Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Topic Options
#38637 - 03/10/05 10:39 PM STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircraft
bountyhunter Offline


Registered: 11/14/03
Posts: 1224
Loc: Milwaukee, WI USA
Not being a pilot or that knowledgable about aircraft, I was wondering if STOL aircraft use more or less fuel than "regular?" private planes, assuming the same engines?

Do STOL aircraft have slower speeds and better glide factors?

I know pontoon airplanes use more fuel and have slower speeds.

Bountyhunter

Top
#38638 - 03/11/05 12:45 AM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircraft
GoatRider Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 08/28/04
Posts: 835
Loc: Maple Grove, MN
What do you mean by "use more fuel"?

Fuel per hour? Probably not, the same engine usually means the same fuel burn, regardless of what it's dragging around.

Fuel per mile? Maybe. STOL airplanes need a slower stall speed, which means a lighter wing loading, which most likely also means a slower cruise speed for the same horsepower, so it would take more hours to get to the same place.

But on the other hand, if you can get into smaller fields, you might not need to go as far, or can land closer to your destination.

It's really comparing apples and oranges.


Edited by GoatRider (03/11/05 12:48 AM)
_________________________
- Benton

Top
#38639 - 03/11/05 01:34 AM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircr
SheepDog Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 02/27/05
Posts: 232
Loc: Wild Wonderful WV
As I am sure you know by now STOL stands Short Take Offs and Landings. Many of your “regular” small aircraft can be equipped with a STOL kit to help them perform better on the slow end of the flight envelope. Many of these perform better on the bottom end but don’t suffer too much on the top end. Like the Cessna 182 and 421 can both be set up with a STOL kit by Robinson for example to allow good low speed flight characteristics but that kit doesn’t necessarily affect negatively the top end characteristics.
A purpose-built STOL can be very impressive and is many times slower for the amount of horsepower and fuel used. Of course you can land them in places that are unbelievable. On a windy day they can come down rolling backward if you wish to scare the passengers. Maule at www.mauleairinc.com makes some very impressive performing 4 place aircraft. The last one I saw was a little rough around the edges from the factory but would knock your socks off coming off the ground.
_________________________
When the wolf attacks he will find that some who run with the flock are not sheep!

Top
#38640 - 04/03/05 07:50 PM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircraft
aardwolfe Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 08/22/01
Posts: 924
Loc: St. John's, Newfoundland
An aircraft has been described as a series of compromises flying in loose formation.

Any modification to an aircraft will (usually) have some advantages or disadvantages. Do you and your wife normally fly on short weekend trips by yourselves? Then a 2-seater will suit your needs - until you need to take a couple of friends to the mountains, in which case you will need to either rent a bigger plane or (better) go commercial.

There's no magic about a STOL aircraft, it just has modifications to allow it to get airborne at a lower speed. The downsides are that it generally uses more fuel to fly a given distance, and that it's more difficult to maintain.

A lot of bush pilots refused to fly Maules and other STOL aircraft for the second reason - if anything broke, the aircraft would be sitting on the ground for months waiting for a replacement part. Even worse, if it broke while you were at some remote Eskimo/Inuit village you were stranded there until you could get someone to come out and pick you up; then you had to get the replacement part, and fly a mechanic out to fix your airplane, all at considerable cost. Whereas with a good old Cessna or Beaver, you could often jury-rig the thing to get it flying (illegal, but quite safe) and fly it back to a maintenance depot.

If there were no downsides to owning a STOL aircraft, everyone would be making them. I suspect that the added cost and complexity of a STOL aircraft is the bigger factor than the cost of fuel or the speed. After all, once the leading edge slats and oversize flaps are retracted, the wing probably looks like much any other wing.
_________________________
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
-Plutarch

Top
#38641 - 04/03/05 09:54 PM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircr
bountyhunter Offline


Registered: 11/14/03
Posts: 1224
Loc: Milwaukee, WI USA
Aardwolfe:

The main reason for the post is related to safety factors.

If the engine fails, will the glide factor give you more time to prepare as you glide at a lower speed? Will the lower speed that can maintain an STOL at glide give you more chance at surviving because the impact will be lower? With an STOL I have to believe your ability to land in tight areas will enhance a persons chance for a safer emergency landing.

I am aware that full chassis ballistic parachutes are becoming more available, and being offered as an option on more private aircraft.

As long as we are on the subject of aircraft safety, why do more private aircraft not have manually inflatable bags that can take up the empty space of an aircraft that has to ditch in the water. Once in the water, you could pull a rip chord to inflate a bag in the empty tail sections, another ripcord for the baggage compartment, when you empty the cockpit, a ripchord for the backseat areas, and last a ripchord for the front seats

The idea is not to install flotation devices for saving the airplane long term and therefore would not have to be heavy duty in construction. With the empty areas filled with air bags, it would give you more time to get into an emergency life raft and retrieve essential gear that would be secondary to exiting the aircraft with a lifeboat.

If you were able to send out an SOS, the floating plane would be easier to spot for however long it managed to stay afloat and would offer the potential to beach the airplane to any island that the life raft may be propelled to.

I'm sure those of you with pilot experience probably have insights I lack and I hope you will put them forward.

Thanks!

Bountyhunter

Top
#38642 - 04/04/05 06:14 PM Re: STOL aircraft-Kane Aero Computer
bountyhunter Offline


Registered: 11/14/03
Posts: 1224
Loc: Milwaukee, WI USA
As I have mentioned in the past, I am looking to sell off the contents of my parents house when my mother passes away.

