KNIK RIVER, Alaska – Unlike other places where speed may dominate pilot discussions, up here it’s all about how slow you can go. It’s directly related to how quickly you can get off the ground and how little room you need to land.
It’s called STOL, or “short take-off and landing,” and here in Alaska it is synonymous with flying.
This weekend pilots from throughout Alaska and across North America will converge on the coastal town of Valdez for the annual Fly-In & Air Show. The big event is Saturday’s STOL competition.A typical pilot in a small single-engine airplane might use 1,000 or 1,500 feet to land on a paved runway, bush pilots often need just a few hundred feet. Sometimes less, because most of the time bush pilots aren’t landing on a runway or anything resembling one.
At the STOL competition in Valdez, takeoffs and landings are measured in tens of feet. Pilots pull up to a line and try to get off the ground with as little ground roll as possible. They also try to touch down as soon as they pass a line on the ground in the shortest possible distance.
OK, where’s the wire?
I would like to know what the wind speed is he is flying into. The higher the wind speed the slower the ground speed.
Physics, it’s not only fun, it’s the law.
From the youtube page
18knt wind on a Knik River gravel bar. 17 foot landing, 10 foot take off. Alaska Airpark Cub
Empty airplanes can perform really well.
I thought STOL watching the Doolittle Raiders takeoff more than fully loaded from their aircraft carriers.
Another precision exercise is at 20 miles from the airport with clearance to land, set one power setting and not touch it until you pull back for touchdown. Used to be done at “idle” until a few guys needed some power and they found out how long it took to have the engines spool back up. Not as much fun, but safer.
When landing into the wind, it’s not impossible to do this, but it can be extremely dangerous for an inexperienced pilot. I saw, first hand, a guy trying to land a Cesna 182 during a heavy wind. Guy damn near got himself and his passengers killed trying to land with his flaps down. Couldn’t keep the plane on the ground. Almost hit the building at the end of the run way. They landed, but their shorts were 3lbs heaver.
Bobbo wrote: “Empty airplanes can perform really well.”
Yes, especially if they have big-ass tires to help keep the center of gravity very low [or is it moment of gravity?}
Such a light plane in a strong headwind would be bobbing like a cork in the surf if it didn’t have those big tire/rims…
Like BigBoy BC wrote: “Couldn’t keep the plane on the ground”.
Dad once pulled the short straw and had to take the mail run off a British carrier in a Fairey Swordfish. Damn thing took off backwards when they unhooked it from the deck.
I’m more impressed by this empty 757 going vertical
The Pilatus PC-6 is the king of STOL. I wouldn’t park a Mini in the space those things can land.
Try water landings in some puddle called a lake if you really want to have the shit scared out of you.
Memories. As an engineer for Allied Signal Aerospace I designed a component of the MLS (Microwave Landing System) used for blind landing at places like Valdez. This was THE test site conducted by Lincoln Labs, FCC with a C130 cargo planes piloted by the military.
ha!
someone should have entered a custer channel wing design and made them all scratch their heads in wonder. that baby could leap into the air in just 40 feet and at only 20mph. -the uber STOL craft of the day. custer developed it in the 30’s with the first full size prototypes in the mid late 40’s, iirc..
a similar design principal was quietly in competition with the V-22 Osprey. -a channel wing Osprey could lift twice the weight and use half the fuel doing it, and of course, way less maintenance..
anyway.. as for the “laws of physics” -the only “laws” allowed are the ones which suit the politics & dogma of the day (or century?) -and produce the most ludicrous profits, service and maintenance contracts.
-s
(politics and sikorsky, killed the channel wing)
#10 Is this the not so famous flying disk wing? I’ve seen a little video of those things and they could just about hover. Of course an autogyro can pull some interesting tricks on short take offs and landings as well.
In Alaska I.F.R. stands for “I follow river”.
I have heard duct tape referred to as Super Cub Tape as well 😀
You couldn’t do this if you had some big fat eskimo chick with you.
