STOL, not stall
May 29, 2015 11:05 AM Subscribe
Bush pilots in Alaska rely on planes that can get them in and out of just about anywhere that has a bare patch of ground. During the off-season, they (and pilots from around the rest of the US) meet up for the annual Valdez Fly In.
The fly in is a bit unique among air shows; it's not about fighter jets and aerobatics but all about slow speeds and stopping distances. The Valdez Fly In is the site of an annual Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) competition that draws contestants to see just how little runway is needed to get off the ground. This year's winner of the Bush Class had a combined takeoff and landing distance of just 138 feet.
Highlights from last year's competition give you an idea of just how little space is needed to get these planes in the air. The Piper Super Cub is a popular option for STOL competitions and bush flying in general, due to its slow stall speed and wide range of available modifications, but you'd be surprised what you can fit in a small space. Sometimes there are mistakes.
EAA's AirVenture featured many of the Valdez pilots at their own STOL competition in 2014, and will bring back the competition again this year.
The fly in is a bit unique among air shows; it's not about fighter jets and aerobatics but all about slow speeds and stopping distances. The Valdez Fly In is the site of an annual Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) competition that draws contestants to see just how little runway is needed to get off the ground. This year's winner of the Bush Class had a combined takeoff and landing distance of just 138 feet.
Highlights from last year's competition give you an idea of just how little space is needed to get these planes in the air. The Piper Super Cub is a popular option for STOL competitions and bush flying in general, due to its slow stall speed and wide range of available modifications, but you'd be surprised what you can fit in a small space. Sometimes there are mistakes.
EAA's AirVenture featured many of the Valdez pilots at their own STOL competition in 2014, and will bring back the competition again this year.
Pretty cool! backseatpilot, you might enjoy a Discovery series (I know, I know, but this one seems real) that I stumbled upon called "Air Pressure" about young British pilots flying in Indonesia:
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/air-pressure/
Check out some of the runways there!
posted by scolbath at 11:50 AM on May 29, 2015
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/air-pressure/
Check out some of the runways there!
posted by scolbath at 11:50 AM on May 29, 2015
I wonder how well a real slow-flyer like an An-2 would fare.
Agreed. The An-2 is such an underappreciated beast in the west, I find it endlessly fascinating (and enjoy flying the Sibwings model in P3d). I would love to see one in person, even if I'll probably never be able to fly in one, in the US at least, due to its lack of a type rating.
I think my favorite thing about it -- which I believe is noted in its wikipedia page -- is that the SOP for a power out situation is to dump full flaps and hold the control column aft, after which the craft will "touch down at a parachute speed".
(I've done it in the flight simulator. It's a riot... as is taking off in place with a sufficient headwind.)
posted by jammer at 12:07 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Agreed. The An-2 is such an underappreciated beast in the west, I find it endlessly fascinating (and enjoy flying the Sibwings model in P3d). I would love to see one in person, even if I'll probably never be able to fly in one, in the US at least, due to its lack of a type rating.
I think my favorite thing about it -- which I believe is noted in its wikipedia page -- is that the SOP for a power out situation is to dump full flaps and hold the control column aft, after which the craft will "touch down at a parachute speed".
(I've done it in the flight simulator. It's a riot... as is taking off in place with a sufficient headwind.)
posted by jammer at 12:07 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've always wondered what one of these Super Cubs could do when operating from an aircraft carrier, where a 30+ knot headwind can be guaranteed (vs. 38 knot stall speed).
Even a C-130 does pretty well in that environment. Without using the arrestor wires or catapult. I imagine a Super Cub would be pretty helicopter-like.
posted by FishBike at 12:12 PM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Even a C-130 does pretty well in that environment. Without using the arrestor wires or catapult. I imagine a Super Cub would be pretty helicopter-like.
posted by FishBike at 12:12 PM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nice! This is so far from what people think when they think 'air show'. I'd love to attend (and I imagine the fishing and barbeque is great).
posted by a halcyon day at 12:20 PM on May 29, 2015
posted by a halcyon day at 12:20 PM on May 29, 2015
Fishbike, I read and enjoyed this related Stack Exchange question a while back; you might appreciate it, too.
