OK, for the first thing I'm wondering about. I think I've come to understand that the more power is available for the weight, the slower one could fly before stalling, as in full throttle, nose up, slow down until she levels out, (stalls) at about the time we hit the ground, in order to reduce landing roll to minimum. How far is it practical to take that idea?

I know small planes with big engines are used for stunt flying, I was looking at videos of one that was built special for it. A little single seat biplane with 360HP engine. (disadvantage of high fuel consumption, and more engine weight)

I suppose a tricycle gear plane with high tail would work better for a high nose landing, (such as zenith makes) since a tail dragger has a lot more distance to flop down after the tail wheel hits ground. Or am I wrong there?

I know those who fly cubs seem to really like them, and I probably would like em too. I also think I'd like the zenith planes. Just trying to work out what would work best for doing safe extreme short field landings.

Taking it to the ultimate extreme would be to have enough power to actually come to a stop in the air before landing, hover like a copter doing a tail stand, then ease off on the power and set it down on the ground. tail first, then falling down and smashing the front end into he ground. Crunch! Oops! Now we need a tail stand rack to crank er nose up in the air, climb up there somehow, (that's what ladders are for) Crank up that oversized engine, (quite a feat while sitting in a tipped over chair) and take off, strait up. Sending the ladder scedatling that we forgot to move outa the way. Oh! wait a minute! That's what we call a helicopter.

Anyway, kind of like what this antonav AN2 demonstrates, of course the AN2 has 1000HP and a 4700lb load capacity, flying empty with a headwind makes it work better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mipf4nqrR74

I've noticed a small smooth mowed lot beside a shopping mall in our town nearby, kind of back where few people notice it. off the back edge of that lot it drops off into a large sloping field to a river on the bottom edge, a cell ph tower is there but off to the side just enough so missing it would be no problem. I couldn't help but wonder if one could come in across that field and land on the lot. There isn't a lot of roll space, maybe as much as 200 ft. Not that I'd need to, since it's only a 20 minute drive by car. But I see videos of back country mountain landing strips that are similar. Thinking of the first half of this one I saw some time back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0gXSk_f250

In certain aircraft, one problem with this kind of semi-stalled very low speed - power on approach, is the nose attitude.

Aircraft can "fly" slower with power on (either approaching the stall or even beyond the stall in some cases) but to actually utilise this extra low margin of airspeed at touchdown, the nose attitude of the aircraft becomes impractically high for some models. You end up approaching the threshold without much forward visibility to speak of, and touching down tailwheel first - which isn't great for the fuselage or tailwheel (unless it's designed to take it - see new SuperSTOL aircraft).

In some nose-draggers they can land heavily on the tail tiedown ring if they use this kind of approach (I've seen it done by a brand new C182, not pretty to hear or see!) Again, this applies to only some aircraft - not all planes/wings can reach such a critically high angle.

The other problem, referring to the "semi-stalled" wing, if you want to call it that, is the aileron control in some aircraft becomes extremely poor once the flow seperation starts to kick in. If the airflow over the ailerons fully stalls, you can get into a region of reverse control in some aircraft. It's all pretty knife edge stuff. Certainly not suited to a pilot of my experience!

Look for some videos on Youtube of the Valdez short field landings and take-offs competition, held in Valdez, AK, each year. Many of those airplanes are purpose built (or modified) for the competition, and probably make lousy every-day airplanes. But the videos are fun to watch--one of these days, I'd love to watch them in person.

Cary

I would take one of these in a heartbeat.....odds are this is my next airplane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTFpBxAtudY

AKT

aktahoe1 wrote:I would take one of these in a heartbeat.....odds are this is my next airplane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTFpBxAtudY

AKT

They are pretty exciting for sure. Rumor has it that one is being built now at Stead. I don't know who or where but in one of the hangars there.

It sounds quite qindy in that first video. I've flown both my C-150 and Citabria backwards in a good wind, so its kinda cheating to go by that.
Anither problem with flying behind the power curve/slower then stall, is that if your engine decides to hiccup or quit, it leaves you with pretty much no options when over a heavily treed approach...

