John:---- there are civilian Aircraft designed for their short takeoff and landing ability aren't there? They will have a POH describing correct procedure/technique for landing that Aircraft which is a "normal" landing for that Aircraft. They will have P charts as well detailing LDR etc.

That's all I meant mate.

I didn't mean to infer that there is a special "STOL" technique mentioned in their POH, as all landings in that type are STOL and thus normal to the them.

Ok

I think you might have missed my point .. STOL is a military animal. Can you cite a civil aircraft which has a STOL certification ? Not looking at what one might be able to do with them but some certification data in an approved AFM/POH ?

Just interested to know if any such do actually exist.

No John unfortunately I'm not an expert in civilian or military certification standards. But there are quite a few out there are known for their STOL capabilities in their design and performance characteristics.

What about the civvy Pilatus Porters meat bombing around?

What about the Twin Otter it's also known as a STOL Aircraft, renowned for its abilities.

Either way certified with STOL capabilities or not they need to be operated in accordance with their POH and P charts.

We are probably arguing over a term.

We are probably arguing over a term.

Yes ... and, no.

The civil certification standards (eg FAR 23) impose margins above stall to give the operation a reasonable chance of surviving problems .. such as turbulence, engine failure, etc.

The military approach acknowledges that there will be operational requirements which dictate operating to a higher level of risk and mishap probability .. ie lower speeds and lower margins above stall. As would be expected, the usual military certification and release to service protocols spend a lot of time and effort in providing crews with detailed information regarding just where the boundary limits are for such operations.

The uncomfortable risk with many civil operations purporting to be quasi-STOL is that this FT work up work isn't done and the pilot is put closer to real operational limits than the civil design standard protocols envisage.

Civil and military certification .. two very different animals.

I would expect that the operational documentation for civil versus military operations on the two aircraft you cite might be quite different in detail ?

Perhaps others who have access to both sets of data might be able to comment ?

Certainly, the POH approved data can be expected to comply with the nominated standards.

Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but the Information Manual for the 1980 Cessna C172 N Skyhawk (for example) which I have on my bookshelf, gives tables in Section 5 (Performance) for Take-off and Landing distances based on Short Field Technique as specified in Section 4...??
Section 4 (Normal Procedures) goes on to give the techniques for short field and normal take-offs and landings.

JT is, as usual, correct and also displaying his measured and conversational response.

TAke off, and landing, performance is determined in accordance with the rules laid out in the FAR

(a) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, the takeoff distance must be determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, using speeds determined in accordance with §23.51 (a) and (b).

(b) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, the distance required to takeoff and climb to a height of 50 feet above the takeoff surface must be determined for each weight, altitude, and temperature within the operational limits established for takeoff with --

(1) Takeoff power on each engine;

(2) Wing flaps in the takeoff position(s); and

(3) Landing gear extended.

(c) For commuter category airplanes, takeoff performance, as required by §§23.55 through 23.59, must be determined with the operating engine(s) within approved operating limitations.

[Doc. No. 27807, 61 FR 5185, Feb. 9, 1996

This is not the latest amendment but adequate for reference.
Once the speeds determined in 23.51 have been determined they are applied to the procedure defined in AC23-8C. Note, the reference speeds used are minimums and the manufacturer may choose to vary them up, and lengthen distances, but not reduce them to in order to Shorten Take Off or Landing.

As the FAR and the AC has been reviewed and amended to higher standards over the years even more prudent procedures and tolerances have been introduced which means the exact same aircraft designed many years ago would have longer distances in the POH if it is done to latest standards. Nowhere is a procedure that reduces to prescriptive methodology mentioned.

TOL distances are THE distances and the POH is required, these days at least, to specify the method that the pilot must use it achieve the chart performance numbers. Vr, or rotation speed, the speed at whihich the pilot may apply the control input intended to raise the nose wheel clear of the pavement, is determined and included in the procedure specified in the POH.

So, STOL does not apply to civil aircraft, although techniques intended to minimise ground roll, if applied may provide improved numbers.

The AC states that technique used for the charts is NOT to be one that requires exceptional skill and/excessive forces, but that that can be emulated by a normal or average pilot. This includes references in the procedures to not require doing two actions simultaneously, and deliberately introducing small delays between actions during the testing process.

Fly the procedure in the POH, get the numbers and power settings perfect and book numbers are readily attainable, be well practices and react quickly, raise flaps immediately after touch down, and you may even achieve shorter distances, but without reducing the speeds, and energies, physics will basically rrule this equation.

