invite a buddy along, where the S20 might not? Or are both equally suitable?

Battson wrote:So having said that, lets imagine you have a fairly uniform gravel bar at your favourite fishing spot. It is somewhere between 200-300 feet long, depending on the water level. Assuming you don't know precisely how much room is available until you arrive there. Summer DA usually north of 4000, and you prefer not to rely on using water for landing or T/O as there could be a "step" at the windward end of the gravel bar, depending on the local wind. This is a pretty common scenario around here.

Does owning the SuperSTOL allow you to invite a buddy along, where the S20 might not? Or are both equally suitable?

My opinion is that either aircraft presented your scenario will eventually yield a ride as a sling load under an AStar.

delete, again

Battson wrote:So having said that, lets imagine you have a fairly uniform gravel bar at your favourite fishing spot. It is somewhere between 200-300 feet long, depending on the water level. Assuming you don't know precisely how much room is available until you arrive there. Summer DA usually north of 4000, and you prefer not to rely on using water for landing or T/O as there could be a "step" at the windward end of the gravel bar, depending on the local wind. This is a pretty common scenario around here.

Does owning the SuperSTOL allow you to invite a buddy along, where the S20 might not? Or are both equally suitable?

Good scenario

I don't really know. For me personally I would find a 150' gravel bar with a water approach much more inviting than a possible 200' one with a bank on each end. I might just go down to the next one. So much depends though if it's closer to 300' or there's a nice honest 8-10 mph breeze up the river then maybe.
Probably not bringing a friend for the first time to check it out in any plane.

Just rereading your question, maybe your asking about the take off... I was thinking of the landing. I can't say on the Just or Rans about the take off, the CC would take off with a buddy ( but that's an easy take off scenario even if your a little slow off the bank you would just settle and skim the water).

So having said all that my hope... (Once I get it and fly it a while I'll know) is that light the Super Stol will land that 200' tight spot with enough margin to feel good about it