Thank's getting a better idea how it works.

That's pretty close to what I want. The Just Aircraft superstol. I've done a lot of looking at the zenith planes, but that one looks a good bit better. A lot more suspension travel, bigger wheels, sounds like it may be built stronger as well. The higher price may reflect that. And they're just a couple hundred miles SE of me, by road, closer to 150 by air. (Mountains and plenty of winding roads between here and there)

I have watched a bunch of the Valdez STOL competition videos. Lot of super short landings and departs there, but those back country trip videos give a better idea what it's really like in real life I'm sure.

Any airplane will fly slower with power than without. Extremely short fields require this kind of controlled slowing prior to touchdown. The throttle, until closed, provides the most accurate glide angle and rate of descent control. When moved enough to control gusts, the throttle also allows the slowest powered, full flaps, approach. The tail wheel only touches down first (normal airplanes) in a downwind where the extra power is making a slow enough ground speed possible. The extra power causes greater pitch up. The angle of attack is not increasing as much as we think because a greater portion of the relative wind is from the prop. This, and ground effect, is what allows going below posted stall speed on very short final.

I have flown the little Zenith with the Rotex engine. I liked the airplane, except for sitting reclined, but I didn't like the engine.

The only time I do these sorts of landings is when the airstrip has a reasonable slope on it, say anything above 12% up slope. It's amazing how short one's ground roll is and I normally end up having to add power to get to the top

contactflying wrote:
I have flown the little Zenith with the Rotex engine. I liked the airplane, except for sitting reclined, but I didn't like the engine.

Well it's no wonder.Maybe you should learn how to spell the the name of the manufacturer... ROTAX!! If you are referring to the Rotax 912 series of engines. These are extremely light, powerful, small and durable engines. They have now over a 20 year history and routinely regularly exceed there 2000 hour tbo's , while burning cheaper autogas. Rotax has been in the aircraft engine business for over 30 years and they seem to know what they are doing and no I do not work for them and I think they screw the shit out of us on pricing, but shit they make a good reliable engine that I would pretty much trust my life to!! There are a few on here I'm sure that can attest to that.

Oh and BTW this engine has been serving reliably in the predator drone program since it's inception. Now being replaced by larger power plants due to increased airframe size. 100 hp can only carry so many Hellfire's

exodus wrote:

contactflying wrote:
I have flown the little Zenith with the Rotex engine. I liked the airplane, except for sitting reclined, but I didn't like the engine.

Well it's no wonder.Maybe you should learn how to spell the the name of the manufacturer... ROTAX!! If you are referring to the Rotax 912 series of engines. These are extremely light, powerful, small and durable engines. They have now over a 20 year history and routinely regularly exceed there 2000 hour tbo's , while burning cheaper autogas. Rotax has been in the aircraft engine business for over 30 years and they seem to know what they are doing and no I do not work for them and I think they screw the shit out of us on pricing, but shit they make a good reliable engine that I would pretty much trust my life to!! There are a few on here I'm sure that can attest to that.

Oh and BTW this engine has been serving reliably in the predator drone program since it's inception. Now being replaced by larger power plants due to increased airframe size. 100 hp can only carry so many Hellfire's

That's a pretty drawn out response to one individual's opinion...

That's a pretty drawn out response to one individual's opinion...

Perhaps this is shorter: "Rotex" is a radial engine.

Rotec= radial

Rotax= a line of engines originally from Bombardier that has now been split off into a separate company for aircraft engines.

http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

And gosh, misspelling an engine manufacturer's name disqualifies one to offer an opinion? Let's don't get all PC around here.

EB

When asked about the ROTAX 912S by a traditional aircraft engine guy, I find a short and concise response is: "It sips fuel like an A-65, and pulls like a strong 0-200, uses no oil to speak of, is turbine smooth, and the TBO is 2000 hrs and many are going well beyond that with no problem".

That's why I want one.