Here is the original post.
"Rans S20 VS Just Superstol"

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

The OP was asking for opinions and thoughts as to the differences between the S-20 and the SuperStol specifically.
Blu has flown with enough S-7's and S-6's to have a reasonable idea of their capabilities. As well as having recent experience in the SuperStol. Not to mention regularly flying with Bearhawks, Maules, Super Cubs, margwagons and any number of back country Cessna's. In addition, Blu has a ton of time in his CC and pretty much flies it close to it's limits. He is more than qualified to have an opinion on the various attributes of the aircraft in question.
He is well aware that the SS is specifically built to excel at Stol at the expense of cruise and range. He's keeping his bigger faster plane for that application. And that is why he choose the SS over the S-20 or an S-7. I seriously doubt that he is experiencing an inkling of buyers remorse.
Knowing Blu as I do, if he wanted an S-20 and an SS he would just buy one of each.
As we all know, there is a huge performance variance in aircraft of the same make and model. As well as an even bigger variance in the claims of their owners.

Blu wrote:

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

Yeah you got it - I was assuming with the low landing speeds of these aircraft, landing would not be the constraint.
I was more thinking about the take-off performance, knowing that you can't drop over a bank into the water on T/O roll. For me it is the opposite, if there was a solid 300+ ft then I can bring a friend in my existing plane, in good conditions, but in that situation it's the landing which is pushing the limits. For take-off I only need about 50% what I need to land. I guess for these really light aircraft, the balance is better - until you bring a friend & gear etc - then you need a little more room.

As long as we're getting comparative info, anyone want to chime in on the capabilities of the Bearhawk Patrol? I'm sure it doesn't do quite the STOL performance of either the Rans or Just, but does have a nicer top end for getting places. I would be appreciative of any opinions on the Patrol.

Greg

Battson wrote:

Blu wrote:

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

Yeah you got it - I was assuming with the low landing speeds of these aircraft, landing would not be the constraint.
I was more thinking about the take-off performance, knowing that you can't drop over a bank into the water on T/O roll. For me it is the opposite, if there was a solid 300+ ft then I can bring a friend in my existing plane, in good conditions, but in that situation it's the landing which is pushing the limits. For take-off I only need about 50% what I need to land. I guess for these really light aircraft, the balance is better - until you bring a friend & gear etc - then you need a little more room.

What are you flying now?

I would disagree that you can't drop (more like settle) to the water even if the drop was 5' I think u would be light and moving 25 mph plus so should just bounce off ( drop offs never worry me it's the rocks, trees at the end that get my attention)

The super stol can land very short... I'm hoping consistent 75-100' landings here in colorado
Versus the 125'-175' I feel the CC is good for most days...... When u think about it that's a big percentage improvement

I also think the super stol will be more consistent because even if u are slightly fast or drop in, the landing gear will forgive almost any rough technique.... so should take only mediocre skill...... Something I can alway use in a plane

So it can land in 100'. How long to takeoff? Your video looked short, but slightly down hill. Impressive in any case. I'm just curious how short, on level ground with 2 aboard, it can takeoff again.

GregA wrote:As long as we're getting comparative info, anyone want to chime in on the capabilities of the Bearhawk Patrol? I'm sure it doesn't do quite the STOL performance of either the Rans or Just, but does have a nicer top end for getting places. I would be appreciative of any opinions on the Patrol.

Greg

I think the Patrol LSA (or did you mean the big Patrol?) has tons of potential, it has that great big wing, 170 sq. ft. Simple too, only one lift strut per side, light and lot's of squares works every time. Personally, I would go with Cub style gear, like I did with my S-7, the way the cabane transfers and spreads out the loading is pretty hard to beat. Extra drag from the cabane over the Barrows design, yes, but we're talking a "bushed" version. Cub style gear shock struts suck up in flight, look at the SS vids and you can see they hang down in flight, fully extended, creating more drag (down low below the CG, that must be trimmed out, more drag) that can't be faired out in flight. I may have that wrong, but it appears that way, correct me if so. The only reason I noticed that is the Pilatus Porter PC-12 I was looking at a couple weeks ago did the same according to it's owner. Cub style gear gets cleaner in flight. Try holding an unfaired piece of 3.4" tubing out the car window at 80 mph if you don't think that is significant. Fair it, and it's LOTS easier to hold, that difference is holding you back, hurting the climb and raising the fuel burn, and making the glide in the event of any dead stick worse. Less drag, like less weight, works every time it's tried.

The S-20 spring gear is lowest drag (though not necessarily the lightest) of all FWIW, making a direct comparison to the SS an apples to oranges kind of thing. Of course the S-20 is faster, of course the SS can handle rougher terrain, the Cub style gear falls somewhere in between, mine is totally faired and covered with trailing edge foils, even the cabane, while a huge improvement over unfaired and uncovered cub style gear, it's still draggier then the original RANS S-7 spring rod gear. But, lot's more capable, besides, running the Airstreaks at 1.5 lbs makes almost any gear off airport worthy, MOST of the time.

While I enjoy off airport ops, and the majority of my flying is just that, I still want and need something that can get somewhere, to the next off airport site, on as little fuel as possible, operating expense being only one reason. An 8 hr. duration like I now have being another, it's just more practical burning less fuel, more payload for gear being one thing, operating expense aside. Kept "stock", that Patrol LSA could offer some amazing numbers re: cruise speed and economy, good enough to give some up by going with some more capable gear and bigger tires

Built light, using Oratex fabric for the fuselage, and resisting the urge to engineer/add a flap system for it, and with a 912S BigBore, ( lighter then a stock 912S and lots lighter and simpler then a 914) I'd bet one could come in at 725 lbs or so. By the time 29" tires were added, plus the gear mod, the cruise would/should still be well over 100 mph, with a fuel burn of less then 4 gph as it should do that at 5K rpm or less.. Barrows is into the little Continentals, not that there's anything wrong with that, but point being the Rotax would offer at least as good performance, similar weight, plus hot water cabin heat, electric start, no shock cooling concerns, and elec power, his prototype was a non electric. That Riblett airfoil is pretty trick, 30 mph stall with no VG's. Frankly, I'm a little surprised it has not made more of an impact, maybe a bunch are out there almost finished and just not flying yet, time will tell. The baggage area needs improvement also, but that wing.....!

delete

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...

