Performance data for the Custer says extremely short landing as well. Even if you are right, thats quite a simple problem to solve. Adding a set of split flaps would help either way, allowing for more power on landing. The pros vastly overcome the cons. Its a balanced design, exceeding all the conflicting requirements, with the addition of amphibious capability.The Custer channel wing might help on takeoff. But not well for landing, power on landing just extends the glide unless you can get the pitch angle to an extreme up direction.
But it does not allow for an inline twin without having clearance issues for the rear engine. Remember, the specs states twin engine, easily handled with one engine out, inline engines if possible. The purpose is to overcome current limitations for mountainous bush aircraft.Deflected prop wash with flaps works. They use that at Valdez.
1. able to take off and land within 700 feet or 200 meters at 13000 feet or 4000 meters.
2. twin engine. Ignore the single and twin safety argument. When you fly at that altitude around that terrain, you want a twin. Single engine out controllability must be as good as possible. What about in-line push pull twin configuration compared with Rutan’s Boomerang?
3. three-person useful load capability.
4. 2.5 hour fuel capability is enough for the mission.
5. 100mph cruise speed is more than enough really, even 80mph is OK, considering you can only drive at 30mph on the ground--not in a direct route like in the air.
6. very tough landing gear.