Survey question for Superstol buyers

[FlyerChief]

I like the Highlander better, don't get me wrong, but what you say is just incorrect. 200 miles at cruse and about 8 gal an hr. That's just a little more. Helicopter rule!

8 gal/hr vs. 4.9 gal/hr. is almost twice the consumption in my book, and I expect at least 500 miles cruise range in my Highlander... way more than double.

Besides... helicopters don't glide well if you ever exceed the cruise range.

Dan

[danerazz]

They actually glide better than you may think

[Familyflyer]

For me I really just wanted another airplane project. I love building. I did not want anything to time consuming, just a fun project to have in the garage that the kids could now help build. I actually had planned to send the payment in for the highlander until they said they were working on a new wing. That was spring of 2012 so I held off on the order. I was in no rush.

The main reason for me for the just aircraft line was something slow for sight seeing, good baggage and rugged to land the many places I would like to explore on an early morning flight in the smooth air. That time of day is hard to beat for flying. I had a really tough decision as to whether I should build a Super cub. I love my lycoming. Then I really thought hard at what I wanted it for. I will not be using it for travel, just local flying. Why did I need a plane that burned about twice the fuel at the same cruise speed for going to look around. My RV10 does better miles per gallon than a super cub. It just did not make much sense. When I then saw the SS new wing and gear I was sold. I much prefer the "all" metal wing, not a fan of wood ribs. For me being able to land on some really rough terrain is most appealing. That gear will suck up a lot.

I am not a fan of how much it is going to cost me to build though. I really think it is a lot for an airplane with a Rotax up front. However that is where all the kits are now. Nothing is cheap anymore. I am sure I will become a fan of the engine when I start flying behind it. It is such a huge dollar per Hp though, so it better be good. Again I keep comparing to a Lycoming. I also figure that the resale will not be that great. Likely lose when it gets sold way down the road. Just seems to be the trend with 100hp airplanes. I am ok with that, nice if it was not so though.

To sum up the reason for the SS choice over Highlander

Slower flight
Likely spin proof
All metal wing
The gear.
Pre punched wing for ease of construction.
Less "glued" components.
Looks way cooler.

[FlyDawg]

There is nothing cooler than dropping out of the sky to land on a dime!

[FlyerChief]

Except maybe dropping out of the sky to land on a large pond in a Highlander on floats... to fish where no one else can.
No question the SuperSTOL is cool too... We're all "JUST" lucky, I guess!

[User GDS]

INMO, it doesn't matter whether you have the SS or Highlander, either one can land in places where it can't take-off. If you are going to look for "landing projects" and you don't have a horseshoe up your tailpipe, be prepared to bend your airplane. Cheaper to build also means cheaper to repair.

If I was looking for a new kit I'd build the regular Highlander and do like Gil T., paint it the color of duct tape.

[Familyflyer]

INMO, it doesn't matter whether you have the SS or Highlander, either one can land in places where it can't take-off.

I think the Catto Prop may have changed that for the SuperSTOL.

[User GDS]

haha, I just looked at that catto prop test flight video again, I think you might be right.

[Just Aircraft NZ Ltd]

I'm pretty new to flying the Just Aircraft range (Highlander 30 hrs, SuperStol 10 hrs) but i certainly do like them as rugged aircraft, able to take the knocks on short, rough strips.

In my experience, if you get the Highlander too slow, she can bite ! Tail springs can be broken or bent out of shape if you get it wrong. Keep in ground effect if getting slowed up !

The SuperStol takes all you can give it. There's not much forward visibility in a high angle of attack descent but you do get used to it and can plant it on the spot without too much trouble.

I love the prop clearance, the tail shock absorber and the huge cargo bay. With a normally forward C of G, loading is not a problem. I'm still playing with take-off technique but if light, once the tail is up, whack on a couple notches of flap and haul the stick all the way back and she will fly and, with a 914 up front, climb out at well over 1000 feet per minute.

That's pretty handy for getting outta places you just got into !

Horses for courses 'tho and not everyone wants to fly into the backcountry, land on a river flat, shoot a stag or catch a few trout and fly home again !

Really ???

[smiley]

I have owned Cessna 172's, 180's, bigger the plane bigger the cost, more you can do with it. I flew rv-4 for several hundred hours, really nice plane.
built an rv-6 - nice plane fast, wife likes it. gets you there fast and economical. Have a kitfox 4, it is fun for the evenings. All most bought a DakotaCub
Now building a superstol. (kit#315) Why? better performance then the Kitfox. Not everyone has one yet! Cheaper to operate than my RV. Not building a touring airplane. Just want something a little different. Probably a little more expensive than necessary. But it seems airplanes always are.

Sum it up _ not everyone has one- wanted to be a little different