(TLDR: It could probably be done, even in a 172, with a reasonable headwind. But explaining yourself to the DOD afterwards might be more of a challenge.)
posted by jammer at 12:23 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
(TLDR: It could probably be done, even in a 172, with a reasonable headwind. But explaining yourself to the DOD afterwards might be more of a challenge.)
posted by jammer at 12:23 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
But explaining yourself to the DOD afterwards might be more of a challenge.
If you didn't have permission from the CVN to try, they'd just turn on the Phalanx CIWS and the little bits of you that were left would fall into the ocean.
If you did have permission and didn't hit the fantail, you'd have plenty of deck. A Cessna O-1 Bird Dog, which is basically a Cessna 170, landed on the USS Midway during the evacuation of Saigon. He even bounced once, and stopped with room to spare.
The main difference between the 170 and the 172 is the landing gear, the 172 uses tricycle landing gear (nose gear in front of two main gears) and the 170 is a taildragger (two main gears in front of a tail wheel) so the 172 would be even easier to land. Given that the Midway's flight deck was 950 feet long and the Nimitz class flight decks are 1050, you even get an extra 100' of runout.
So, yeah, a Cessna 172 could land on a modern carrier, not a problem -- but again, the big issue is non-naval pilots are not trained to deal with a runway that rises and falls, and it is a big time bad time if you hit the back of the boat. Crumple, burn, fall, sink is the short version. The longer version involves screaming and a lot of paperwork. Good pilots avoid paperwork.
Somewhat related aside -- you can always if you're commercial pilot was Navy trained. The Air Force guys grease the plane down and they land somewhere near the touchdown zone, but really, they want to land it soft and clean. Navy pilots will put that bird down *right* at 1000' down the runway, and they will put it down there *firmly*. If you land with a thud right on the marks, that pilot was trained by the United States Navy. Note well, though, that pilot may well be a Marine, so don't assume that pilot is from the Navy, but they were trained by the Navy.
posted by eriko at 12:43 PM on May 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
If you didn't have permission from the CVN to try, they'd just turn on the Phalanx CIWS and the little bits of you that were left would fall into the ocean.
If you did have permission and didn't hit the fantail, you'd have plenty of deck. A Cessna O-1 Bird Dog, which is basically a Cessna 170, landed on the USS Midway during the evacuation of Saigon. He even bounced once, and stopped with room to spare.
The main difference between the 170 and the 172 is the landing gear, the 172 uses tricycle landing gear (nose gear in front of two main gears) and the 170 is a taildragger (two main gears in front of a tail wheel) so the 172 would be even easier to land. Given that the Midway's flight deck was 950 feet long and the Nimitz class flight decks are 1050, you even get an extra 100' of runout.
So, yeah, a Cessna 172 could land on a modern carrier, not a problem -- but again, the big issue is non-naval pilots are not trained to deal with a runway that rises and falls, and it is a big time bad time if you hit the back of the boat. Crumple, burn, fall, sink is the short version. The longer version involves screaming and a lot of paperwork. Good pilots avoid paperwork.
Somewhat related aside -- you can always if you're commercial pilot was Navy trained. The Air Force guys grease the plane down and they land somewhere near the touchdown zone, but really, they want to land it soft and clean. Navy pilots will put that bird down *right* at 1000' down the runway, and they will put it down there *firmly*. If you land with a thud right on the marks, that pilot was trained by the United States Navy. Note well, though, that pilot may well be a Marine, so don't assume that pilot is from the Navy, but they were trained by the Navy.
posted by eriko at 12:43 PM on May 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
super cool! If you go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvT5LMhvogw#t=60s you can see a pilot land and hit the brakes so hard that he balances briefly on the front (main) gear before the tail settles down. Scary/awesome.
posted by Phredward at 1:22 PM on May 29, 2015
posted by Phredward at 1:22 PM on May 29, 2015
There are also a lot of YouTube videos of random backcountry/bush pilots landing and flying Piper Cubs and other small STOL-capable aircraft on crazy stuff like mesa tops or the sides of hills, and it's awesome.
