Robertson STOL kit: how does it work?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robertson STOL kit: how does it work?
Hello!
I'm really interested in how the cited kit works. I've found this page where there are some informations and it looks really interesting: Robertson STOL Kits
It looks impressive. I'm especially interested in the C210. Is anyone flying a Centurion equipped with it?
As far as I know, the ailerons droop only for the first 10° of flaps. Does that reduce the Vfe?
How is the automatic trim working?
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you all :-)
I'm really interested in how the cited kit works. I've found this page where there are some informations and it looks really interesting: Robertson STOL Kits
It looks impressive. I'm especially interested in the C210. Is anyone flying a Centurion equipped with it?
As far as I know, the ailerons droop only for the first 10° of flaps. Does that reduce the Vfe?
How is the automatic trim working?
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you all :-)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Robertson STOL kit is excellent. Yes, it includes mechanisms which droop the ailerons as the flaps are extended. The droop of the ailerons is not linear with flap extension, but very well thought out to give you maximum roll control. I have not flown the C 210 with R STOL, though I have flown C 185, C185 amphibian, C 206, C 207 and C337 with the R STOL kit.
I have also flow most Cessna models with the Horton and Sportsman STOL kits. The R STOL does give you a little extra over the other kits, though you have to be really good with the aircraft to get that extra performance safely. Like any STOL kitted aircraft, though to a greater extent, you can get the aircraft settling on final, with power and under control, but way behind the power curve, and with inadequate power/inertia to flare for landing. Many of these aircraft have been crunched on the end of runways doing this, and I have come close myself.
It is best to go fly a modified with a pilot very experienced in it, so you can learn the differences. Unless you're going to be awesome in the plane, and regularly using short runways, the R STOL may be more expense and weight than you can justify, and the Horton or Sportsman adequate for you. If you are not comfortable flying more slowly than 50 knots, and you don't bank more than 45 degrees, you probably will not notice the difference in the 'plane, other than the cost! The STOL kit is a supplement to really skilled piloting, it will not replace it!
I have also flow most Cessna models with the Horton and Sportsman STOL kits. The R STOL does give you a little extra over the other kits, though you have to be really good with the aircraft to get that extra performance safely. Like any STOL kitted aircraft, though to a greater extent, you can get the aircraft settling on final, with power and under control, but way behind the power curve, and with inadequate power/inertia to flare for landing. Many of these aircraft have been crunched on the end of runways doing this, and I have come close myself.
It is best to go fly a modified with a pilot very experienced in it, so you can learn the differences. Unless you're going to be awesome in the plane, and regularly using short runways, the R STOL may be more expense and weight than you can justify, and the Horton or Sportsman adequate for you. If you are not comfortable flying more slowly than 50 knots, and you don't bank more than 45 degrees, you probably will not notice the difference in the 'plane, other than the cost! The STOL kit is a supplement to really skilled piloting, it will not replace it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you!
Surely, it's a system that requires a lot of experience.
On the other hand, flying into short fields with a C210 would be awesome, especially for tripping into remote areas.
How much drag do the drooped aileron add? It looks like the takeoff would be rather flat.
I'm also interested on how the elevator autotrim works. Does it work on the trim tab or on the entire elevator?
PS: Would you be able to do a normal landing with just 20° of flaps keeping the normal Vref and a short landing with the 30° flaps and the slower STOL Vref?
Surely, it's a system that requires a lot of experience.
On the other hand, flying into short fields with a C210 would be awesome, especially for tripping into remote areas.
How much drag do the drooped aileron add? It looks like the takeoff would be rather flat.
I'm also interested on how the elevator autotrim works. Does it work on the trim tab or on the entire elevator?
PS: Would you be able to do a normal landing with just 20° of flaps keeping the normal Vref and a short landing with the 30° flaps and the slower STOL Vref?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C 207 I used to fly had a cable operated bellcrank which when the flaps (and thus ailerons) were extended, would also adjust the trim tab. I don't know all of the variations of this for different Cessna types. Such a system would not work on the 185, with it's all moving H stab. I don't recall the 185 having any STOL trim, though it has been 30 years since I flew that one. In any case, it is just to keep pitch forces light, the pilot still must refine the trim position manually.
The dropped ailerons do add some drag, along with the increased lift, you don't get something for nothing! It is the high drag rise, mostly from operating behind the power curve, which demands greater pilot awareness while landing.
