I find my self utterly intrigued with the "Slow and Low" approach to flying these STOL or bush planes offer. Since I only know a bit about flying in general, I'm curious what its like to fly one of these planes. I'm not talking about pushing one into a 100' patch of clearing on top of a mountain in the back country, but more how these planes fly in general. Are they more or less involved to fly than say a Cessna we're all familiar with? These planes just seem so basic and uncomplicated in their design and function which I also find really interesting.



So what say you about these really cool pieces of civilian aviation?

I am fascinated by them. They are so cool.

I've been recreationally flying a Piper Super Cub for the last 20 years. After you get the hang of the tailwheel part (Which is the fun part in itself) I consider them much easier to fly than a Cessna 150 or 172. I got a brief solo flight in a "Carbon Cub," a lightened Piper Super Cub copy, ($$$) that was by far the simplest, least demanding plane I have ever piloted!
The biggest issue with these planes is the confidence they give a pilot. This can lead to taking on bigger and bigger challenges, to the point of bent airplanes, or even a "He died doing what he loved" thread on the Sigforum.......

OZ

The one way it differentiates from a Cessna is that it's noticeably slower.

That's just a cool looking plane right there, they make flying look easy and fun.

I fly an Air Tractor 802, which has a 1,400 shp turbine motor. When empty, it comes off the ground in hardly any distance, and really climbs. When loaded to it's 16,000 lb takeoff weight, it uses a lot of runway and doesn't want to climb; it's a real dog. It's not a STOL airplane by any stretch and I don't operate it that way, but I've seen others who can and do, and who get it down and stopped in a lot less than I'd care to do.

Put enough power in anything, and it will fly. The F4 proved that.

The low speed challenge is control. To fly an airplane slower and slower, more and more power is required. There's a point at which minimum power is required; any faster or slower and more power is required. To get slow, really slow, takes a lot of power. The ability to create lift is aided with extra devices and wing design. Control becomes less and less as something goes slower and slower, as there's less airflow over control surfaces.

There's also less ability to correct or fix something if one gets into a hole; get too slow and bounce, for example, a rapid application of power can cause a loss of control, because there's not necessarily enough control authority remaining.

It's also possible to fly into a location from which it's not possible to fly out.

Draco (RIP)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbT9NR8civM

Sorry, don't know how to embed this

Adding to aileron's comment on Draco. The story of Mike Patey's Draco is pretty amazing and the subject of more than a few youtube videos. Sadly, Mike crashed Draco then filmed his own accident analysis immediately afterwards. He is now building Scrappy, a Draco on steroids, and documenting on youtube.

If you are interested in these aircraft google Mike Patey or Draco. Mr. Patey is a seriously talented fabricator and comes across as a good guy who is doing what he loves. The engineering and fabrication going into Scrappy is awesome.

Imagine if a Fiesler Storch had been equipped with a turboprop power plant.

quote:

Originally posted by aileron:
Sorry, don't know how to embed this

Look here. http://www.karmanator.com/

Aside from the tail dragger aspect (hard to see forward when taxiing for example) and the much lower stall speed, I would imagine that flys very much like a Cessna 150.

not a pilot either, but I got to fly quite often in a helio courier. absolutely loved that plane. in a pretty slow headwind, it would hover. the pilot actually got scolded by ATC in Portland ME for flying backwards over the runway threshold. it seemed like a pretty easy plane to fly, though I recall the slats would require the pilot to be pretty physical in cranking them back up in a hurry.

I was always intrigued by Zenith kits. Having STOL performance in a four seat, tricycle gear aircraft

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/index1.html




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKOMJaBl1XU

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
Aside from the tail dragger aspect (hard to see forward when taxiing for example) and the much lower stall speed, I would imagine that flys very much like a Cessna 150.

A lot of of tailwheel airplanes have considerable slack in the rudder cables, requiring pressure on both rudder pedals all the time; they're also subject to a lot more adverse yaw (yawing from aileron use), requiring more rudder input to coordinate flight). A number of older tailwheel airplanes that are STOL tend to be lighter, with a different feel to the way they . I find that using full control inputs is more common in many tailwheel airplanes, especially those that land and takeoff slowly.

A lot of STOL aircraft aren't particularly fast; you can have fast, or you can have short field performance. Usually not both.

Airplanes like the Cessna 150 can easily be flown with zero groundspeed or even backtracked over the ground; I've done vertical descents to tie downs and landed in the tie-down spot, in a 150. Also done vertical takeoffs and landings on a windy day. They can be landed slowly on a calm day, but won't have the takeoff performance or landing performance of true STOL aircraft; the real test comes when there's no wind.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="408" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UbT9NR8civM" width="725"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

This is my Hometown I grew up in. They have an air show every summer along with the Rodeo.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
Aside from the tail dragger aspect (hard to see forward when taxiing for example) and the much lower stall speed, I would imagine that flys very much like a Cessna 150.

