I have been interested in this mod for quite a while, seemed like a great way to get a plane that could operate off airport yet still haul the family on those longer trips.

http://www.katmai-260se.com/performance.html

When you read the performance listed it sure sounds good. So here's my question.
Would a 260se be able to take off from an 800' grass strip at 4500' elevation @ 80 degrees with two people and say 70 gallons of gas?

YEP!!!

Heck my old 182 with all the mods could do that. The Katmai is an expensive 182 with all the bells and whistles but you still, have a firewall connection...Yes you can re-enforce the firewall etc., I did that but...its still attached to the firewall.

Great airplane, just very spendy

AKT

Put a 550 on a 182, Sportsman and WingX, Big tires. It will do the job.

aktahoe1 wrote:YEP!!!

Heck my old 182 with all the mods could do that. The Katmai is an expensive 182 with all the bells and whistles but you still, have a firewall connection...Yes you can re-enforce the firewall etc., I did that but...its still attached to the firewall.

Great airplane, just very spendy

AKT

What if it was 95 degree's and dead calm?

I fly a 206 loaded to gross with the same mods and take off in 800ft all day long. 800msl, 100deg f but I do have 600 ft remaining.

I dont know much but, at 6200' and density altitude over 9000', the ol girl would get out in about 700' very easily...with 50 g of fuel and a passenger.

The Katmai and the big engine will do wonders... BUT....you still have a firewall to contend with, re-enforced or not. The 182 will never be a 206 with the fork attached to the engine mount.

AKT

I always replace the rubber engine mount to firewall isolators with the Al Seaplane pieces. The 206 tunnel starts to come loose also from the engine pull and vibration. Just keep stapling it back on. My turbine we have ran .060 straps back to the cabin box. The 260se Canard shows some real slow speed performance but what is the % decrease in TO roll to an aircraft with everything but the canard?

Skydive206 wrote: The 260se Canard shows some real slow speed performance but what is the % decrease in TO roll to an aircraft with everything but the canard?

Thats a good question. I wonder how much shorter the take off would be if you just add the canard? I'm thinking not that much.

Blu wrote:

Skydive206 wrote: The 260se Canard shows some real slow speed performance but what is the % decrease in TO roll to an aircraft with everything but the canard?

Thats a good question. I wonder how much shorter the take off would be if you just add the canard? I'm thinking not that much.

From Peterson's Web Site:
http://www.katmai-260se.com/price.html

230SE/STOL
$25,000*
Includes high-lift canard with the stock 230 hp engine. Retains all of the slow-speed performance, handling characteristics, safe STOL performance, maneuverability, low-speed loitering capability and safety of the 260SE/STOL. Due to the smaller engine, cruise speed in 140 knots, rate of climb is 1,150 fpm, and takeoff distance is 475 ft. All 1970-1980 Cessna 182s are eligible for this conversion.

Granted this performance is at Sea Level, but not too shabby.

It's really too bad you cant convert one of those 1970-1980 Peterson Era 182's to TW... Now that would be an amazing BC 182. Add the 550 and that would help a lot at higher DA's.

Well i was lucky enough to get a ride in a katmai with the 260hp engine today. Here are my thoughs after one ride, take it for what its worth.

It had the 29" mains and large nose wheel, it definatly looked tough and sat up high. All my time lately has been in the cub and the cirrus, i had forgottan how quiet and smooth a cessna flys expecially when u dial the prop back at medium power. We took off from my home strip with 40 gallons in the tank and the two of us on board maybe 400lbs. The large tires handled my not so smooth strip with ease. There was not much wind and the outside temp was about 82 degrees and the strip is @ 5000' msl. The take off was smooth and it climbed out with a nice flat deck angle as advertised. Its tough to calculate the ground roll on my strip because you taxi with speed up to the crest of the hill then go full power down the steeper side to take off. I would say its longer than u would expect after watching the promotional videos.... but i guess thats to be expected . I would have reservations about a 800' strip on a hot day unless there was some wind or you where alone and light. In cruise @ 6000' it seemed to want to indicate about 110-115 LOP in 11.7 or so fuel flow. That seemed pretty good to me concidering the size of the tires and the wing extensions, but we didn't cruise far so thats a pretty rough estimate.