Though I have flown C 210's, I have no experience with STOL kits on them. The 210 is not an aircraft generally thought of for short runway or off airport operations. . Think about it this way: There are few hard surfaced runways made so short that most Cessnas would be challenged in their takeoff distance. So if you're STOL kitting an aircraft, it's generally for off airport (possible soft surface) operations. The 210, like the 177RG, is a terrible choice for soft runway operations. Lots of weight on small[er] wheels. And the getting stuck situation is even worse, adding power pulls the nosewheel into the soft. The C 206 is not much better, though was available with a larger than normal nosewheel for this purpose. The R STOL is favourable on the 206 on skis and floats, where getting the aircraft off the surface at all is key, once off the surface, acceleration in ground effect will get you out (providing you have the room).
As for speeds, the Robertson flight manual supplements do provide changed speeds. The R STOL C 337 I was testing last May had a memorable 53 KIAS full flap approach speed, which I was required to demonstrate at "Vref - 5", so 48 KIAS. The 'plane would do it, but with lots of pilot skill and attention!
For the training I do in STOL 'planes, I explain to the pilot it's kinda like buying a Rolls Royce, but just speed instead of money, "if you have to ask, you can't do it". If you're tucking an airplane into a tight runway, or planning to get out over close trees, it's more about the feel of the 'plane at each moment of the flight, rather than the indicated airspeed - I don't want to see pilot's eyes going in and out, from view to ASI, you don't have time!
Some pilots like AoA systems, which work great, but again, if eyes are going in/out to refer to it, you're asking for trouble in a tight runway.
There are different techniques for different short runways, and STOL kits will help, but the advanced training ans skill is more important than the mods on the 'plane!
Here I demonstrate a 182 amphibian, with Sportsman STOL and wing extensions, at more than 3200 pounds gross weight into a rather short, and rough runway:
The dropped ailerons do add some drag, along with the increased lift, you don't get something for nothing! It is the high drag rise, mostly from operating behind the power curve, which demands greater pilot awareness while landing.
Though I have flown C 210's, I have no experience with STOL kits on them. The 210 is not an aircraft generally thought of for short runway or off airport operations. . Think about it this way: There are few hard surfaced runways made so short that most Cessnas would be challenged in their takeoff distance. So if you're STOL kitting an aircraft, it's generally for off airport (possible soft surface) operations. The 210, like the 177RG, is a terrible choice for soft runway operations. Lots of weight on small[er] wheels. And the getting stuck situation is even worse, adding power pulls the nosewheel into the soft. The C 206 is not much better, though was available with a larger than normal nosewheel for this purpose. The R STOL is favourable on the 206 on skis and floats, where getting the aircraft off the surface at all is key, once off the surface, acceleration in ground effect will get you out (providing you have the room).
As for speeds, the Robertson flight manual supplements do provide changed speeds. The R STOL C 337 I was testing last May had a memorable 53 KIAS full flap approach speed, which I was required to demonstrate at "Vref - 5", so 48 KIAS. The 'plane would do it, but with lots of pilot skill and attention!
For the training I do in STOL 'planes, I explain to the pilot it's kinda like buying a Rolls Royce, but just speed instead of money, "if you have to ask, you can't do it". If you're tucking an airplane into a tight runway, or planning to get out over close trees, it's more about the feel of the 'plane at each moment of the flight, rather than the indicated airspeed - I don't want to see pilot's eyes going in and out, from view to ASI, you don't have time!
Some pilots like AoA systems, which work great, but again, if eyes are going in/out to refer to it, you're asking for trouble in a tight runway.
There are different techniques for different short runways, and STOL kits will help, but the advanced training ans skill is more important than the mods on the 'plane!
Here I demonstrate a 182 amphibian, with Sportsman STOL and wing extensions, at more than 3200 pounds gross weight into a rather short, and rough runway:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for all this evaluable information 
I think this is the point! You're completely right!
Great video, tho!
Again, thank you and have a great Christmas :-)
For the training I do in STOL 'planes, I explain to the pilot it's kinda like buying a Rolls Royce, but just speed instead of money, "if you have to ask, you can't do it". If you're tucking an airplane into a tight runway, or planning to get out over close trees, it's more about the feel of the 'plane at each moment of the flight, rather than the indicated airspeed - I don't want to see pilot's eyes going in and out, from view to ASI, you don't have time!
Some pilots like AoA systems, which work great, but again, if eyes are going in/out to refer to it, you're asking for trouble in a tight runway.