Testing, and the book numbers require the vehicle to be over max weight, and slightly forward of max fwd CoG for all tests as an additional factor so that the numbers are conservative in any case. Manufacturers, not in this country, have been known to run engines in specially and ensure that although the engine has time on it, it is measured to optimum wear specifications and making best power. Brand new engines are the most sluggish until they have loosened up, and do not typically provide best performance. Heritage US manufacturers often gamed the system, which is why the rules are much tighter now.

Vr, Vtoss, Vy, Vx, and Vref are all factored for weight in modern certifications, but not for CoG, so performance can be slightly improved with an aft loading, which is not accounted for in the charts.

HD

.. the Information Manual for the 1980 Cessna C172 N Skyhawk ... gives tables in Section 5 (Performance) for Take-off and Landing distances based on Short Field Technique as specified in Section 4...??
Section 4 (Normal Procedures) goes on to give the techniques for short field and normal take-offs and landings.

A quick net search came up with a 1980 POH dated July 1979 with no revisions affecting relevant pages.

The point in question, here - what are the take off and landing speed schedules for the two techniques - short field and normal ?

Looking at the POH, above, one gets

for "short field" takeoff Vtoss = 1.12-1.21 Vs
for "short field" landing Vapp = 1.34-1.43 Vs

with the range quoted depending on CG for gross weight. The figures quoted are from my sums .. while I have nominated two decimals, the reality is that one should not read to that sort of apparent precision .. so, looking at the forward CG - which is the more critical - one would have approximate margins of, say, 1.2 and 1.4. The usual 1.3 for approach is a minimum and the OEM is perfectly entitled to run a bit faster .. that probably indicates that the TPs were of the view that coming in over the fence with only the maker's name on the clock might not be a really bright idea. If you are of a mind to check my numbers, do remember to apply PECs so that the calculations are done with KCAS rather than KIAS.

These figures are pretty close to the normally seen civil certification margins so, it follows, these "short field" operations are what most of us with a certification background would consider normal operations and, certainly, not STOL.

That the OEM elects to refer to the techniques as short field and normal is neither here nor there .. we are talking about certification operations (short field) and a more comfortable higher speed operation recommended by the OEM (normal) .. but not STOL in any sense of the term.

Unfortunately, the Industry is beset by lazy terminology ... (and, I have to admit, I'm just as lax and lazy at times, myself).

If you want a feel for STOL, you could go not much further than carrier operations .. I note that Centaurus, in the first post, makes reference to his experiences in the Sea Fury .. hairy stuff. As a sideline point of interest, another PPRuNe poster (Milt) was the chap who sent Centaurus off for his first Sea Fury jolly all those years ago ...

STOL a military animal....que..?

Old Sybl..VH-SIB was a TU-206 with a Robertson STOL conversion. Modified leading edge, droopy ailerons with the flaps, extended wings. Had been operated with SIL / Summer Institute of Linguistics in the highlands of PNG. STOL capabilities being the go for the "airstips" there. Could certainly do the tight spots ok.
A Higher Authority trod on it in the BNE super cell storm Jan 1986. Vale SIBL.

There is a Wren Cessna 180 about, also a STOL conversion.
I guess they were certified as per the mods for STOL ops.

These days there are 'flying ' gadgets about for off field landings like the LSA Highlander STOL. Bit of a breeze and its landing run = length of the aeroplane !!
I want one .

STOL a military animal....que..?

That's the general story.

Robertson STOL conversion

I have no specific familiarity with the Robertson mods. However, I suggest that what they do is reduce the stall speeds which, in turn, reduce takeoff and approach speeds while maintaining the usual certification margins above stall. This then reduces runway requirements. Fine to market that as STOL but it is not what STOL design is, per se.

I am happy to be proved wrong in respect of the certification .. but that will require a copy of the relevant approved POH which will tell the story in some detail.

Real STOL, as the military do things, is a different animal which operates much closer to stall and accepts a considerably higher probability of mishap in the event of something going awry. The benefit is a shorter distance requirement. Acceptable for some operations in the military but not for routine civil operations.

in the highlands of PNG

Now, I don't have any information regarding the specifics for the aircraft Type in PNG ... but do keep in mind that the old DCA rules were a tad different for developmental operations in PNG ... so it may be a case of comparing apples and oranges. It's so long since I had a look at the old rules .. the poor old memory is not up to recalling the details now.

And a very nice little MG it is, too!

Re my comment earlier about Milt and Centaurus .. the memory played tricks .. Milt sent C off on his first Mustang jolly ...

AAAAH!! The Wren.
Mate of mine has a lovely Wren 182 (they have their own Type Certificate, as I recall, more than just a bolt -or glue on mod.) and he has even screwed a few more horses in the front by way of an IO-550 -- what a seriously fun aeroplane to fly.

As for the whole discussion, there is what you "can do", what is wise to do.