#5–mikiev==you say: “Yes, especially if they have big-ass tires to help keep the center of gravity very low [or is it moment of gravity?” /// I’m no expert but I think bigger tires RAISE the center of gravity. And of course, big tires are used on unprepared surfaces to keep the airplane from digging into the ground. Don’t know what a moment of gravity is although I have “heard” of moment of inertia but don’t know what it is.
Of note: the C-5A’s 500% cost compared to the 747 was partially justified on being able to land on unprepared surfaces. To my knowledge though, it NEVER HAS. Typical military procurement. Now, when we need a big airplane, we contract with the Russians.
Peace dividend.
#13
This Eskimo might help you get it up though. 😉
That’s impressive but not unbelievable, it’s all about weight, center of gravity, wind velocity and engine power. For some of the really light planes in a good headwind, it’s hard to keep them on the ground in the first place, the wings generate such good lift that it only takes a little forward momentum to get the nose up and then the engine will put it in the air. A lot of those planes can also hover in mid-air nose-up.
Hey Joe!
Imagine seeing this plane at night. UFO lovers rejoice!
At the other end of the STOL spectrum-
I talked with a pilot who said he’d recently flown on an artic training mission that involved landing his C-130 equipped with skis above the artic circle. When it was time to leave the Hercules would not get airborne, even after running across the snow at full power for a couple of miles. He said they had to off load their cargo and return later with JATO pods to retrieve it.
Ahhhh. Tail draggers. Don’t try this in a Cessna, buoys and gulls.
11 deowll ‘Is this the not so famous flying disk wing?’ Nope. http://pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/17.htm
Once again I read Bobbo’s comments and marvel at his moronic drivel. Operative line is in #14 “To my knowledge” which is equal to zero. Bobbo, why does you presume that you know every surface that every C-5 has landed upon over the last 43 years? BTW, do you know how many tanks a 747 can carry? How about how many MH-53E helicopters?
#20,
There are two types of people, those who have something that needs to be said, and those who need to say something. Bobbo is the latter.
Weight and balance are very important in relation to the flight characteristics and controllability of an aircraft. Overloading and/or improper loading of passengers and/or cargo, can inhibit a pilots ability to control the aircraft. The singer Aaliyah died because a improperly loaded aircraft.
#19 A Cessna 180 could do it, it’s a tail dragger.
been there done that all true no oder but a good headwind
# 21 ThinkBeforeYouSpeak (those who need to say something)
A.Lincoln: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt
#20–John===is that you? My knowledge of C-5’s is quite extensive but not exhaustive. I try not to assume my conclusions. While looking at the very interesting link from #19, I did find a video of a C-5 landing on a grass strip. I almost posted it, but this thread is NOT about heavy lift aerospace platforms, so I skipped it knowing I could never make a similar post again. Instead I can only opine: “Our government wasted X5 the cost of 747’s for the purported ability to land on unprepared surfaces, yet it hardly is ever used for such purposes. What a waste of money.”
Do I post because “I” need to? Well, that’s definitional. I certainly try to lead by example, but many of you are in such deep ruts.
#24 Practice what you preach.
By the way–how does the “Smells like BS” photo support this topic? I mean, you didn’t “know” I was going to post==I mean, not absolutely.
OK, Boobo… let’s assume you’re the world’s foremost expert on the C-5 Galaxy and all things aeronautical (Oh shit, let’s just play along with you and say you’re the foremost expert on all things). Please explain, Mr. Know-It-All, what the phrase “RAISE the center of gravity” means. Because I always thought that Center of Gravity was measured on an aircraft’s longitudinal axis, so the term “raise” confuses me. Is that fore or aft of the Reference CG? Also, doesn’t the weight of the tire have more to do with CG than the size?
bobbo wrote: “I’m no expert but I think bigger tires RAISE the center of gravity. ”
Seriously?
On the airplane in the video you think those tires -raise- the center of gravity?
#21
There are two types of people, those who have something that needs to be said, and those who need to say something.
There are really only two types of people, those who think there are two types, and those who think there are more.