There are different techniques for different short runways, and STOL kits will help, but the advanced training ans skill is more important than the mods on the 'plane!
Some pilots like AoA systems, which work great, but again, if eyes are going in/out to refer to it, you're asking for trouble in a tight runway.
There are different techniques for different short runways, and STOL kits will help, but the advanced training ans skill is more important than the mods on the 'plane!
Great video, tho!
Again, thank you and have a great Christmas :-)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tampering with the control surfaces of an aircraft, to "improve" the handling has to be outside the scope of what is "normal" for GA.
The modification to droop the ailerons makes the R STOL equipped Cessna very similar to the deHavilland Otter and Twin Otter, among others who droop ailerons as a part of their normal type design.
As for the cuffed leading edge modification to the Cessna wings, It was well regarded by Cessna such that they changed their type design to make a similar cuff standard on most 100 series in the early '70's. The 150/152 were not included, as they became poor spin trainers with a cuffed wing.
Many airframe manufacturers not only support STC modifications on their basic aircraft, but will buy and resell, or recommend them to owners. Cessna sought me out to buy many copies of an STC (as a "part") I hold on their aircraft, and thereafter asked my in increase my approved model list to add Cessnas which I had previously not considered approving. They offered to buy the STC from me in the whole, but did not offer me enough money, so I still have it.
I have flown a C 210 with the Robertson STOL kit. It has a significantly shorter takeoff run and you can fly the approach at C 172 speeds. In fact you have to or the aircraft will float forever before touching down.
Roll control is still pretty good even at low speeds and in general the system works very well.
The only disadvantage with the mod is that the maximum flap extension speed is reduced form 165 kts to 110 kts. This is a PITA for flying IFR when ATC wants you to keep the speed up.
The only other issue is the aircraft does not like unpaved runways. There is a lot of weight on the small nose wheel so it will dig in on a soft field and it is easy to damage it on rough fields.
Roll control is still pretty good even at low speeds and in general the system works very well.
The only disadvantage with the mod is that the maximum flap extension speed is reduced form 165 kts to 110 kts. This is a PITA for flying IFR when ATC wants you to keep the speed up.
The only other issue is the aircraft does not like unpaved runways. There is a lot of weight on the small nose wheel so it will dig in on a soft field and it is easy to damage it on rough fields.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the question of how do they work simple answer they add energy to the boundary layer keeping the airflow attached at lower airspeed to the surface of the main plane and the lower surface of the tail plane and each side of the fin this will reduce cruise speed a little. Drooping the ailerons is like increasing the size of the flaps.
This is done with little tri-angler vortex generators stuck along the wings ect. There's a tape which looks like the surface of a golf ball that can do this as well but have no data but can be stuck on the prop as well to do the same.
This is done with little tri-angler vortex generators stuck along the wings ect. There's a tape which looks like the surface of a golf ball that can do this as well but have no data but can be stuck on the prop as well to do the same.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex generators are another means of improving low speed characteristics of a wing, but they are not typically an element of the Robertson STOL kit. Some STOL kits do employ vortex generators on certain areas of flying surfaces, though not typically along the leading edge of the wing as are sometimes seen.
The Robertson STOL kit primarily involves drooping ailerons, and may involve a leading edge cuff. I do know that the C 337 installation has VG's on the aft belly, behind the main landing gear, but that has nothing to do with increasing lift. The purpose of this STOL kit is to provide improved lift and roll control at slower speeds with the ailerons doing some lifting as well as control. this also lowers the pitch angle a little, which is helpful.
The leading edge cuff kits, which are primarily Sportsman and Horton, some Robertson, and most later Cessna increase the leading edge radius, and slightly increase wing area, so the onset of stall can be delayed as speed is reduced. These kits may include other features like aileron gap seals, and wing fences to balance their affect on the handling.
VG's on the top side, leading edge of the wing also delay the onset of stall. They are more favourable than a leading edge cuff, as they are much more easy to install, however, they are a misery if you have to clean snow and ice from the wing, and will render the aircraft unflyable if more than a specified number (usually three) are missing.
Wing extensions are also available to improve performance. They require a spar modification at the wing strut. The wing span is increased about 4 feet (so the one 172 won't fit in my hangar any more
).
There are also drooped wing tips, though for my experience they make little difference. I once lost one in flight, and could not tell that I had by the handling of the aircraft with only one.
There are also slats and slots, but they are rarely a modification kit to a certified airplane.