If it all goes wrong, it will be between you, your god, your insurance company, and CASA's rather variable (depending on their desired "policy" outcome) application of CAR 138.

Bloggsie,
Your interpretation of the venerable US Naval publication and how to fly an approach in larger turbine aircraft (but it works for any aircraft) certainly explains a lot??

Tootle pip!!

Had the pleasure of flying a C172 with a Robertson kit fitted to it.

The owner bought it new, picked it up from the factory and then flew it to a maintenance organistation to get the Robertson stol kit fitted.

There has been a few Robertson STOL Cessna C206's imported into Australia over the years, good idea to get an experienced operator to show you the finer points of operating with the STOL kit.

Stationair8
Having flown a number of C-1 or 2XX over the years, believe me, a Wren is a whole different level of "STOL" .Sorry, JT, but I think, in my MNSHO that STOL could long since be regarded as a generic term, certainly based on old brochures for civil aircraft out in the back shed.
At one stage (thanks to Bloggsie) I thought we were going to have a whole new round of "Attitude controls airspeed, power controls rate of climb or descent" versus "attitude controls flightpath (or aim point), power controls speed" but that one seems to have died.
Tootle pip

Yes LeadSled, I wondered why the owner would actually put a STOL kit on a C172!

The Wren does sound an interesting piece of kit.

Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do... :} :ok:

STOL could long since be regarded as a generic term

.. of course it is .. but the younger chaps and chapesses, at the very least, ought to have the subtlety brought to their attention ..

Bloggsie,
Given the rather confused variety of emojis in that post #30, are you suggesting the above is right or wrong??
Please elucidate.

JT,
Having given this some thought, I think a time warp is the problem.

"Back in the day" (before aircraft had an AFM as we know it today, and "handling notes" were rudimentary) a "normal" approach was a glide approach, with "enough" IAS for a short float in the flare before your stalled the aircraft onto the ground.

Indeed, in honour of this "normal" approach, all the RAC/NSW Gipsy Major or Cirrus powered aircraft had the carb.hot air locked on, which did "wonderful" things for performance when you actually needed the power.

A "precautionary approach" as per the syllabus (Pub. 45 and predecessors) was a prelude to an out or forced landing due (usually) weather, and included practicing/demonstrating a low level circuit to determine where you were going to land, followed by a "power on" approach at a somewhat lower IAS than "normal". all aimed at an accurate touchdown at the chosen point.

Seems to me that the present application is to demonstrate an approach at the "right speed" ie; the AFM speed, versus the excessive speed I observe being flown on a "normal" but always now power on, approach.

But, Hey !! Bloggsie, what would I know, compared to Aces of the Bases like your good self, I am happy to admit I am still learning.

Tootle pip!!

Just fly it like the autopilot does, Leddie, and you won't go too far wrong (ie low or slow)! :ok:

C172 N POH states stalling speed not more than 44kias at MTOW at 30deg bank. recommended short field is flaps 40deg at vref 60 kias. that's at least 1.36 Vs. lighter weight and smoother conditions could see verified at 55 kias flaps 40 and stall say 40kias that's still 1.37 vs. that's a ground roll of about 550ft on pavement. Worst case 44kias stall and 55 Vref is still 1.25 Vs. I guess one could say that the POH is conservative.

However since groundroll on takeoff is probably at least 850 ft then barring emergencies, it's all a bit of a moot point isn't it?

C172 N POH states stalling speed ...

.. except one doesn't do these sums with IAS .. speed calcs need to be in CAS with PEC corrections as/when appropriate to get to/from IAS.

IAS is a Mickey Mouse number ... very useful for reference as it is all we can see when pushing and pulling .. but it is still a Mickey Mouse number, not relevant for running sums.

More interestingly, once down towards stall, PECs can get a bit average .. run the sums in CAS and then see what the margins might be ...

Bloggsie,
And which model of autopilot would that be, in which mode, in which aircraft.
Instead of the cryptic nonsense, explain what you mean (if, in fact, you understand yourself) what you actually mean in post #30.
Tootle pip!!

Leddie, I think you are trying to bait me into derailing the thread! Tut Tut. Suffice to say that the AFNA statement that ones uses power to control the approach path (p360-ish) is, in my view, Horsesh1t! :ok: Re the autopilot, it doesn't actually matter which type; I was referring to the autopilot's/autothrottle's technique for flying down final on the ILS.

Now, back to normal programming...

JT, thank yoU, one more thing I didn't know and nobody taught me. The margins are lower when calculated in KCAS. The 60 vref/44 vs goes to lowere to perhaps 1.3 in kcas. The "worst case" 55kias/44vs goes to about 1.13VS when calc'd in KCAS.