A lot of of tailwheel airplanes have considerable slack in the rudder cables, requiring pressure on both rudder pedals all the time; they're also subject to a lot more adverse yaw (yawing from aileron use), requiring more rudder input to coordinate flight). A number of older tailwheel airplanes that are STOL tend to be lighter, with a different feel to the way they . I find that using full control inputs is more common in many tailwheel airplanes, especially those that land and takeoff slowly.

A lot of STOL aircraft aren't particularly fast; you can have fast, or you can have short field performance. Usually not both.

Airplanes like the Cessna 150 can easily be flown with zero groundspeed or even backtracked over the ground; I've done vertical descents to tie downs and landed in the tie-down spot, in a 150. Also done vertical takeoffs and landings on a windy day. They can be landed slowly on a calm day, but won't have the takeoff performance or landing performance of true STOL aircraft; the real test comes when there's no wind.

The majority of my flight time is in a Cessna 150M.
Used to joke with the owner of the plane that you could probably fly it like a kite with just the tow bar. Such an easy plane to fly & really well balanced (IMO).

It all depends on the airplane. The first airplane I owned was a Cessna 140, the predecessor to the 150. Visibility over the nose was okay. The thing that seemed weird or awkward to me about that airplane was a yoke on a taildragger. Yoke seems normal enough on an airplane with milk stool gear, but it just seems odd on a taildragger. The Decathlon has great visibility over the nose. It also a long fuselage, plenty of control authority, and is relatively tame for a taildragger. The Pitts S-2B that I don’t get to fly near enough the days is a whole different animal - you fly from the rear seat and if you catch a glimpse of the runway centerline markings anywhere other than through the plexiglass window between your lower legs in your peripheral vision, you’d probably best go around.

The big difference with taildraggers, which applies to all taildraggers, is that the main gear are in front of the center of mass/gravity and the tailwheel is behind. On a “nosedragger”, the center of mass/gravity is in front of the main gear and the nose wheel is in front of that. As a result, if you allow a nose wheel airplane to swerve thirty degrees left, it will tend to head out into the weeds in a relatively straight line thirty degrees away from where it should be going. A taildragger on the other hand, will tend to keep tightening the turn as the CM/CG just keeps slinging around while the airplane pivots on the main gear.

As for sns3guppy’s comments about loose cables and more adverse yaw, I’m sure he’s right, but I expect it is more a factor of age than anything else. The cables are likely older and more stretched in older taildraggers. Adverse yaw likely wasn’t fully understood when some of those birds were designed and built, more modern designs have efforts made to reduce adverse yaw. An example to consider might be the Pitts S-2C being built today versus the S-2B designed and built at least thirty four years ago. I haven’t had the pleasure of flying a C, but from everyone I’ve spoken with who has flown both the C is much tamer - much less adverse yaw, much better ground handling.

The time I’ve spent in taildraggers has blessed me with the habit of always having a little positive pressure on both rudder pedals. It can help smooth out a ride in turbulence, greatly diminish the “Beech wag”, and every once in a while it comes in handy. When doing the Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program one time I had dubious pleasure of having the guy in charge of the program in a back seat with the instructor up front. When he cut an engine on me they were both surprised at how little yaw the Travel Air had on losing an engine. Then I released the pressure on my left foot and we all got tossed sideways. It wasn’t that the Travel Air wouldn’t yaw into a dead engine, it was just that I was already there and only needed to add more pressure rather than finding the pedal and applying pressure.

But, back on topic, STOL craft tend to be kites. As sns3guppy alludes to, if you want to go for aggressive short landings, you may find yourself dragging the airplane in “on the back side of the power curve” (sometimes called the region of reversed command). There is not a lot of margin if anything goes wrong. On the positive side, you are likely going quite slow. On the negative side, that reduces control authority and requires much bigger inputs in response to changing winds. As also stated, airplanes are typically optimized for a mission. Some for going fast and far, some for going low and slow. I’ve yet to see an airplane that combined serious going places speed and range with STOL characteristics.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I’ve yet to see an airplane that combined serious going places speed and range with STOL characteristics.

I beg to differ

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I’ve yet to see an airplane that combined serious going places speed and range with STOL characteristics.

I beg to differ

Which bird are you referring to?

Uh, DOH! Read your CUT. Yes, the AV-8 definitely checks both boxes and more. Not exactly a family cruiser, but clearly has other most interesting attributes. For that matter, the V-22 Osprey checks both boxes too.