# STOL take off technique

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
I was expecting a different kind of roll on takeoff.

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
I for one am quite interested in the inevitable head-to-head between one of those new tri-gear Carbon Cubs and the taildragger equivalent. Unless there’s more drag in the nosewheel than I can imagine I expect the tricycle to hop into the air just a little sooner.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I was expecting a different kind of roll on takeoff.
Many years ago, an Unlimited aerobatic category pilot received “Cleared for takeoff roll ...” So he turned on the smoke and did a roll on takeoff. That did not amuse the controllers; he had his certificate suspended for 6 months.

BJC

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I for one am quite interested in the inevitable head-to-head between one of those new tri-gear Carbon Cubs and the taildragger equivalent. Unless there’s more drag in the nosewheel than I can imagine I expect the tricycle to hop into the air just a little sooner.
The initial write up I read said the trike did a little bit better. If I were just guessing, I would guess that the trike has the advantage on landing because it can probably touch down at a higher AOA (most TD’s sit on their gear at less than max lift AOA so that they can fly off at gear attitude). Despite not being my choice for fun flying, I could do some amazingly short landings with the Cessna 150 (and that was squeaking it in, not dropping in hard on the mains).

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
No salmon in the back, but there is a bunch of coolers and about 20 pounds of catfish

Last edited:

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Depends on season and were you fish, sometimes catfish are bigger than salmon sometimes salmon are bigger than catfish. Of course catfish always land right side up.

#### narfi

##### Well-Known Member
I for one am quite interested in the inevitable head-to-head between one of those new tri-gear Carbon Cubs and the taildragger equivalent. Unless there’s more drag in the nosewheel than I can imagine I expect the tricycle to hop into the air just a little sooner.
What is the difference in weight between the tail gear,wheel,and tire vs. the nose gear, wheel and tire?

The zenith 750 or SD is at the top of my list and they seem pretty proud of their choice in nose gear configuration.

#### flyrite

##### Well-Known Member
Love the Zenith mounts. They get up and down short, BUT, No serious backcountry Plane will have a nose gear. Some of the softer, rougher terrain would wipe it out ,even if the tires were big enough. When you apply the power it pulls down on the nose which tends to bury it even more in the soft stuff.

Last edited:

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Gear design has a lot to do with the STOL capabilities of an aircraft.
I was watching clips on Youtube and a yellow Kitfox and Draco,in particular,really demonstrated this.
I think the clips were from OshKosk this year.

They pull to the line...lock the brakes...go full power....bottom the suspension out...launch hard......then use the rebound from the suspension to help spring them into the air.

A good STOL aircraft design takes the rebound from the suspension into consideration and uses it to its advantage.

If Draco had a solid suspension,its ground roll would be increased considerably.

Kevin

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
... I could do some amazingly short landings with the Cessna 150 (and that was squeaking it in, not dropping in hard on the mains).
A stock C152 has a shorter takeoff roll than one with the tailwheel conversion plus drooped LE and wing fences.

BJC

#### blane.c

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I know people that will park a C-206 next to a C-185 on a gravel bar and fish all day. I'd like you to tell them all about the taildragger superiority while you fish with them.

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Yeah, an old c-182 or 206 loaded aft will squat down on the gear and not much weight on the nose wheel.
Beef up the nose strut and with a bigger tire and the pilot has a good chance to nail the landing while the C-185 is still bouncing another 200 feet.

#### flyrite

##### Well-Known Member
Short takeoff and landing capabilities are just a small part of what makes a good back country plane.
A real back country plane can land in sand so soft you will bury to your ankles trying to walk on it. as well as deal with really rough terrain that’s in a lot of the places you desire to go. That completely rules out a nose dragger.
gravel bars are nice, But sandbars are another matter for nose draggers .Have a buddy who had a tri gear Helio with 29’s ,he tried it once, we almost had the helicopter his mount out.
Learned what it is like to be in a sandblasting machine, while I held a rope tied off of his tail ring trying to unload the nose as he powered up trying to get off

Last edited:

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
The initial write up I read said the trike did a little bit better. If I were just guessing, I would guess that the trike has the advantage on landing because it can probably touch down at a higher AOA
I once read about a LSA flying club with a fleet of reasonably stock J-3s that put one on Testerman gear (a tricycle conversion from the fifties). They had said the same; the tri gear was marginally better at short fields because it could have a steeper deck angle with the mains on the ground. This was both because the wheels were moved aft and because the tailwheel was removed. Of course, you and I both know a nose wheel takes away a little soul but it’s interesting to see that there’s an advantage behind the marketing “Just drive it on and off the runway” angle.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
A now deceased neighbor owned and operated a hunting / fishing lodge in Alaska and also an air charter service. He was an A&P IA who rebuilt a Beaver each winter. He said that the C206 was the top money-maker among piston engine aircraft in Alaska.

BJC

#### narfi

##### Well-Known Member
the top money-maker among piston engine aircraft in Alaska.

That is a very broad and undefined term......
Does it count only commercial operations, or does it include 'incidental' part 91 Lodge Flying?
Does it count \$per hour? Everts fuel and air cargo still operates some pretty big piston aircraft....
Does it count float planes or amphibious planes? (I assume it does since that favors the 206)
Does it count for sheer number of planes (say 'cub type')
Does it count multi engine piston such as the Navajo? (a common work horse in its own class)
Does it count the big operations as well as the single pilot operations?
Does it count operating cost vs. income? hard to beat the A36 for that.

I don't know, but it sounds anecdotal.
It could very well be the top money maker, I am not arguing..... just curious .... would be interesting to see a real break down.

Last edited:

#### flyrite

##### Well-Known Member
Got a white perch supper out of this little spot...

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
I know someone who has an Alaskan lodge. He has about 600 ft semi improved runway. Trees but not too bad. He operates two helicopters and a 180. Resupply is usually a Beaver or C206. They usually never back taxi. Stop unload or load. Takeoff on remainder. I was in an Aircam that nosed up on a sandbar. I had to hop out and push the tail down and dig the wheels out. My friend powered it up to get to moving and I dove in. We taxied around until I was belted. Regular wheels.

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Got a white perch supper out of this little spot...
We’re you ‘fly’ fishing?

#### flyrite

##### Well-Known Member
We’re you ‘fly’ fishing?
Ha,Never learned how to fly fish.I just fly to the fish.But I guess that would be flyfishing ... Huh? Was using a jig built and sold buy a buddy though, called “Jiffy Jig” .