Super interesting responses.
When I started this thread I was just asking if people thought it's going to be a small (rotax), medium (4cyl), or large (6cyl) sized bushplane. I incorrectly assumed that everybody wanted something that would land in the 40's or low 50's with larger size tires and the ability to operate in 1200ft with the BBQ grill, mountain bike, and cooler.
I stand corrected, it seems what most people want is just a high wing RV. I laughed out loud when I read that someone wanted a bush rig that is only slightly slower than a cessna RG.
There is no free lunch, airplanes are compromises, that's why you need two, and if you are going to have two, wouldn't you want the second one to do the things that RV's don't do? Like unimproved strips, enough room for a weeks worth of outdoor fun, that can land on beaches or short strips?
Also, I agree with others that have mentioned the 180 being the benchmark. No, it doesn't land as short as a cub, nor is it fast like a banana, but I've been around enough 180's and super 170's to know that they are super fast for what they are. There isn't any flying wires, tail lift struts, cabane V, bungees or stuff hanging off of them like a cub, and while they can't do what a cub can do, they can do quite a lot of it and can pack much more gear and move a lot faster. If I had all of the time and money in the world I'd skip right past building my own airplane and get a 185 on floats. They totally got it right.
Personally, I'd love to see an experimental super 170 with nice handling, baggage doors, and a stick. If it only goes 130-140mph (on 29's) that's fine, as long as it lands in the 40's has 900lbs useful load, and can do 1200fpm on a hot summer day in the mountains.