BLU
Not sure with your tailwheel experience why you prefer a 182 over a 180, but if you want a 182, why not find a clean, low time '56-57 C-182, put in an IO-550, Sportsman kit and tires, bet it will do everything the Peterson will do, plus be lighter, faster, and a lot of extra money for playin.
Just my .02. C-ya next weeknd
Gary

Find a mechanic who has removed the cowling of one of those before you buy. You may have to change mechanics if you buy one.....cowling removal is a MAJOR pain in the butt, due to the canard.

I'm with the others--I'd bet a 182 with a big engine, kept fairly light and with wing extensions and a Sportsman kit would do almost as well. Find a 182 with a RSTOL kit, hang wing extensions on that, and a big engine, and I'd bet it'll do just as well as the Katmai. The stall speed for the RSTOL 185 is 37 knots, by the way....

MTV

Question for anyone who has flown both the Katmai and a similar hotrod-ed high power/STOL equipped 182 without the Katmai canard:

The theory on the canard is known to be valid... in theory and in controlled NASA/USAF/DARPA flight tests of "three-surface" aircraft. It allows you to unload the tail with flap deployment, giving you better and lighter handling, and a "reserve" of elevator authority at slow speeds. This concept is the big gimmick with the Piaggio Avanti corporate cruiser. And it also adds a small amount of lift to the overall. So... does the real-world effect of the canard live up to that theory? Regardless of the actual level flight stall speed, does it make the airplane easier, safer or lighter to handle when down and dirty ?

The STOL kits all add lift by way of adding camber to the airfoil. Some at the leading edge (Horton, Sportsman), some at the trailing edge (Roberston drooping ailerons). But basic aerodynamics tells us that this also puts a stronger pitching moment on the whole airplane, which means you need more elevator authority pushing down at the back to balance it. So you are "using up" part of the elevator just to fly level. The canard theoretically solves this by pushing up at the front to balance the nose-down pitch from the camber and flap deployment.

So with the Katmai canard, you should have the same light, authoritative elevator feel (with a good reserve) when flying flaps out near stall, as you would have with flaps in during cruise flight. But the world is full of airplanes that... don't... quite... reach the advertised benefits.

I think the canard does help unload the elevator some. We did some slower flight 50-60 indicated with 20 degrees of flaps and it flew pretty level and felt solid. It also didn't seem to need as much trim as I remember my old 182 needing ( but it's been a while). The tires and extensions plus the canard add some weight, empty weight was a little over 1900lbs. It's hard to make up for weight, I feel like a light 180 would get off quicker expessially one like Gary's with the power.

I guess it really just shows there's no perfect plane. It's much quieter, faster, and hauls way more than the cub, but it's not really comparable to a cub for off airport work.
It's a good all around plane, but I think after flying in it a light 180 would preform as well or better and give u more prop clearance. (hard to say for certain until u flew them side by side) and really as I'm constantly reminded when I fly with Ladd it's more the pilot than the plane most days.

aktahoe1 wrote:YEP!!!

Heck my old 182 with all the mods could do that. The Katmai is an expensive 182 with all the bells and whistles but you still, have a firewall connection...Yes you can re-enforce the firewall etc., I did that but...its still attached to the firewall.

Great airplane, just very spendy

AKT

I was thinking on it and I don't think it will. I had a 182. When the density altitude is 8000' and u fill it with over 400lbs of fuel and put in 450lbs of people add in some grass to slow the roll and no wind and I think very few (if any) 182's leave the ground in 800'.

Blu wrote:

aktahoe1 wrote:YEP!!!

Heck my old 182 with all the mods could do that. The Katmai is an expensive 182 with all the bells and whistles but you still, have a firewall connection...Yes you can re-enforce the firewall etc., I did that but...its still attached to the firewall.

Great airplane, just very spendy

AKT

I was thinking on it and I don't think it will. I had a 182. When the density altitude is 8000' and u fill it with over 400lbs of fuel and put in 450lbs of people add in some grass to slow the roll and no wind and I think very few (if any) 182's leave the ground in 800'.

Blu-

If you read the post above mine...there is a big difference between 800' MSL at gross and 8000' at gross.
8000' DA fully loaded...your gonna eat up a lot of runway in just about any plane...DUH...