It's actually at page 27:And to return to the central theme of this thread: At the stall speed, an aircraft is still flying.

The margins are lower when calculated in KCAS.

Calculations based on IAS are a bit meaningless due to the system errors, especially down around the stall region..

With CAS you will get a reasonable idea of what the numbers are. The FT folk will be doing things to the best accuracy their kit permits and, with round off, etc., your calcs might be a little rough for small aircraft .. but, nonetheless, adequate for the task.

Pffft, too easy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ22dCkDr7Q

Into the flare, just retract the flaps and get it on the ground.

Eerrm... lucky there's no wind about. Also, didn't seem that short for a 182.

Reference light aircraft - Don't know why people 'stabilise' the min approach speed so far out thus exposing themselves to 'stall' incidents. IMHO, Yer only need that min speed seconds before touchdown.






.

Nope, that only applies to aircraft certified in relatively recent times. My airplane was certified to FAR 23 as of Feb 1965 which only required "must be able to be landed safely and come to a stop without exceptional piloting skill."

Nope, not necessarily. That FAR 23 of 1965 did not require landing distance to be determined nor did it specify the minimum landing approach speed.

Yep, but one must know the nominated standard. The manual for my airplane states a stall speed of 47 kts and a landing approach speed of 52 kts. Maintenance standards allow my ASI within 2 kts so that would get me to within 3 kts of the stall speed stated. Even 1 kt out reduces approach speed at 50 ft to 1.09 x stated stall speed.

CASA's MOS for a tailwheel endorsement mandates that the trainee demonstrates that he/she do better than the unfactored distance in the manual - what a joke.

Agree. RAAF training post war was the approach was standard profile until 300 feet then deliberately reduce speed to planned figure for precautionary landing ie about 10 knots below normal approach speed.

All getting a bit esoteric for my little peabrain. My ASI reads IAS and I tend not to fluff about with whizzwheels and what have you when trying to plant the wheels as close to the downwind end of the runway as possible. A reasonable margin above the number where she normally adopts a more downward trajectory generally suffices. As for the old chestnut about attitude for speed etc, I tend to come down on the side of the little Mexican lass; "why not both?" Most of us have mastered (I hope) secondary effects of controls and tend to apply that combination of inputs required to achieve the desired result. Teaching attitude for speed is all very well as a teaching device, but imo is not to be slavishly adhered to once one has a degree of familiarity with placing said aerial device back on terra firma.

Indeed.

Except in the case in which you have to do a real short field landing. :ok:

Agreed re the ASI, too. Folks who want to do real short field landings would give up an ASI for an AOA indicator, any day.

Try doing pitch for aim point and airbrakes for speed in a glider, and some lighties, and eventually you will die.
I do it in a heavy jet and it works fine. ;)

Yep, but one must know the nominated standard.

Indeed, Dave .. which is why we often make reference to the TCDS in an endeavour to get folks to look these things up.

Overall, posts here have to be a bit truncated (otherwise we'd ramble on for pages and no-one would bother reading ..).

As a result, we don't cover all the ins and outs in great detail...

Those who specialise in short field (carrier guys) are taught pitch controls AoA, and hence airspeed, power controls altitude (ROC/ROD). Though airspeed is mentioned, AoA is the prime instrument, located on the canopy bow so no need to go heads down. See at 4:50 for power variations (exhaust smoke) to maintain slope.

And just to reinforce another point about why AOA is so important (and such useful information if you can get it) when doing real short field landings: An aircraft stalls at the same angle of attack regardless of weight, dynamic pressure, bank angle, etc.

Whilst i think aircraft carrier flying is the most demanding of pilot skill and stands at the panicle of aviation endeavours, i would argue that it is not entirely comparable to landing in a padock.

For us land lubbers it would be nice to be able to 'adjust' the runway so that all landings are into wind. Also nice to have a cast of thousands to assist with take-offs and landings - especially nice to have somebody accessing each landing and giving a wave-off if things don't look good. Allso good to have an arrester hook to hide any small landing errors... The other thing is normally over water the air is so clear of turbulence that even a plump turkey like julia gilLard could fly.





.

There is no hiding anything. Landings/approach are graded by the LSO, and a board in the crewroom keeps tallie of your record for all to see. As well as that, your approach to touchdown is broadcast on the ships video, with crosshairs on the screen denoting the glideslope, see video. Any deviation is obvious to all. Absolutely nothing hidden, and the LSO in his debrief will tear strips if required.Turbulence from the carrier is a very real issue, and would bring your fat turkey undone in a flash.

"Always remember and forever take heed: left hand for glidepath and right hand for speed!" (reverse for First Officers and those hanging on to the stick between their legs or with throttle centrally on the dash...). :ok: