glacier wrote:What are the downsides to a sportsman? Cost, weight and thats about it? I'd loved to have had it on my 140.

I had a good feel for when the airfoil gave up, and with nose high power on landings it would give up all at once. Compared to a sportsman equipped wing, it feels like playing with fire if you really stall it on. Take off not so much, things don't really happen all that fast anyway, and just keep it in ground effect until its really flying. Same idea as any other plane really.

For take off the mac 75/35 sea plane prop really helped the O-200. Static 2600 rpm, redline pretty quick on T/O. I always took off with full flaps, either set at the start of the roll (heavy) or I'd pop them (light). I was considering adding the trailing edge bulb to the flaps just to make them a little longer.

But I do think landings benefit from the gentle stall of the Sportsman, just give a nicer margin. Landing shorter than you can take off, sure, thats pretty normal. And it is a pretty tight gnarly spot that doesn't offer up more space once you're on the ground and can get out and look around.

robw56 wrote:

Hammer wrote:Since a 140 will already land shorter than it will take-off, and take-off and climb are dependent on excess thrust, not excess lift, I'm curious whether the mod would really be of any value, even if you could do it.

Everyone says the same thing about a Cessna 170. The Sportsman STOL kit was the best thing I did to my old 170 and I’d do it again.