These planes are basically the truly offroad capable SUVs of the sky, perhaps even more so than helicopters. You can land them on sandbars or as floatplanes on water, places that a chopper wouldn't dare land nor have the fuel range to get there and back.
posted by loquacious at 1:27 PM on May 29, 2015
These planes are basically the truly offroad capable SUVs of the sky, perhaps even more so than helicopters. You can land them on sandbars or as floatplanes on water, places that a chopper wouldn't dare land nor have the fuel range to get there and back.
posted by loquacious at 1:27 PM on May 29, 2015
stuff like this, loquacious? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-9RPJDoC5E
posted by RockyChrysler at 1:40 PM on May 29, 2015
posted by RockyChrysler at 1:40 PM on May 29, 2015
You can land them on sandbars or as floatplanes on water [...]
And sometimes, both of those at the same time.
posted by FishBike at 1:41 PM on May 29, 2015
And sometimes, both of those at the same time.
posted by FishBike at 1:41 PM on May 29, 2015
If you are interested in the dark side of Alaskan commercial aviation, I highly recommend The Map of My Dead Pilots.
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780762773619
Take overloaded, underfueled planes, overworked pilots, and absolutely hideous flying weather. Then add a macho code where pilots, who can opt to fly or not, will very very rarely opt not to fly.
There's this one flying episode in the book where the ceiling is below the peaks and the pilot is not giving the mountains enough respect. Another pilot, who is a passenger on board, pulls a gun on the pilot and tells him to choose between gaining some altitude or getting shot.
posted by Sauce Trough at 1:50 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780762773619
Take overloaded, underfueled planes, overworked pilots, and absolutely hideous flying weather. Then add a macho code where pilots, who can opt to fly or not, will very very rarely opt not to fly.
There's this one flying episode in the book where the ceiling is below the peaks and the pilot is not giving the mountains enough respect. Another pilot, who is a passenger on board, pulls a gun on the pilot and tells him to choose between gaining some altitude or getting shot.
posted by Sauce Trough at 1:50 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is the method of landing mathematically proven as most efficient in runway distance or is there the possibility of some kind of advancement of the art like the high jump's fosbury flop?
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:06 PM on May 29, 2015
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:06 PM on May 29, 2015
Is the method of landing mathematically proven as most efficient in runway distance or is there the possibility of some kind of advancement of the art like the high jump's fosbury flop?
Takeoff and landing are correlated with the stall speed of the wing, and no amount of finesse is really going to change that. It's pretty much baked in to the design of the aircraft.
That being said, there are many factors that play into takeoff and landing distance - wind speed, air density, use of flaps, etc. The pilot's operating handbook for the plane will provide pages and pages of charts showing these distances for hot days, cold days, average days, on pavement, on grass, at different altitudes, at different weights... pages and pages of charts.
What you're seeing in the videos are aircraft that are optimized to do one thing and do it well. Extra weight is all stripped out, bigger engines with nitrous are installed, STOL kits are added to the wings, all to shave a few inches off the takeoff roll and reduce the landing speed.
As a point of reference (because I happen to have it in front of me), a modern Cessna 172 has a rated takeoff ground roll (zero wind, paved dry runway, sea level, standard temperature, max gross weight) of 960 feet and a landing roll of 575 feet. This year's STOL winner (light touring class, which includes the 172) at Valdez had a takeoff roll of 76 feet and a landing roll of 104 feet. The shortest takeoff roll in any class was just 21 feet.
posted by backseatpilot at 5:08 PM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Takeoff and landing are correlated with the stall speed of the wing, and no amount of finesse is really going to change that. It's pretty much baked in to the design of the aircraft.
That being said, there are many factors that play into takeoff and landing distance - wind speed, air density, use of flaps, etc. The pilot's operating handbook for the plane will provide pages and pages of charts showing these distances for hot days, cold days, average days, on pavement, on grass, at different altitudes, at different weights... pages and pages of charts.
What you're seeing in the videos are aircraft that are optimized to do one thing and do it well. Extra weight is all stripped out, bigger engines with nitrous are installed, STOL kits are added to the wings, all to shave a few inches off the takeoff roll and reduce the landing speed.
