In watching the recent video I couldn't help but think that they would of been so much better in so many other planes.

Im not ripping on stitsons, they make great back country planes.

But this had nothing to do with backcountry and everthing to do with power and service ceiling.

I think they fly away unharmed in a bonanza, comanche, 210, cirrus or so many other "nonback country planes.

Is it just me or do people sometimes assume good backcountry planes ie STOL planes are also good hot high planes?

hey blu, i would guess a 235 hp stol plane that weighs 1500lbs would be less affected by DA than a 235 hp 1500 lb go fast plane. am i wrong?

g'day...rob

Just fly whatever you have to match the performance charts published for that aircraft and you'll be fine. If you ignore those you'll get into trouble with anything you fly. If you are asking what aircraft can I fly heavy and hot, outside the performance charts, ignoring the terrain, using less than optimal technique, and still be ok, then try pick something with a high lift wing and more horsepower than it needs for its official gross weight. Super Cub, Citabria GCBC, deHavilland Beaver, Twin-Otter (or even a single with the turbine conversion). But the plane on its own won't save you from yourself.

I'd hoped the Stinson guy would have leaned for extra engine performance on the takeoff, and nailed the climb speed to within one knot. I didn't really see anywhere in the takeoff where I would have chanced a 180 degree turn. Straight ahead into the trees at that point with everyone still alive is better than a lawn dart partway through a turn.

OregonMaule wrote:hey blu, i would guess a 235 hp stol plane that weighs 1500lbs would be less affected by DA than a 235 hp 1500 lb go fast plane. am i wrong?

g'day...rob

That's a really good point. I don't know if your right though, kinda seems like you are.

But maybe a slick plane would use less power to go so it has more left to climb?

Honestly I don't know.

Power and wing. My M-5 was not even close to performing with my long wing M-7 when high, hot, or heavy (or all 3).

Karmutzen wrote: But the plane on its own won't save you from yourself.

That is extremely profound. Well said.

Theoretically a long wing with a short chord should be less affected by high DA, because that's the sort of wing used on almost all very high altitude aircraft, such as the U-2, high performance gliders, etc. I'm no aerodynamicist, just an observer.

Cary

UtahMaule wrote:Power and wing.

That sums it up. Higher wing loading= faster Vy= higher induced drag while slow, lower parasitic while fast for speed. For most airfoils used on small single engine planes (2412, USA 35B, etc...laminar flow foils excepted), similar wing loading with similar excess HP=similar Vx and Vy climb performance.

Cary wrote:Theoretically a long wing with a short chord should be less affected by high DA, because that's the sort of wing used on almost all very high altitude aircraft, such as the U-2, high performance gliders, etc. I'm no aerodynamicist, just an observer.

Cary

interesting observation. i think it is pretty cold where the u2 flys. glider, got me thinking

Karmutzen wrote:Just fly whatever you have to match the performance charts published for that aircraft and you'll be fine.

You ever seen a Maule POH? Nothing in there even resembles a performance chart. It's up to you and your butt to determine if the doo doo is over your head on that particular day. It comes down to being on the ground wishing you were in the air vs. being in the air wishing you were on the ground. A two mile takeoff roll should raise some red flags no matter what you are flying.

YB

Yellowbelly wrote: .........A two mile takeoff roll should raise some red flags no matter what you are flying.

That's what I was thinking when I watched the beginning of that video (the part they're not showing on TV).

Boost from turbocharging is particularly handy when the density altitude soars.

I guess i was thinking that in the video stol preformace wasn't the issue. The runway was plenty long and he got in the air.

What i was thinking is that a Stitson is a better backcountry/STOL plane than say A36 bonaza. I say this because if i was going into a strip like "mile high" or "vines" with 1/2 fuel and a just me on a cool day the stitson is by far my first choice.

But in the situation we see in the video the stitson was taking off at close to its service ceiling leaving little to no room to climb, while i would submit that the BO would still have at least a few thousand feet of climb left in it and with almost a mile of runway there was ample room to get it off the ground and the wheels up while in ground effect.

I guess im just arguing that a good "back country plane" and a good "high country plane" is not always the same thing when there is plenty of runway.

For my 2c - wing design / MTOW / etc just confuse the conversation. I think you had it right in your first post.

There is no substitute for more cubic inches.

The numbers tell us power is directly proportional to service ceiling. Sure they have skinny wings on the U2, but they also have 1000's of lbs more thrust.

Too heavy, too high, and pushed a bad situation instead of aborting.

2c

Everyone seems to agree more power will help at altitude... Many times I sure wish for the o-360 in front instead of the 320. But the idea about higher aspect ratio being beneficial makes sense too. I don't have much experience in Cessna aircraft but I have read on this forum that in a high altitude area, like Colorado, a Cessna 170 wing will perform better than say a Pacer wing. Though the stock 170's generally have less hp than many Pacers.

You can't beat a high wide wing on a hot day in the mountains, lots of shade for the folding chair and you can stand up easy on your way to the cooler while you wait for better air.

Nosedragger wrote:You can't beat a high wide wing on a hot day in the mountains, lots of shade for the folding chair and you can stand up easy on your way to the cooler while you wait for better air.

If 5 different wing shapes all lift a 2000lb aeroplane, they can all produce the same 2000lb lift force (at different indicated airspeeds), regardless of design. There will be differences in induced drag, etc. but they have different FWF kit to match that.

A Stinson with a 36' wing span would be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, they are not....

You can't beat a high wide wing on a hot day in the mountains, lots of shade for the folding chair and you can stand up easy on your way to the cooler while you wait for better air.

....And that same folding chair in that same location under the wing keeps most of the rain off you when the summer rains happen..... and winter rains and......

lc

Nosedragger wrote:You can't beat a high wide wing on a hot day in the mountains, lots of shade for the folding chair and you can stand up easy on your way to the cooler while you wait for better air.

There ya go!!