Low wing STOL?

[photofly]

Does anyone know of any low-wing STOL airplanes?

[Big Pistons Forever]

www.evangel4500.com/‎

[oldtimer]

Socata Rallye. Anywhere from a Continental 0-200 to a 0-235 Lycoming for power. Eventually became the Trinidad and the other thing.
Looks like an airplane designed by a committe that could not get along so they did the very French thing and drank wine, lots of wine.

[PilotDAR]

Aside from the aformentioned Rallye, not really. There have been STOL kit modifications to some low wing types, but they did not seem to catch on very well.

I opine that generally, people are less likely to associate low with aircraft with the type of operations for which a STOL aircraft is considered favourable. Similar reason that low wing floatplanes are much less common. It is not normal that for a light aircraft, one would consider a "short" operation into a prepared runway very often. Aside from a few private runways, aerodromes generally have runways long enough to accommodate not so STOL aircraft. If you're going in and out of places which really call for the short capability, they generally tend toward being less prepared, and not as wide. Dragging the wingtips in the brush, or snowbanks is undesirable, and the more common strut type main landing gear of low wing aircraft can be more vulnerable to rough ground damage.

The older Cherokee wings actually did quite well in terms of low speed lift. Unfortunately, the main landing gear struts could be damaged with runway operation that more Cessnas would take in stride, rough ground debris damaged wings, and the stabilator of the Cherokee could lure a pilot into low speed trouble in ground effect.

It would be too broad a generalization to suggest that STOL = high wing, but the success of this combination makes it very much more common. The last time I saw a STOL kit installed on a low wing, it went on to a Cherokee 140. Not in any effort to optimize short field operation, but rather to cover up the damaged leading edges from running off the runway into the corn. Okay, maybe STOL would have prevented that!

[cdnpilot77]

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/

[photofly]

I'm thinking that it's to do with ground effect; low wing exhibiting ground effects to a greater extent, inhibiting short field ops.

STOL airliners are high-wing too: Dash 7, BAe146 etc.

[linecrew]

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/

With that kind of incredible performance capability, why is there not a PAC 750 at every airport?

[Keenflyer]

The fore . to the Pac750 the Fletcher is a pretty good short field performer as well. Powered by a 720 lycoming it could out perform a Beaver on most strips. As an Ag aircraft the Fletcher could get 1200 kilo's of fertiliser off in 350 metres at seal level, usually carry a 950 kilo load off a 700 metre strip at 4500' height.

[Doc]

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/

Saw a few hauling sky divers in NZ....looked cool, and ugly at the same time.

[xsbank]

"Usually" STOL aircraft need devices to hang off of wings and placing those expensive, delicate bits a foot or so off the ground makes no sense. Think Dash 7.

Plus, a lot of the STOL effect comes from thrust - getting propellers in a useful position to help out means you can't mount them on a low wing. Plus, many STOL aircraft operate off unprepared strips.

Simple, really.

[magic wand]

The original low wing STOL aircraft - The DC-3. Think about some of the strips that those aircraft operated in and out of
given the size of the aircraft!

[xsbank]

A DC3 is not a STOL aircraft, it merely has the advantages of a fat wing and a wheel that follows obediently behind... The flaps are only for drag, not lift.

[Caracrane]

PC-12

[Caracrane]

The mighty DC-3 has to be kind of STOL cause I know from a fact it was in CSH2 with a full load and out somewhere in the 80's.

[goingnowherefast]

Crop Sprayers can handle crap "runways", and don't need a huge amount of room. Don't have a lot of cargo room though.

[PilotDAR]

The DC-3 was probably not designed as a STOL aircraft, because back in the day, that was not really what was needed in that role. It does fairly well in short runways compared to other types, simply because of the airfoil, as previously stated. But it does not employ any high lift devices. I have been jump seat in one landing into a 2000 foot runway, and with no big production, using only half of it to stop and turn off - but there was a lot of skilled piloting involved in that too!

A DC-3 would be a poor choice to modify to be any more STOL than it already is. You would simply have an aircraft which would get airborne so slowly, that an engine failure then would be impossible to handle. A Twin Otter can be flown in this region, if you have ultimate confidence that you're not going to loose an engine, but it is hardly certifiable in today's civil world.

You will find that most every STOL aircraft is able to be flown in a configuration and speed, in which an engine failure, would result in a crash, 'cause you won't even get it to glide, before its coming down badly. STOL is handy to have in certain circumstances, and entertaining, if you like to be going up, with an ASI hardly reading anything, but you can get yourself in real trouble too.

I once (and only once) asked my insurer if I was entitled to a rate reduction, as my Cessna had a STOL kit, and was thus more safe. They said no, you're lucky we don't increase your rates, as you'll more likely get yourself into trouble with it, and can't get out. After 27 years with it, I have to concede that I agree with them. The STOL kit has certainly prevented unhappy events in my plane, but I have also spent a lot more flying time in a configuration, from which a safe exit would have been really difficult if the engine quit. I'm a real proponent of STOL kits, but like four wheel drive, they are for getting yourself out of a predicament very carefully, NOT for getting yourself further in to one!

[Bede]

The PC12 and DC aren`t stol airplanes even though they are amazing feats of engineering.

The Rutan Grizzley was a low wing stol.
http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collect ... y%2072.asp

[Caracrane]

Having some time on the 12, i can assure you that i was in and out 1670 ft. gravel strips with pilots and paxs...without cheewing the prop. At the same locations I was with a 208B it operated on a daily base back in 1999-2000.wasnt flying it at that time but 30 flaps Vr73 it worked for them on the QB small coast at Regionnair.

So having a 260 kts crusing speed ac that can do that, I personally consider it as kind of STOL, do you agree? OK it's almost at sea level and ambient temp. rarely rises above 25 C but still. Try it with any King Air.

[Indanao]

DC3 with JATO Bottles WAS STOL. Alberta Forest Service had one. That had an excess of Power like an Albatross which was certified for 10 ft. waves with JATO or 4 ft. waves without. Trouble with Low Wing is you can't land short because of Ground Effect, and you can't be sure of Flying out of it.

[ScudRunner]

Citation Sovereign ?

[Keenflyer]

Ground effect is actually better on a low wing aircraft, you get more cusion because the wing is closer. Just the same as the higher you are the less ground effect you have until about a wingspan were it disapears. The more ground effect the slower you can go. That becomes a problem when the ailerons droop with the flaps and give less roll control at slow speeds eg: Robertson stol gear on Cessna's and standard DH Beaver setup. Don't know about the spoilers and small ailerons on the likes of Caravans and PC12's, haven't had anything to do with those.
Interesting what Wiki say's are stol aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_STOL_aircraft

[Indanao]

Ground effect is always worse, in my scenario.

[Boreas]

With that kind of incredible performance capability, why is there not a PAC 750 at every airport?

Too ugly! Haha, I'm going to go with low production numbers.
They probably don't offer a lot of 'bag for your buck'.

I've seen a couple in Papua. They went into everywhere the
Grandvan did, but only into a couple of the Porter strips. I'm
guessing their performance is somewhere in between the two.

[shimmydampner]

Pilatus does have a STOL aircraft in their stable...I don't believe the -12 is it.

I'm not sure I buy the whole "low wing is no good because of ground effect" theory.

[Shiny Side Up]

If you're going to do STOL, you need to go all out and have a high wing and a low wing together.



Why are people always so worried about whether the wings are on top or bottom?

I love this stuff:

A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph), and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."