.... that was in 2014.

Now mid-2017, still no more than 3 or 4 videos of SuperSTOLs on a rocky riverbed / rough beach / anywhere that isn't a relatively smooth area. What gives?!

One thing I've noticed, they seem to be lightly balanced on the main wheels. On the rough, three-point landings are obviously the second most desirable technique...

I would love to hear from anyone who has experience with them off airport - I could be totally wrong!

Blu wrote: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 - did you end up finishing that kit?

The SuperSTOL's are slow in comparison due to all the drag. They are also heavier and more complex than the Highlander was due to the slats and fowler flaps. They also rival a 185 on Amphibs in price for basically a glorified toy. I've only seen one fly that didn't have Steve Henry or a factory rep at the controls and the landing was no more impressive than any other STOL airplane out there. Look at the chord between a Rans and a Just/Kitfox. The folding wing design is awesome of the Just/Kitfox but the chord is skinny so that they are legal going down the road with the wings folded. I've always been impressed with how slow a Rans will fly in comparison. The SuperSTOL is a cool plane but the practical points are not real high with it. That is probably the reason why you don't see many of them out there doing the smackdown short landings like you did when they were first introduced.

My take after shopping them all is that they are both very capable. The Rans seems like it was designed on paper a few times, no doubt producing a prototype very close to the production models that worked out pretty well.

The Just seems like it was built, then rebuilt several more times, kind of old school trial and error. Probably more like the way an old farmer like me would go about it.

I think they're both great but very different. The S20 is more of a hands off cruiser that can go off airport, the Just is a hard core dirt rider that requires you to fly it at all times.

One should have both!

Been watching the development of the Rans S21 with great interest:

https://www.rans.com/s-21-outbound-progress

So does anyone know if there is a Cabane/shock monster style gear that has been made for the Ran’s S20 or S21, like there is for the S7? Would also like to know if anyone has put this type of gear on any Bearhawk instead of the Barrows landing gear.

Don't know so no help there. I do know that after being around both the flat gear that comes on the S20 and the Monster gear we just had to have on the S7S I'd take the flat. My flying partner agrees.

Contact John Roberts on that Cub style gear for an S-20, he did my gear mod for my S-7S and I'm pretty sure he's done some for the 20. I can't imagine it being a problem for him, he's real capable. 208-573-0714 Be patient, he always has a lot of irons in the fire.

Way too soon to cogitate about Cub style gear on the 21, it's still in the early stages, I'd bet RANS isn't going to offer any. I can't see it myself, it's pretty much about going faster, not slower and into rougher strips. I see it as good for grass strips and smooth gravel bars, but not unknown and potentially rocky areas, that's what the S-7 with the Roberts gear is for! I want the new spring gear on my 7, when I'm flying. When I'm landing, I want the adjustable cush and the rebound control of the Roberts gear that I now enjoy. The spring gear is faster/ less drag, that's the only advantage I see, and I'm just not in a hurry, 85 mph or so is plenty fast enough, at least when combined with sub 4 GPH burn rates.

I've flown with CC's several times, they don't get into the places the S-7 easily does, they just don't, maybe they just didn't want to risk their very expensive planes, and I'm not saying that snarkily......if I had 200K or whatever they cost, wrapped up in one, I probably wouldn't either. .

The title of this thread continues to annoy me.

courierguy wrote:Contact John Roberts on that Cub style gear for an S-20, he did my gear mod for my S-7S and I'm pretty sure he's done some for the 20. I can't imagine it being a problem for him, he's real capable. 208-573-0714 Be patient, he always has a lot of irons in the fire.

Way too soon to cogitate about Cub style gear on the 21, it's still in the early stages, I'd bet RANS isn't going to offer any. I can't see it myself, it's pretty much about going faster, not slower and into rougher strips. I see it as good for grass strips and smooth gravel bars, but not unknown and potentially rocky areas, that's what the S-7 with the Roberts gear is for! I want the new spring gear on my 7, when I'm flying. When I'm landing, I want the adjustable cush and the rebound control of the Roberts gear that I now enjoy. The spring gear is faster/ less drag, that's the only advantage I see, and I'm just not in a hurry, 85 mph or so is plenty fast enough, at least when combined with sub 4 GPH burn rates.

I've flown with CC's several times, they don't get into the places the S-7 easily does, they just don't, maybe they just didn't want to risk their very expensive planes, and I'm not saying that snarkily......if I had 200K or whatever they cost, wrapped up in one, I probably wouldn't either. .

The title of this thread continues to annoy me.

You forgot lighter[emoji1]. The flat geared S20 we assembled weighs 30# less than the S7 with the cub style gear. After seeing how it's attached, it is going to take a lot to tear it up, I don't see a reasonable sized rock or a squirrel hole being an issue. We don't intentionally land in boulders, but I do suppose the cub gear with the rebound thingy would be better for that.

I've heard there is less then 5 lbs difference between Roberts gear and the spring gear, your plane weight difference confuses the issue? Be interested to see off the plane gear on a scale. BTW I heard that from Roberts, so take it for what it's worth!

Yeah I don't know. Makes little sense. Same scales for both.