I honestly don't know. The 37 KT RSTOL Vso was pretty much the bottom of the functional range of the a/s indicator.

My boss at the time, a non pilot, but who'd flown a lot commented the first time he rode in the thing after the cuff install that "this thing lands slower than before!" And that was unprompted.

MTV

Battson wrote:

Rob wrote: As an example, an RSTOL equiped early Cessna 180 will have a book approach speed slower than a PA-18 Supercub! Yes Slower... 51 MPH for the RSTOL 180 vs 70 normal ops or 60 short field ops for the Cub. Although the RSTOL 180 will be comfortable at that approach speed with over 1000 extra pounds of weight! Also just like the Supercub which can be flown slower than book speeds in competent hands, so can the RSTOL equipped 180.

That is kinda a misleading statement, given a cub flown at 60 would be more like a slow cruise in real life. For me 40 is more like it for most "real world' backcountry ops, not that I fly a Cub often anymore.
And of course, add 1000lbs and add 5-10kts to the stall speed.
Just being realistic here, not saying RSTOL isn't a great mod, just that you can't turn a Skywagon into a Cub...

Wait... re-read what I wrote. It is not misleading, nor inaccurate. I own one of each aircraft as described, and my north south strip is 500' with a 15' tall levee on one end, and 75' eucalyptus trees on the other. It is very easy to become intimately familiar with the speeds and touch down points of each coming home to this every time you fly

I simply compared BOOK Approach speeds for each aircraft... Just as you elect to make slower than book approach speeds in a cub (so do I BTW) the same can and is done with the RSTOL equipped airplane. It's not the speed that penalizes it over the cub, it's the added EW and the added useful. The touch down speeds are very similar.

I absolutely love flying my Cub, having said that, when my wife started joining me on trips to Alaska and the likes I determined that the Cub just wasn't the best machine for that particular mission. I set out with very specific goals;

1) an average ground speed of 140 mph on Bushwheels.
2) the ability to haul 4 in a pinch.
3) the ability to haul my wife, my dog and myself with a couple weeks worth of equipment in comfort, in other words I didn't want camping gear pressing into my spine while I fly.
Oh, and this camping gear would be for extended ventures, consequently, it needed to be life size, no pup tents or 6 pack sized coolers.
4) the ability to haul a life size folding canoe or kayak, while still hauling the camping gear (the current one is a 17 footer!!)
5) the ability to haul two life size 29" mountain bikes while hauling the canoe / kayak / camping gear...
6) the ability to haul 4 hours of fuel, then safely and comfortably operate with all the above mentioned gear on a 700' gravel bench, with me (not a super pilot like Paul Claus) at the controls
Why 700' ? because I'm a weenie and want twice as much room as the airplane actually needs

To date, the early year C180 with Sportsman / Wing X or RSTOL, and a big engine / prop is the only thing that I can come up with that fits the bill. I chose RSTOL because i prefer the flatter approach angle produced by gaining lift off the trailing edge as opposed to the leading edge...But that's not entirely true, a bone stock but really light early C185 will do it too, I didn't want injection, nor the added cost to buy in... If there are better solutions I am all ears, specially if someone has a good exp that fits the bill. The dream tundra appears close, but slower and faster (on the wrong ends) The BH looks like a contender, but again slower and faster on the wrong ends... plus it looks too much like a Maule

Ya, I do agree that you can't turn a Skywagon into a Cub though

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:The BH looks like a contender, but again slower and faster on the wrong ends...

Rob - agree with everything you say, except this line
(If you were fishing, I'm in hook line and sinker..!)
I have never been outrun by a 180 yet Never seen one [stock] that stalls at 33kts unloaded, either.

Hi Battson,

Just as a matter of personal preference, I actually never much cared for the few Maules I had flown and consequently never really considered a BH... Until blackrock made a quick visit one day. It caught my attention favorably, and I wish we would have had a chance to fly a little more. Clearly his airplane would fit the load hauling bill, and short / rough ops. Flying next to him in a Supercub I never got a first hand experience of the cruise end of the spectrum tho... Replacing the 180 with an experimental will happen someday


Take care, Rob

Hey Rob,

I see where you are coming from. If I owned a 180 and a Super Cub (and I only know two people who are lucky / hard-working enough for that!) - I don't think I'd need to consider any other aircraft either!!

You can't beat the clean lines of a 180.

Jonathan

I don't think the Maule wing is the same as the BH. Lots of distinctions in flight characteristics, despite the obvious similarities with the cargo door.

Zzz wrote:I don't think the Maule wing is the same as the BH. Lots of distinctions in flight characteristics, despite the obvious similarities with the cargo door.

They feel quite different to fly (Maule : BH).
But not as different as a Cessna : BH. Elevators in a Cessna feel like they weigh about 600kg after the BH.

Zzz wrote:I don't think the Maule wing is the same as the BH. Lots of distinctions in flight characteristics, despite the obvious similarities with the cargo door.

You are correct. It wasn't till I saw Mikes BH and asked about the airfoil that I discovered this. Thanks Mike! The Maule uses a modified USA 35B. Airfoil wise it is essentially the same as a Piper.... The BH uses a modified NACA 4412 which is essentially the same airfoil as a Thruush . Which goes a long way to explaining why it reportedly continues to fly after the Maule quits

If Mike ever offers you a ride, take him up on it! I have about 30 minutes of stick time in his BH and it was fun enough that I blew my best egg on one

Hope you meant "nest egg" otherwise seems like a pretty steep price

skyjeep wrote:Hope you meant "nest egg" otherwise seems like a pretty steep price

Hahahaha. It might as well have been a whole testicle.

Blew a nut....not admitting to that one.... Got a little stick time in Dave Roberts O540 powered Bearhawk in eastern Montana. Amazing! Got'a finish mine...soon as I get done with the Pacer rebuild.
Mark M.
On the Robertson....Tom Tucker's 207 is so equipped. The only problem he spoke of was he would get airborne and before having good directional control in a strong cross wind, added VG's to the vertical stabilizer problem solved.

Just spent some time in an 85 206 with Robertson-sportsman-wingX-VG- IO550 combination, and it is impressive to say the least!
The only flaw in the setup is the oil pan on a 550 is all sump and the pickup is near the back of the engine, with the Robertson flaps you can come in so steep you loose oil pressure.