Some of these mods may be combined, but it must be done within the scope of their respective approvals. For my experience, the combination of these mods reaches a point where added benefit is lost. It is possible to create an aircraft whose capabilities exceed normal piloting skills, and are therefore, at least in theory, not STC approvable.
When a leading edge cuff, and wing extensions are combined, the result is both an increased wing chord, and span = more wing area. An airfoil has a pitching moment, which is opposed by the horizontal stabilizer. The increase in wing area can result in an apparent reduction in effectiveness in pitch control. For this reason, when I am involved in a multi STOL mod on a Cessna, I generally include vortex generators under the H stab at the hinge line, to improve the effectiveness of the elevator. I have specified these in the approved configuration of several of these modified aircraft which I have test flown.
It's important to understand the objective of the STOL kit installation, because they are not all the same. I have flown them all, and in many cases before and after, and I have never seen a noticeable reduction cruise performance with the Horton, Sportsman, or Robertson STOL kits. The bottom line for me is that the best bang for the buck for a single Cessna, in my opinion will be the Horton or Sportsman leading edge cuff, and maybe wing extensions. This is not a knock against the other kits, but they, in my opinion, include associated characteristics which may detract.
But ultimately, the pilot must have the skill to harness the improved performance safely. In many cases, I have done type training on these STOL aircraft, and found that the recreational pilots were often slow to master these skills. If the pilot cannot harness the benefits of the STOL kit, much of it will be lost. The aircraft will still be stall resistant, which is good, but the pilot may be lured into a phase of flight from which there is no safe exit if there is an engine failure, or other misjudgement. I have done takeoffs and landings in Cessnas to have ATC comment about the aircraft being STOL kitted - and it was not, just a regular Cessna. A pilot will benefit from the addition of a STOL kit when they can consistently out fly the basic 'plane. Prior to that, it's kind of like increasing the engine power of a car whose driver has never put their foot down in the regular version.
The Robertson STOL kit primarily involves drooping ailerons, and may involve a leading edge cuff. I do know that the C 337 installation has VG's on the aft belly, behind the main landing gear, but that has nothing to do with increasing lift. The purpose of this STOL kit is to provide improved lift and roll control at slower speeds with the ailerons doing some lifting as well as control. this also lowers the pitch angle a little, which is helpful.
The leading edge cuff kits, which are primarily Sportsman and Horton, some Robertson, and most later Cessna increase the leading edge radius, and slightly increase wing area, so the onset of stall can be delayed as speed is reduced. These kits may include other features like aileron gap seals, and wing fences to balance their affect on the handling.
VG's on the top side, leading edge of the wing also delay the onset of stall. They are more favourable than a leading edge cuff, as they are much more easy to install, however, they are a misery if you have to clean snow and ice from the wing, and will render the aircraft unflyable if more than a specified number (usually three) are missing.
Wing extensions are also available to improve performance. They require a spar modification at the wing strut. The wing span is increased about 4 feet (so the one 172 won't fit in my hangar any more
).There are also drooped wing tips, though for my experience they make little difference. I once lost one in flight, and could not tell that I had by the handling of the aircraft with only one.
There are also slats and slots, but they are rarely a modification kit to a certified airplane.
Some of these mods may be combined, but it must be done within the scope of their respective approvals. For my experience, the combination of these mods reaches a point where added benefit is lost. It is possible to create an aircraft whose capabilities exceed normal piloting skills, and are therefore, at least in theory, not STC approvable.
When a leading edge cuff, and wing extensions are combined, the result is both an increased wing chord, and span = more wing area. An airfoil has a pitching moment, which is opposed by the horizontal stabilizer. The increase in wing area can result in an apparent reduction in effectiveness in pitch control. For this reason, when I am involved in a multi STOL mod on a Cessna, I generally include vortex generators under the H stab at the hinge line, to improve the effectiveness of the elevator. I have specified these in the approved configuration of several of these modified aircraft which I have test flown.
It's important to understand the objective of the STOL kit installation, because they are not all the same. I have flown them all, and in many cases before and after, and I have never seen a noticeable reduction cruise performance with the Horton, Sportsman, or Robertson STOL kits. The bottom line for me is that the best bang for the buck for a single Cessna, in my opinion will be the Horton or Sportsman leading edge cuff, and maybe wing extensions. This is not a knock against the other kits, but they, in my opinion, include associated characteristics which may detract.
