# STOL vs Pocket Rocket?

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

?

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

36 vote(s)
51.4%

34 vote(s)
48.6%

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

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

### mcmurphy

#### Active Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2010
Messages:
41
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

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
Messages:
1,686
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

### Nickathome

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 29, 2009
Messages:
758
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 ### 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 ### 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 ### NIKOLAI ### NIKOLAI #### Guest 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 ### 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 ### topspeed100 ### topspeed100 #### Banned Joined: May 4, 2009 Messages: 4,063 Likes Received: 63 Location: Oulu/Finland 9. Mar 6, 2011 ### 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 ### 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 ### Vigilant1 ### Vigilant1 #### Well-Known MemberLifetime 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 ### 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 ### 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 ### 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

### topspeed100

#### Banned

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

How stol is actually stol...50 ( 150 ft ) meters landing ?

16. Mar 12, 2011

### MicRuler

#### Member

Joined:
Feb 1, 2010
Messages:
17
1
Location:
Nassau, Bahamas
STOL ? what about VTOL :devious:

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
Topaz likes this.
17. Mar 14, 2011

### WonderousMountain

#### Well-Known Member

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

Vtol is impressive,

Sir Wonderous Mountain

18. Oct 16, 2012

### bmcj

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Apr 10, 2007
Messages:
13,074
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!

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
19. Oct 16, 2012

### Topaz

#### Super ModeratorStaff Member

Joined:
Jul 30, 2005
Messages:
13,963
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

### bmcj

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Apr 10, 2007
Messages:
13,074
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.