Sportsman Stol Kit

JaGuar

JaGuar

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
2
Display Name
Display name:
JaGuar
Any advice / suggestions on the Stene Aviation Sportsman Stol kit for a 182 ?
I am aware of its main purpose and advantages but would appreciate some feedback from actual owners with experience after install?
 
From my experience it’s the best simple STOL upgrade for the 182. The next is the WingXStol wing extensions.
 
It is good.
It was on my airplane when I bought it, so I don't have a before comparison. But everyone who has a 180 without it, tells me that they can't fly as slow as I can and retain aileron authority at that speed as well.
 
JaGuar said:
Any advice / suggestions on the Stene Aviation Sportsman Stol kit for a 182 ?
I am aware of its main purpose and advantages but would appreciate some feedback from actual owners with experience after install?
Click to expand...
What do you want your plane to do better than it does now? Stock wings are more capable than most guys need. For those who want more? Horsepower is a much more useful mod.
 
I have another idea for you. Why not put a lift indicator on your bird and learn to fly it as slow as possible safely? Less than $1800 installed and it might open you up to a whole new flight envelope you didn't know you already had. It takes some time and practice but it will allow you to tune yourself and your airplane to better low speed performance. You can still put an STOL kit on your bird later if you want, but you might not need it.

Just a thought.
 
I have a few hundred hours in a 1967 182 with the sportsman stol kit, and I think it's nothing short of magic.

I could pop that plane off the ground at about 45 miles an hour, and it was really no problem to get 600 ft landings and takeoffs.

After having flown the Horton and the Robertson, I believe sportsmen plus VG's, or even just the sportsman, is probably the best setup for a 182.

Keep in mind there are different Cessna wing profiles in different years, so you should do your homework as well... Some of the later 182s already have a bit of a cuff built-in.
 
Do you lose anything on cruise? I have a Cherokee with the Robertson kit and.
 
I have a 73 182p with the sportsman and VGs. My neighbor has the exact same plane (73 182p) but his has the stock wing. The slow flight speeds and control feel at slow speeds is definitely much better with the sportsman and VGs. Stall speeds are around 6 or 7 knots slower and the controls are much better. One thing that really sticks out is rutted and elevator authority. I still have to trim a lot in the slower speed landing flare but I never “run out” of elevator or rudder. The stock 182 definitely feels like you’re going to run out of elevator if you are slow. With that said I also have the PPONK 520 and 3 blade prop and my neighbors is O470 2 blade. My plane has more weight on the nose but you wouldn’t know it! Can’t say if you loose any speed as we have different motors and props. I’m about 5 to 7 knots faster than him in a normal 70% cruise.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
I have another idea for you. Why not put a lift indicator on your bird and learn to fly it as slow as possible safely? Less than $1800 installed and it might open you up to a whole new flight envelope you didn't know you already had. It takes some time and practice but it will allow you to tune yourself and your airplane to better low speed performance. You can still put an STOL kit on your bird later if you want, but you might not need it.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your suggestions. I actually ordered both, the Stol Kit and the AOA indicator for install at the same time.
 
I have the full STOL kit on my 1956 172. I have installed over 20 on 172's and 182's.We always did before and after testing. Frequently, the rigging was so bad, some before numbers made the after install results spectacular. At the CPA Rigging class my 172 was used for the early model sample plane. John had a former Cessna test pilot to help. The pilot had never flown a plane with the stall kit. We had a passenger. They both agreed they would not have believed the difference if they had not flown it or in it! When the airplane is used as a primary trainer to this day, it is flown by the numbers with the huge safety margin provided by the STOL kit. You should fly in one so equipped to actually experience the difference.

The CPA did testing with STOL kit and VGS versus STOL/VGs only about 15 years ago published it the magazine. VGs slow the aircraft in cruise but they do provide better low speed authority.
The STOL kit also provides better low speed authority without any loss of airspeed. The addition of flap gap seals is worth an increase of 100FPM climb.
Having both was belt and suspenders with the loss of airspeed.
In my opinion, the STOL kit with flap gap seals is the best safety and performance modification available for the money for the early aircraft.

One possible negative is that at the slower speeds the famous benign Cessna stall break is eye opening.
 
