Hi everyone,
I am a STOL fan, and have read most posts on this site and others on the design and function of my slow and able "mules of the air". I like the capability of being able to land in remote locations, and so I like many of you look at the bush plane for inspiration. My quest for knowledge brought me to a website that discussed the airframe strength of these type of aircraft. I wish I had bookmarked it, but alas I did not, otherwise I would provide the link.
The author of the site brought forth something that I had not thought of. That is to say that just because you put on big tires, a big engine, big prop it does not mean that the airframe can handle the rough landings. Of course it makes sense, as an aluminum frame will be stronger than a wood frame, much as a steel frame would be stronger than an aluminum frame. (Right?) Bouncing around on the ground over rocky ground exerts stresses on the airframe, which could be bad...to say the least. The manufacturer provides all sorts of specs, but what would you look for to assure that you are not overtaxing the design? I have seen big tires on ultralights, and watched them land them in some crazy areas. I see the G loads mentioned in the positive and negative, but I assume that is in flight. Bouncing a plane around on the ground, fast enough to take off, surely takes its toll on the airframe too...right? You guys always have great insight, so I thought I'd toss this out there.
So what makes an airframe suitable for STOL, and how do you know that you are pushing the boundaries...from an airframe point of view?
Thanks,
DarylP
I am a STOL fan, and have read most posts on this site and others on the design and function of my slow and able "mules of the air". I like the capability of being able to land in remote locations, and so I like many of you look at the bush plane for inspiration. My quest for knowledge brought me to a website that discussed the airframe strength of these type of aircraft. I wish I had bookmarked it, but alas I did not, otherwise I would provide the link.
The author of the site brought forth something that I had not thought of. That is to say that just because you put on big tires, a big engine, big prop it does not mean that the airframe can handle the rough landings. Of course it makes sense, as an aluminum frame will be stronger than a wood frame, much as a steel frame would be stronger than an aluminum frame. (Right?) Bouncing around on the ground over rocky ground exerts stresses on the airframe, which could be bad...to say the least. The manufacturer provides all sorts of specs, but what would you look for to assure that you are not overtaxing the design? I have seen big tires on ultralights, and watched them land them in some crazy areas. I see the G loads mentioned in the positive and negative, but I assume that is in flight. Bouncing a plane around on the ground, fast enough to take off, surely takes its toll on the airframe too...right? You guys always have great insight, so I thought I'd toss this out there.
So what makes an airframe suitable for STOL, and how do you know that you are pushing the boundaries...from an airframe point of view?
Thanks,
DarylP