But ultimately, the pilot must have the skill to harness the improved performance safely. In many cases, I have done type training on these STOL aircraft, and found that the recreational pilots were often slow to master these skills. If the pilot cannot harness the benefits of the STOL kit, much of it will be lost. The aircraft will still be stall resistant, which is good, but the pilot may be lured into a phase of flight from which there is no safe exit if there is an engine failure, or other misjudgement. I have done takeoffs and landings in Cessnas to have ATC comment about the aircraft being STOL kitted - and it was not, just a regular Cessna. A pilot will benefit from the addition of a STOL kit when they can consistently out fly the basic 'plane. Prior to that, it's kind of like increasing the engine power of a car whose driver has never put their foot down in the regular version.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Step Turn I was just stating its all about boundary layer control at high angles of attack.
The best leading cuff design for high angle of attack flying would be from a Hump Back Wale flipper these, up to 30 ton mammals can pull incredible tight hi G turns a company called Wale Power designs wind turbine blades based on the physics of them and a Germany helicopter company have flown with blades based on the concept with good results. Have not seen any fixed wing trying it yet would be interest for a stol aircraft.
The best leading cuff design for high angle of attack flying would be from a Hump Back Wale flipper these, up to 30 ton mammals can pull incredible tight hi G turns a company called Wale Power designs wind turbine blades based on the physics of them and a Germany helicopter company have flown with blades based on the concept with good results. Have not seen any fixed wing trying it yet would be interest for a stol aircraft.
STOL
For many years i operated a Robertson Stol C337 out of a 400m grass strip with trees at the end.
The system works just fine and made for a really useful machine which could carry its full payload and get out of anywhere.
The Robertson conversion was a properly engineered solution which included a drooped cuff on the wing leading edge,ailerons coupled to flap setting,wing tip extensions,vortice generators around rear engine,wing fences,improve gap sealing,and a flight manual supplement that actually mirrored the improved performance.
Cessna eventually incorporated the leading edge cuff on their production machines.
The machine never gave any trouble (other than the usual noise associated with the rear IO 360 Continental at fine pitch).and the max all up weight kept it out of 'euro charges' at the time.
It suited the 337 as there were no low speed issues as per a conventional twin in an engine out situation.
The handling was good and the machine a joy to fly from strips.
The system works just fine and made for a really useful machine which could carry its full payload and get out of anywhere.
The Robertson conversion was a properly engineered solution which included a drooped cuff on the wing leading edge,ailerons coupled to flap setting,wing tip extensions,vortice generators around rear engine,wing fences,improve gap sealing,and a flight manual supplement that actually mirrored the improved performance.
Cessna eventually incorporated the leading edge cuff on their production machines.
The machine never gave any trouble (other than the usual noise associated with the rear IO 360 Continental at fine pitch).and the max all up weight kept it out of 'euro charges' at the time.
It suited the 337 as there were no low speed issues as per a conventional twin in an engine out situation.
The handling was good and the machine a joy to fly from strips.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Switzerland
Age: 54
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna FT337GP
Hello
I am a swiss pilote. Actually I fly a C206.
I read that you own or owned a 337 equipped with a Robertson stol kit
I am finalizing the purchase of the Cessna FT337GP N119XU.
I fly often on short fields and I would like to have some advise and comment on the RST as I read a lot's of things such as it is very complicated etc etc
On normal conditions what would be a safe final approch speed ?
Hope to read from you soon
Best regards
Alain
I am a swiss pilote. Actually I fly a C206.
I read that you own or owned a 337 equipped with a Robertson stol kit
I am finalizing the purchase of the Cessna FT337GP N119XU.
I fly often on short fields and I would like to have some advise and comment on the RST as I read a lot's of things such as it is very complicated etc etc
On normal conditions what would be a safe final approch speed ?
Hope to read from you soon
Best regards
Alain
Moderator
On normal conditions what would be a safe final approch speed ?
Routine operations in these slower speed ranges are unwise, and the wording of the Robertson FMS suggests this. At those slow speeds, within a few hundred feet of the ground (either takeoff or landing), an engine failure - even in a 337, has a good chance of being unrecoverable to a safe landing. The plane will fly more slowly with power, but not without. A sudden power loss will instantly cause the need to accelerate to glide speed, which will consume more altitude than you have. An un-flared crash will be the result. Though this concept is not so well understood for fixed wing flying, it is very well known for helicopters. Search the "height velocity" or "Avoid curve" for a helicopter, and you'll get the idea. The fact that this vital information is not published for airplanes does not mean it does not apply! Flying a STOL equipped plane at speeds slower than Vy, is about the same risk as flying a regular twin around slower than Vmca - loose and engine and you're probably not recovering.