As a point of reference (because I happen to have it in front of me), a modern Cessna 172 has a rated takeoff ground roll (zero wind, paved dry runway, sea level, standard temperature, max gross weight) of 960 feet and a landing roll of 575 feet. This year's STOL winner (light touring class, which includes the 172) at Valdez had a takeoff roll of 76 feet and a landing roll of 104 feet. The shortest takeoff roll in any class was just 21 feet.
posted by backseatpilot at 5:08 PM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
One day when I have an extra $40k and my wife decides she doesn't mind if I die I'm going to build a Zenair STOL CH-701 kit plane. Fifty feet to land, eighty feet to take off. Truly a sky jeep. Maybe I'd build larger 801 and just live out of it like a flying camper. Until that day I'll just watch videos wistfully. *sigh*
posted by ChrisHartley at 7:03 PM on May 29, 2015
posted by ChrisHartley at 7:03 PM on May 29, 2015
This isn't just for show. I've flown many times with these bush pilots in Alaska. It is amazing the ridiculous places they will land and take off from -- rocky beaches, boulder strewn stream beds, crossing three foot gullies -- just nuts.
And they don't seem to care about weight -- in just a Cessna 185, 8 cases of beer and all your gear, sure bring it on -- 3 folding kayaks, not problem. Literally, the only restriction is volume, not weight. If it fits, it goes (with some attention to balance).
I've been on a turbo Otter that carried three disassembled 16-foot rafts, four 160-quart coolers and a 10 people into the outback.
But you have to be careful in pilot selection. You want old, not bold.
posted by JackFlash at 7:47 PM on May 29, 2015
And they don't seem to care about weight -- in just a Cessna 185, 8 cases of beer and all your gear, sure bring it on -- 3 folding kayaks, not problem. Literally, the only restriction is volume, not weight. If it fits, it goes (with some attention to balance).
I've been on a turbo Otter that carried three disassembled 16-foot rafts, four 160-quart coolers and a 10 people into the outback.
But you have to be careful in pilot selection. You want old, not bold.
posted by JackFlash at 7:47 PM on May 29, 2015
But you have to be careful in pilot selection. You want old, not bold.
I don't know if it is still the same, but when I lived in Alaska even very experienced bush pilots crashed (and died) with extraordinary regularity. This was before GPS and other modern innovations, and it was simply an extremely dangerous occupation.
A couple of days ago I was watching a crop duster making passes over a field. At one end of the field the pilot was clearing the power lines by only a few feet and then banking 90 degrees right to clear some trees. The risks those pilots take daily are a lot higher than I would feel comfortable with, and I'm told the pay isn't particularly impressive.
The videos in the FPP are amazing -- watching, it doesn't seem possible that a plane can do that, and yet they make it work repeatedly.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:23 PM on May 29, 2015
I don't know if it is still the same, but when I lived in Alaska even very experienced bush pilots crashed (and died) with extraordinary regularity. This was before GPS and other modern innovations, and it was simply an extremely dangerous occupation.
A couple of days ago I was watching a crop duster making passes over a field. At one end of the field the pilot was clearing the power lines by only a few feet and then banking 90 degrees right to clear some trees. The risks those pilots take daily are a lot higher than I would feel comfortable with, and I'm told the pay isn't particularly impressive.
The videos in the FPP are amazing -- watching, it doesn't seem possible that a plane can do that, and yet they make it work repeatedly.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:23 PM on May 29, 2015
Crop duster pilots are a special breed. I met with a bunch in Southern Ontario; they really do have a wall of pictures for lost pilots, which in this family firm was dad, uncle, brother, son … but to hear those Dromaders take off.
posted by scruss at 5:06 AM on May 30, 2015
posted by scruss at 5:06 AM on May 30, 2015
Heh! My brother - in- law is an Alaska bush pilot. Fascinating stuff! Thanks backseatpilot!
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 5:48 PM on May 30, 2015
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 5:48 PM on May 30, 2015
I earned my tailwheel endorsement in a Supercub with the fat Alaska-style tires on it. Short takeoff procedures feel like riding an express elevator.
In cruise flight, it's a monument to the forces of drag, but flying it in a hard slip to dump altitude 'around the corner' from base to final had me cackling giddily.
It's a very easy airplane to fly. It's a very hard airplane to fly well.
posted by Thistledown at 6:13 AM on May 31, 2015
In cruise flight, it's a monument to the forces of drag, but flying it in a hard slip to dump altitude 'around the corner' from base to final had me cackling giddily.
It's a very easy airplane to fly. It's a very hard airplane to fly well.
posted by Thistledown at 6:13 AM on May 31, 2015
« Older SoX -- Surf | Actually, I have no idea what a blue corn moon is. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by scruss at 11:37 AM on May 29, 2015