BoButt said:
I have the full STOL kit on my 1956 172. I have installed over 20 on 172's and 182's.We always did before and after testing. Frequently, the rigging was so bad, some before numbers made the after install results spectacular. At the CPA Rigging class my 172 was used for the early model sample plane. John had a former Cessna test pilot to help. The pilot had never flown a plane with the stall kit. We had a passenger. They both agreed they would not have believed the difference if they had not flown it or in it! When the airplane is used as a primary trainer to this day, it is flown by the numbers with the huge safety margin provided by the STOL kit. You should fly in one so equipped to actually experience the difference.

The CPA did testing with STOL kit and VGS versus STOL/VGs only about 15 years ago published it the magazine. VGs slow the aircraft in cruise but they do provide better low speed authority.
The STOL kit also provides better low speed authority without any loss of airspeed. The addition of flap gap seals is worth an increase of 100FPM climb.
Having both was belt and suspenders with the loss of airspeed.
In my opinion, the STOL kit with flap gap seals is the best safety and performance modification available for the money for the early aircraft.

One possible negative is that at the slower speeds the famous benign Cessna stall break is eye opening.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the sportsman does not use flap gap seals. I have seen those on the Horton and perhaps others.
As far as the stall break? I have done numerous stalls in my 180 with the sportsman and I would have to say the break is pretty much a non-event. Release the pressure and its flying again.
 
Wagondriver said:
I'm pretty sure the sportsman does not use flap gap seals. I have seen those on the Horton and perhaps others.
As far as the stall break? I have done numerous stalls in my 180 with the sportsman and I would have to say the break is pretty much a non-event. Release the pressure and its flying again.
Click to expand...

My bad. Comments were for the Horton kit. It has a stall fence the flap gap seals are optional. Never installed one without them. I have installed just the flap gap seals. You fly a conventional gear aircraft. Probably use the rudders appropriately. Take your feet off the rudders and see what happens. When flown properly and rigged correctly.proper use of rudders with Horton kit will allow a gentle 'falling leaf' at 40MPH or so. Both kits are great additions, providing excellent benifits.
 
The Horton and Sportsman are two VERY different creatures. I have a sportsman, a buddy has a Horton. He intends to remove his horton and install a sportsman. His plane and mine are very similar in other areas, I can fly and land MUCH slower than he can, and he's got about 10 times the hours in the plane as I do. I don't believe flap gap seals do anything good for slow flight, high aoa.
There is really only one cuff to install, that is the sportsman! On a Cessna, skip the VG's.
 
I have about 150 hours behind a C182B with the sportsman STOL. I didn't fly this particular airplane without the kit, because it's had it for a few decades, but compared to some later (heavier) 182's without the kit, it almost should not even be the same type IMHO.

It is pretty good. The airplane just kind of mushes at 40 mph with the power off and doesn't really break at all because there isn't enough elevator authority to get the AoA high enough, even with full nose up stab trim. With power on, you can slow down to about 40 mph groundspeed at medium weights, maintain altitude, and it just starts descending at a few hundred feet per minute once you exceed a certain AoA....I've stopped the airplane before in 300 feet with just me in it and half tanks on a calm standard day. It'll take off in about 500 feet under the same conditions, about 2100 lbs gross weight. This airplane isn't even as good as it could be, it's kind of piggy at ~1700 lbs empty weight.

You can strike the tail easily during takeoffs and landings with this kit though. A tail skid under the tie down hook might be a good idea unless of course you are fortuante enough to have a skywagon!

Downside is this airplane only does about 142 mph TAS maximum at 23"/2450 (which is POH max continuous power) at 6000-7000 ft depending on atmospheric conditions. That's about 20 mph slower than the 1959 POH claims. VG's, bubble windows, and 8.50x6's all around aren't helping that. I'd guess it does cost 3-5 mph on the top end, even though I know people claim it doesn't. Then again, maybe it's just all the other stuff on the airplane that's slowing it a bit.

I make approaches at 60 mph IAS all day long and the stall horn isn't even going off at 2300-2400 lbs. You could comfortably fly an approch at 55 mph IAS or so, granted that is about 63 mph CAS. You have to be cautious in gusty wind though, definitely use flaps 20, maaaaybe 30 max, add 5 mph or so to your normal approach speeds and be ready to add a lot of power if you get a sinker on short final.

Here is a ~400 foot landing roll with calm winds, granted a bit of an uphill grade to help. It is no problem. I don't think I was braking all that hard either.

bold.JPG
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top