The added factor with the Roberston STOL kit, differing from Horton and Sportsman is that the drooping ailerons keep you hanging on so well at slow speeds, it's deceiving. You can develop a higher than expected rate of descent with power on a slow final, and the plane feels solid, and it is, BUT only more power will arrest the descent, you have no inertial energy in reserve. I've done lots of flight testing and advanced training in STOL and RSTOL 180/185/206/210/337 and this is the prime thing I train new pilots. The fact that the plane is capable does not make it wise. 'Same thing about those silly steep climb outs seen at "STOL" competitions - totally un-necessarily unsafe! The plane is off the ground - stay low, build up a safe speed, then clear the obstacle, you don't need to be 200' above the obstacle, hanging off the prop slower than Vx!
Find an RSTOL Flight Manual Supplement, and read it through, then note the carefully chosen wording about "advanced operations" and "austere conditions", and you'll get that Robertson knows that they've created modified planes so capable that only tremendous pilot wisdom will assure the greatest safety, with a reserve of energy maintained in case of an engine failure....
Pilot DAR provides an excellent analysis of STOL kits. You should not think of them as enabling shorter field take-off and landing as the name suggests. They do provide enhanced handling qualities at speeds right down to the stall so enabling the pilot to feel more comfortable, but the stall can then come with a sudden unexpected break. The STOL kit should not be understood as reducing the stall speed to enable shorter landings than those provided in the aircraft manual.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello 9 lives
my name is Pervez..a pilot with forest fire detection patrol agency..up here in N Saskatchewan...this is my 4th year in Buffalo Narrows...CYVT
I have just been handed a STOL kitted 337...I have over 700 hours on the standard 337..all with this company since 2019..
I have done around 8 hours on this plane...astounding performance .. do'nt really need it as I am operating out of a 5000 feet paved runway.. but I need to pick some brains from those that have considerabe experience on this...
are there any cross wind limitations??..
I get very strong winds here...the supplement does not cover reduced flap take offs or landings..which one would prefer in X winds...
in strong winds, can I use reduced flap/ or even zero flap ( I am operating the STOL 337 from a 5000 ft runway ) for take off and landing?? If so, is it safe to use the published flap speeds...65/85/96 kts..
I expect I could use reduced flaps and lock it to the speeds written for flap retractions after take off...ie 85 kts retract 2/3 flap to 1/3..95 kts retract 1/3 to zero
I have now got about 8 hours on it...but the real thrill is TO and Ldg of course...I have done 4 cycles..one strong 90 degree Xwind approach had to be abandoned as the plane was blown off the center line even with a 30 degree crab !!...I found on the go around the plane felt very mushy...
cheers
Pervez
ps..I am a very time high pilot..TT over 19,000..most of them on Boeings 707/720/727/737NG/757/767..almost 79 years old but still very fit..Cat 1 medical
any info is useful and appreciated
my name is Pervez..a pilot with forest fire detection patrol agency..up here in N Saskatchewan...this is my 4th year in Buffalo Narrows...CYVT
I have just been handed a STOL kitted 337...I have over 700 hours on the standard 337..all with this company since 2019..
I have done around 8 hours on this plane...astounding performance .. do'nt really need it as I am operating out of a 5000 feet paved runway.. but I need to pick some brains from those that have considerabe experience on this...
are there any cross wind limitations??..
I get very strong winds here...the supplement does not cover reduced flap take offs or landings..which one would prefer in X winds...
in strong winds, can I use reduced flap/ or even zero flap ( I am operating the STOL 337 from a 5000 ft runway ) for take off and landing?? If so, is it safe to use the published flap speeds...65/85/96 kts..
I expect I could use reduced flaps and lock it to the speeds written for flap retractions after take off...ie 85 kts retract 2/3 flap to 1/3..95 kts retract 1/3 to zero
I have now got about 8 hours on it...but the real thrill is TO and Ldg of course...I have done 4 cycles..one strong 90 degree Xwind approach had to be abandoned as the plane was blown off the center line even with a 30 degree crab !!...I found on the go around the plane felt very mushy...
cheers
Pervez
ps..I am a very time high pilot..TT over 19,000..most of them on Boeings 707/720/727/737NG/757/767..almost 79 years old but still very fit..Cat 1 medical
any info is useful and appreciated
