Battson wrote:Not my words - but some things I've been told by guys with several thousand hours flying back country strips in 172s:

Even with the 210hp engine, they are still not going to compete with other aircraft in their power class for STO performance, but they are up with the best of them on L if you've got the skills. This is in regards to planes with CS props (read good TO pitch but Heavy with a capital H).

So based on that, I think if it were me I'd focus on improving takeoff rather than doing short landing mods. Spending a little on hp and more on weight reduction, as it seems hp isn't the whole story here. Like EZ says there are some quick wins with weight & VGs. See the bigrenna 185 thread - do you need all that insulation?

But maybe with a bigger tire up front to get the AoA steeper during the TO roll....? Or with flaps which don't take 10 seconds to extend so they can actually be used to help get airborne? Dunno if those STCs exist - never flown either of those in a 172, but those are the things I'd be looking at. You could always pump up the front oleo, seems an easy win?? You see plenty of 172 sitting low in the nose.

Can't help my self, "Even with the 210hp engine, they are still not going to compete with other aircraft in their power class for STO performance", 172H, Sportsman STOL Franklin 220, BRING IT ON!

Battson wrote:.... Takeoff is always harder to judge from inside, but climb performance is easy to compare, and compared to a 180 both loaded up...? No contest!

Depends on the weight when "loaded up". Since the 172 and 182 have the same wing airfoil & area, it'd be easy to do the math on powerloading to compare the two. At the same weight, naturally the 225 (oand up) C180 is gonna perform better than the 210 hp 172XP (or T41). early 180 gross is 2550, with 225 hp the power loading is 11.33 pds/hp. A T41B at 2380# with 210 hp has the same power loading, so should perform about the same.

What kinds of places are you looking to get in and out of with STOL mods on your plane that you can't without the mods? That's the question I keep running through my mind when I think about such things for my plane. The $4000-$5000 cost of a mod adds up to a lot of 100LL that could be used to gain the skills one would like to get in and out of neat places, and more importantly, even more 100LL to go and actually fly there, which is sort of the point after all. Heck, a lot (most) of the places that are around here are completely accessible with a lot less than a 172 in the right hands and under the right conditions. That being said, HP is king for getting over the rocks around here, and nobody I know with a climb prop on their 172 really misses the cruise speed in exchange for the significant bump to the climb they get to crawl over the passes near here. The performance gain is apparently unmistakable.

Best value for improving a 172? Gas and time to use what you have to enjoy the many areas in W. Colorado and Utah we have nearby. Enjoy!

Don't forget the SAFETY FACTOR......
Another reason to "value" the Sportsman is the slower "controlled flight" envelope. If someone has to put it in the trees (etc.) the amount of energy being dissipated on the airplane and occupants is SIGNIFICANTLY less at the few MPH less the Sportsman allows/provides... (documentable with solid science)

littlecub
( wi-fi spot on my travels [SoCal] and I'm quickly "high grading" the site for a moment-and couldn't resist a comment.... [howdy, y'all....])

172heavy wrote:Here is My two cents, all have good advice, as for a Sportsman STOL kit I installed one on my 67H 172, My impression is, it took 10 to 15 MPH off landing and stall speeds and made the aircraft much safer below 60 mph without effecting cruse speed. Huge difference on takeoff speed and handling, will fly below 40 mph indicated AS, and feels solid @ 45 mph, the numbers used to be 55 and 60 mph. With the yoke all the way back it will not stall, only mush, aileron seals are part of the kit and they make a big difference too. Money well spent.

I have a '57 172 on which I installed a Sportsman STOL kit and agree with what 172heavy wrote. It also reduced my t.o. and landing distances by a considerable margin. The Sportsman kit is money well spent and worth every cent as far as I'm concerned. I re-pitched my prop for climb and only lost maybe a couple mph at cruise but that's insignificant in the long run and definitely worth it for the low end improvements achieved. My plane now easily handles 9K' plus DA strips and gets up above 12K' loaded to the gills , although it does take me awhile to get there. My rear seat weighs a couple of ounces under 32 lbs. on the spring scale. I carry the two W&B for installed and not installed as suggested since the seat is in & out a lot depending on what I'm doing.

I have a 79 R172K, had the STC increase to 210 HP and Sportsman STOL put in. HUGE difference.
Had to learn to fly the plane all over again, my finals have to be done 10 knots less than before otherwise will float.
Currently based at 8300' in a normal day DA is 11K and have no problems. Have to get over the the Andes mts to get to my ranch in the amazon, usually fly at FL155 and FL165 on the way back. Once in the low lands have to squeeze it into my 750 foot grass runway (wire to wire) gets in and out fully loaded.

Keep in mind I only have 350 hrs flight experience of which 200 are on this plane. I am sure most of you guys could make this plane shine on the performance envelope way better than I can.

So the sportsman is way worth it.

Gilbert

gflores71 wrote:
Have to get over the the Andes mts to get to my ranch in the amazon,

I think that pretty well qualifies as back country flying

Hi all, Sorry I haven't been on here in a while to thank everyone for their replies to this post. A couple months ago I went ahead and had my mechanic install the Sportsman STOL kit. After flying around and getting a feel for it, I must say that the claims I've read on here and what Stene Aviation claim are pretty much right on. By myself, no backseat, and 25 gallons of fuel, & 20 degrees flaps on the takeoff roll, I let airspeed build to 45 Mph, ease back on the yoke and she really leaps off the ground. Climbs nicely out at 55 Mph. Stalls are as others have said. On landing with above weight, it still feels solid at 50-55 Mph. So far I'm pleased with my choice. It didn't do a whole lot for rate of climb, but someday down the road a prop with better pitch will help that.

182

ID172inCO wrote:Hi all, Sorry I haven't been on here in a while to thank everyone for their replies to this post. A couple months ago I went ahead and had my mechanic install the Sportsman STOL kit. After flying around and getting a feel for it, I must say that the claims I've read on here and what Stene Aviation claim are pretty much right on. By myself, no backseat, and 25 gallons of fuel, & 20 degrees flaps on the takeoff roll, I let airspeed build to 45 Mph, ease back on the yoke and she really leaps off the ground. Climbs nicely out at 55 Mph. Stalls are as others have said. On landing with above weight, it still feels solid at 50-55 Mph. So far I'm pleased with my choice. It didn't do a whole lot for rate of climb, but someday down the road a prop with better pitch will help that.

Watch your cylinder head temps and oil temp, voice of experience talking, the engine gets less cooling at higher angles of attack and lower speeds. Enjoy!

182 STOL driver wrote:182

If you've got a Sportsman kit this won't help. My first plane was a 60 172B. It needed wingtips anyway so I forked out a few extra bucks for the Metco Air "Horner" tips. They are supposed to stop the air spilling out of the end of the wing. This lets all the wing contribute to lift. I'm not sure if it was just in my mind but it sure seemed a lot more efficient at low speeds plus it increases your top speed. I think if you want some cheap performance, a climb prop and horner tips would do nicely.