STOL vs Pocket Rocket?

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by rtfm, May 2, 2010.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

?

All being equal (ie they cost roughly the same) - which would you prefer?

  1. STOL

    36 vote(s)
    51.4%
  2. FAST...

    34 vote(s)
    48.6%
  3. STOL

    36 vote(s)
    51.4%
  4. FAST...

    34 vote(s)
    48.6%
  1. May 16, 2010 #21

    mcmurphy

    mcmurphy

    mcmurphy

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Bucyrus, Ohio
    I like the idea of a CH 750 without the leading edge slats and a little less draggy airframe. I don't need the STOL capabilities of the original design but would like to have a higher cruising speed.
     
  2. May 16, 2010 #22

    addaon

    addaon

    addaon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,686
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Keep in mind that the 701/750 designs are easy to clean up substantially... but you'll run into Vne limits pretty quickly if you do. If breaking 100 mph is your goal, you're probably better off starting elsewhere.
     
  3. Jun 5, 2010 #23

    Nickathome

    Nickathome

    Nickathome

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    75
    Location:
    S.E. PA
    I like the Terrafugia, and really hope it becomes a reality, but if history serves as any kind of teacher, I truly feel its going to be another doomed design, which will only be produced in small numbers. It will be relegated to nothing more than a curiosity and will adorn a few Daddy Warbuck's garages, same as has happened to the few other attempts at "flying cars". In the boat/ car world, the Amphicar has met a similar fate.

    The logisitcs alone of producing an FAA legal aircraft that also has automotive safety features, is a daunting task to say the least, and it appears to be reflected in its cost of almost $200K......How many of us little people can own something like that? Not me that's for sure.
     
  4. Feb 20, 2011 #24

    flat6

    flat6

    flat6

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    monaco
    you can use more horsepower and high lift devices to make a clean plane takeoff very quickly. it would also help to use a laminar wing with a very wide drag bucket.
     
  5. Feb 20, 2011 #25

    Alan Waters

    Alan Waters

    Alan Waters

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Conover N.C.
    While it does not fall into the LSA catagory the Bearhawk appears to be the best compromise of the two. Bearhawk #1150 Builder Site#
     
  6. Feb 26, 2011 #26
    Wittman Buttercup. I think this is the best compromise between flight speed and the possibility of a short landing. It remains a bit ... make it entirely out of metal.

    Sorry, I write using a translator.
     
  7. Feb 27, 2011 #27

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    193
    Location:
    Clatsop, Or
    Most people here think I need a translator, but sadly it's already in English.....
     
  8. Feb 28, 2011 #28

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
  9. Mar 6, 2011 #29

    WWhunter

    WWhunter

    WWhunter

    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia/Minnesota
    I have only been flying for 24+ years and have flown all over the lower 48 states of the US. To me STOL would win out all the time. The speed is nice when a person is on a LONG cross country but I love to fly so I am no longer in a hurry. Fo a business traveler or someone that is always in a hurry speed is nice but I like seeing the country-side and enjoy the flight. I think the average pilot doesn't fly more than a couple hundred miles from home if even that far so a Speedster is really not needed. Most guys flying the fast glass type seem to have a Walter Mitty ego and never stop to smell the roses per se. I have flown in both and the low, slow, stol types always seem to enjoy there world better. Just my opinion worth all of what you paid for it. :)
    WW
     
  10. Mar 7, 2011 #30

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    While something like the Aircam or the off-road cub operations are cool, I'd opt for a compromise. Many countries don't allow or seriously restrict landing at any place you want. If you're limited to airports anyway, I think you can get away with a moderate compromise like most LSA's/MLA's, C172's and the Van's.

    Most airports are 2000 ft or longer and the shortest ones are at least 1000 ft. So as long as your ground roll is below say 700-800 ft, you can use virtually all airports and still achieve rather high speeds. That's my ideal pocket rocket. Any time 2000 ft operations and occasional 1000 ft (grass) capabilities.
     