While digging and sorting through things that may have value, I came upon my old "Kane MK-6B Dead Reckoning Computer" (The full size aluminum one.) and my "Kane II-R Plotter" with instruction manual. The "Kane MK-6B" computer has a "nuagahide" sleeve, and the instruction and practice manual has a "Copyright 1958" and a "$2.50" price tag on the front cover. The "Kane II-R Plotter" has a "Copyright 1962" on its paper sleeve with instructions printed on the sleeve.

I also found a "Sterling Precision" plastic 10" slide rule with 9 scales on it, a plastic storage sleeve and the instructions for its use. Our private pilot license instructor was big on slide rules back in the 1970's before inexpensive electronic calculators were available.

Everything is in excellent (Some of the practice problems are filled out in pencil.) condition.

I was in the middle of a private pilots ground school license course back sometime in the 1970's when I got into an automobile accident that sidelined me for a while. After I retook the class, I failed my first ground school examination and never tried again.

I know you can buy brand new "Dead Reckoning Computers" for about $25.00, but the "Kane Aero" company seems to have gone out of business. Found one on Ebay that they were asking a pretty hefty penny for and was wondering if the "Kane Aero" line has many collectors around.

If anyone knows, please post me any details or links you have on this thread.

Thanks!

Bountyhunter

Top
#38643 - 04/04/05 07:46 PM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircraft
Chris Kavanaugh Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 3824
Just north of me is a small airport in Fillmore California that is a step back in time. The area boasts a private train collection used in the film industry that offers rides through the vast lemon orchards and the condor sanctuary is nearby. I have the privelege of flying in a french built copy of the german WW2 Feiseler Storch. We were flying a few years ago when the usually dependable radial engine went silent. We were very laid back about it, I had my sailplane license and the owner was very familiar with his ship. We had a long open dirt road between orchards to land in. Trouble was, the thing has such an incredible glide ratio I was tempted to get out and push. We finally landed at dusk. We had my PSK, Chris Reeves Aviator, thermos of coffee and miles of lemons and wood to survive on.I could have even set snares for rabbits <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Sadly, an Amansadore working a fancy bridle horse came riding up with the orchard manager in a truck behind him <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> The pilot keeps a lucky 50 franc note on the instumment panel ( it honours Antoine de Saint- Exupery'.) Not exactly Wind,Sand and Stars. But it beat standing in line at LAX taking my shoes on and off <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Top
#38644 - 04/06/05 04:08 PM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircraft
Milestand Offline
Member

Registered: 09/29/02
Posts: 124
How about the ZenithAir STOL CH 701 - takes off in 90 feet, available with optional folding wings and amphibious pontoons - you can park it in your garage, and with some judicious tree pruning, bug out right from your own backyard!

There website quotes Sport Pilot magazine: "I've seen airplanes that could be flown through a hangar, but I think a really good pilot could fly a STOL CH 701 into a hangar, do a 180, and fly back out. The performance is truly that spectacular."

They also have the larger STOL CH 801 which seats 4 and has a payload of 1,000 lbs...

Top
#38645 - 04/11/05 04:38 AM Re: STOL personal (4 to 6 passenger) private aircr
aardwolfe Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 08/22/01
Posts: 924
Loc: St. John's, Newfoundland
Bountyhunter;

I don't have any stats but I believe the vast majority of fatal small aircraft accidents have nothing to do with an engine failure per se. Most of them are either weather-related or pilot error, or a combination of both. Even in the cases I've read of where engine failure has directly caused a fatal crash, the fatality has resulted from the pilot's failure to handle the situation correctly (e.g. the pilots who lose an engine during climbout and try to turn back to the airport, get too slow, and thunder in vertically from 300 feet).

The slower speed and shorter landing roll of the STOL aircraft may be an advantage on landing, but it might have to be weighed against other factors, such as the additional complexity of the aircraft in a critical situation. (Read what Cody Lundin has to say about the difference between gross and fine motor skills in a survival situation, for example.)

As for adding inflatable bags to the aircraft, read the articles on this site about the survival rate of pilots when ditching the aircraft. You're trying to come up with a solution to a problem that, effectively, doesn't exist. to do so, you would be adding not only to the complexity of the aircraft (what happens if one of these bags accidentally inflates, for example?) and the cost (flying is expensive enough as it is, thank you) but the weight of the aircraft.

The last may not seem important to a non-pilot, but consider that an aircraft has a maximum take-off weight. If you add one pound to the empty weight, that's one pound less fuel you can carry. If pilots can't carry as much fuel, they will have to stop for fuel more frequently; that means more takeoffs and landings. Consider, then, that most aircraft accidents happen during the takeoff and landing phases; is the increase in accidents caused by the additional takeoffs and landings going to outweigh the tiny percentage of deaths caused by people who lose an engine overwater, ditch the plane, and then can't get out in time? (Most light planes will float for a considerable length of time on their own, anyway.)

(Read what Laurence Gonzales has to say about trying to increase safety by adding complexity.)

These are my opinions only, and not terribly well informed ones at that. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
_________________________
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
-Plutarch

Top



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, chaosmagnet, cliff 
March
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online
0 registered (), 324 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
GallenR, Jeebo, NicholasMarshall, Yadav, BenFoakes
5367 Registered Users
Newest Posts
What did you do today to prepare?
by dougwalkabout
Yesterday at 11:21 PM
Zippo Butane Inserts
by dougwalkabout
Yesterday at 11:11 PM
Question about a "Backyard Mutitool"
by Ren
03/17/24 01:00 AM
Problem in my WhatsApp configuration
by Chisel
03/09/24 01:55 PM
New Madrid Seismic Zone
by Jeanette_Isabelle
03/04/24 02:44 PM
EDC Reduction
by EchoingLaugh
03/02/24 04:12 PM
Using a Compass Without a Map
by KenK
02/28/24 12:22 AM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.