Sitting around talking during break at ground school. Topic of STOL came up. I mentioned the DO 27. Another student said he had read about the Wren 460. After much comparison he said it would be cool to see the C336 with the Wren canard as the 336 shares some components with 182.
I know it would be costly, this guy has more money than someone his age should have.
He has build a ABE already so he has some skills.
So any input from experienced STOL pilots? Pipe dream but would it fly?
Thanks

I watched a Peterson conversion at Valdez, I wanted it to do awesome but it turned a nice performing plane into a turd. Since the 336 is already a turd, my guess is no... it actually would not fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Prosaria wrote:I watched a Peterson conversion at Valdez, I wanted it to do awesome but it turned a nice performing plane into a turd. Since the 336 is already a turd, my guess is no... it actually would not fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL!!!

Prosaria wrote :

.
I watched a Peterson conversion at Valdez, I wanted it to do awesome but it turned a nice performing plane into a turd. Since the 336 is already a turd, my guess is no... it actually would not fly.

Seems I read somewhere.....

You can't polish a turd, but you can cover it with glitter.

Prosaria wrote:I watched a Peterson conversion at Valdez, I wanted it to do awesome but it turned a nice performing plane into a turd. Since the 336 is already a turd, my guess is no... it actually would not fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here , saw a Wren at Valdez, I wanted it to do good and it performed terrible, a Cessna 172 with STOL kit beat it badly.

Denali wrote: You can't polish a turd, but you can cover it with glitter.

" A piece of shit is a piece of shit, even if it's chrome plated".

(caption from a photo of a dual Linkert carb installation on a Harley panhead, Easyriders magazine circa 1979)

I think the full Wren conversion with the weird things on the wings are a totally different machine then just canards. There's a lot more complexity and weight. If you just want to add canards they will probably help. I've flown a 182 with them and a horton and the nose wheel gets up very quickly. It is a nice mod. Pain to work on the engine afterwards, even taking the cowl off sucks. Canards with a sportsman leading edge would be sweet.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Back when I had my 430W and PSE audio panel installed, the avionics shop had a pair of Wren conversions in there for avionics upgrades. The day I picked up my airplane, the shop owner and a Wren owner taxied out ahead of me to do a function check on the avionics installation. When they took off, and granted that it had next to no load, that airplane literally levitated. With the nose only lifted a few degrees, the airplane climbed to pattern altitude in no time, like yours or mine might do with a 40 knot headwind, but the wind was barely enough to say that 15 should be used instead of 33.

But looking under the cowl of one of them while I was in the shop, I'd have to say that the complexity of the canard installation looks like a mechanic's nightmare. Getting all the pieces and parts to work together must take a whole lot of tweaking. It would be really hard to justify the cost and complexity, I would think.

On whether to do all that to a 336, that is one of Cessna's bigger flops, I think. The USAF got a lot of use out of the 337 (O-2) as a FWAC in Viet Nam, and Cessna built almost 3000 of them for the military. But they built less than 200 of the 336 fixed gear versions, because they just aren't great airplanes. Compared to other twins, they aren't very fast, and they don't carry much of a load. But they sure are noisy!

Cary

So I am wondering....

Is a canard option therefore something to consider as perhaps being worthwhile for an experiment build, or is the idea of a canard simply all glitter so to speak.

I don't see canards on experimental kits such as Rans, Zenith, Vans, etc. Maybe that alone speaks volumes.

Ahh, the old Skymaster loathing. Much as I'd like to participate, some of us with time in them actually like the things. Yeah, they're 'different' looking (at best) and not fast. But not a bad flying plane. This one has over 1300lbs useful load and works out of an 800ft soft gravel strip. Not many twins can do that. Islander would, but it would sink in the soft gravel and beaches off airport. Twin otter, but now we're just dreaming..!



Interesting concept with the canard. The Skymaster doesn't have a lot of elevator authority at low airspeeds so the canard might help there. Then again, the wing really doesn't want to fly until it is ready, unlike most Cessnas you cannot really horse it off the ground and then slowly build airspeed in ground effect. So may or may not help. I'd be willing to talk with your buddy about it though. Best way to reach me is by email. [email protected]

Many moons ago, I spent some time in a 337 that was equipped with a Robertson STOL kit. It was a very nice, and good performing, airplane. No canard needed.

MTV

Back in the late 50's and early sixties, Jim Robertson began his STOL ideas with an airplane called the Robertson SRX-1. There are two photos of the original on the web. It was very similar to Helio Courier. He applied for and received a patent for the canard idea. It even had rudders installed towards the canard tips to help with yaw control at very low speeds. He rebuilt it with the canard, trike landing gear, full span flaps and huge slats. No photos on the web of the end result. The lady that now owns the airframe is trying to get it sold and she sent me photos the other day.
I have not set up a photo account to display photos here, but if someone will drop me a quick email, thaef at gojade dot org, I will forward the photos and also a copy of the patent drawings that she sent me. Please post them here for all to see.
It is a very cool looking airplane, but an extreme project to get back in the air. Sat outside for decades and exposed to radiant heat from a hangar fire.
According to a guy familiar, it could fly as slow as 18 kts. Then the aft horizontal would stall and a wild ride ensued until control was re established! Marion Cole was the test pilot.
Tom

Tom,
I sent you an email and would be glad to post these so that they can be linked to for all to see.
Best,
Tom Nalevanko
KCMA

A1Skinner wrote: I think the full Wren conversion with the weird things on the wings are a totally different machine then just canards. There's a lot more complexity and weight ......

Here's a webpage with some information about the original Wren 460.

http://www.wren460.com/index.html

and a photo of the "weird things on the wings"

I received the pix and patent application and will post later. Have studied this plane but never saw such detailed photos. Really nice!

I have a study report somewhere done by the US Army and will post that also if I can find it...

Blue skies,

Tom

Hoping that this post puts up the Album of 13 Robertson SRX-1 Pictures

https://backcountrypilot.org/me/my-phot ... toid=44154

Above link for Robertson SRX-1 Album works for me. Please advise if you all can see the 13 pictures also...
Thanks,
Tom

TommyN wrote:Hoping that this post puts up the Album of 13 Robertson SRX-1 Pictures

https://backcountrypilot.org/me/my-phot ... toid=44154

This just links me to another thread about a flipped over plane...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Link worked for me. Cool looking plane. I wonder why is never went further. Anyone know what Happened? Or possibly better said "What didn't happen".
Anyone
Cheers

Thanks for confirming that the link works. The plane was certainly capable but maybe a bit too innovative. It would be interesting to hear the back story history. Perhaps the lady offering the plane can relate this to someone who knows her? Thanks
Tom