  11. Mar 7, 2011 #31

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,240
    Likes Received:
    1,973
    Location:
    US
    +1. Unless you are going fishing, hiking, etc, you're probably going to fly your STOL aircraft to an airport so you can get a rental car, fuel for the airplane, etc. For this purpose, a 700' takeoff roll works just as well as a 100' takeoff roll, and without the design tradeoffs needed for true STOL.

    It is possible to make a good case that low stall speed is an important safety feature (KE=1/2 MV^2, and all that) in a single-engine aircraft. But, an aircraft doesn't need to be true STOL to have a low landing speed.
     
  12. Mar 7, 2011 #32

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hi guys,
    Thanks for the continued discussion. I am currently aiming for 42kt (48mph) stall, 140kt (161mph) cruise. That's a reasonable compromise, I think...

    Regards
    Duncan
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2011
  13. Mar 7, 2011 #33

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Yepz. The penalties for a "real" STOL are simply way too severe. Looking at the 801 or the extreme cubs with the oversized tires, they're excellent planes, but suffer way too much in terms of performance, compared to, say a Van's RV7/8/9.
    I guess there's also some "macho-factor" in there, just like the way many SUV's are used. I guess that's the same on the other end of the spectrum (the fast glass attitude that WWhunter described)..
    But then I'm hoping to show off to the fast glass guys too with 1/10th of their budget and comparable performance ;-)
    An often overlooked factor is that too low speeds aren't good either. Very sensitive to wind, turbulence, crosswind. Many MLA's (35 kts max, 450 kg/1000 lbs mtow) seriously suffer from this. Their wing loading is simply far too low. When gliding in the Alps we often ballasted the gliders; not for performance (alone), but for control. In the heavy turbulence they simple were a lot easier to fly with more mass on board. In fact, with the Mistral we had a rotor directly over the field. Speed on final was 150+ km/h when the stall was 70-like. Once you hit the rotor you suddenly were at 100 km/h or less...

    50-60 kts clean stall is what I think about the optimum for all round performance in a powered aircraft. Very efficient flaps still give you the option to go significantly lower to say 40-50 kts stall with everything out, but at least you can leave those up if the conditions required it.
     
  14. Mar 8, 2011 #34

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Don't let the number$ get in the way TOO much. Flaunt it while you got it baby!:gig: Lots of time to go slow and smell the flowers later.
    Warmest regards,
    Gary
     
  15. Mar 8, 2011 #35

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
    Are there any pocket rockets with STOL capabilities ?

    How about leading edge slats on Bede-5B.

    How stol is actually stol...50 ( 150 ft ) meters landing ?
     
  16. Mar 12, 2011 #36

    MicRuler

    MicRuler

    MicRuler

    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Nassau, Bahamas
    STOL ? what about VTOL :devious:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
    Topaz likes this.
  17. Mar 14, 2011 #37

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    WonderousMountain

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    193
    Location:
    Clatsop, Or
    What is the sound of a hundred hornets humming?

    Vtol is impressive,

    Sir Wonderous Mountain
     
  18. Oct 16, 2012 #38

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13,074
    Likes Received:
    5,005
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    After watching this video, I think "FAST" wins out! :gig:

    Checklist:
    roll controls - NEGATIVE
    yaw controls - NEGATIVE
    pitch controls - NEGATIVE
    throttle - GO

    Gentlemen, we are GO for liftoff!


    [video=youtube;-zIulWZCiQw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-zIulWZCiQw#![/video]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  19. Oct 16, 2012 #39

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,575
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Oh, he's got yaw control. It's just that he placed the vanes in about the worst possible position (outboard would've been far more effective).

    This guy has some serious "get-there-itis". Even when the thing demonstrates quite clearly that it's got no controllability and apparently no stability either, he just keeps trying, as if magic is going to happen. Glad he finally came to his senses at the end.

    Gotta love the little vortices coming off the prop tips, and how they show the constricting down-flow of the prop disk. Sweet.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  20. Oct 16, 2012 #40

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13,074
    Likes Received:
    5,005
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Glad you picked up on that. I meant to mention it, but forgot.

    Perhaps I should have said "working" yaw control. :gig:
     
    Topaz likes this.

Share This Page



arrow_white