STOL vs. non-STOL 182?

Utah-Jay

Utah-Jay

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
446
Location
KHCR
Display Name
Display name:
Jay
I am wondering if a STOL equipped 182 would have the same cruise speed at the same settings of course as a non-STOL 182?
 
Which STOL modification? After all, one STOL modification is additional horsepower upgrades ;)

But I think it can be fairly said that all things being equal equal, control surface modifications for STOL attributes would result in anything between a slight to significant reduction to cruise speed. Weight, friction/drag, changes to normal cruise AOA.
 
Last edited:
STOL is a term that defines the takeoff and landing performance of the aircraft. There are several STC's for STOL enhancements. They do not all achieve the same level of STOL performance, nor do they necessarily yield the same performance in other aspects of flight, i.e. cruise speeds. You're going to have to research what modifications are made to the original airframe by the particular STOL kit you're considering in order to understand if those modifications may cause increased drag that would hinder cruise performance.
 
Zhunter said:
I am wondering if a STOL equipped 182 would have the same cruise speed at the same settings of course as a non-STOL 182?
Click to expand...

It really depends on what STOL set up you're talking about. There are so many STCs for 182s, that it usually becomes and apples-oranges comparison. There is the Robertson STOL, the Peterson STOL, there is just adding vortex generators, there are flap and aileron gap seals, there is adding a bigger engine...the list just goes on. It also depends on which 182 model you started with.

Jeff
 
One thing for sure is that so many variables come into play that you'll never know the difference.

Jeff Oslick said:
It really depends on what STOL set up you're talking about. There are so many STCs for 182s, that it usually becomes and apples-oranges comparison. There is the Robertson STOL, the Peterson STOL, there is just adding vortex generators, there are flap and aileron gap seals, there is adding a bigger engine...the list just goes on. It also depends on which 182 model you started with.

Jeff
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
One thing for sure is that so many variables come into play that you'll never know the difference.
Click to expand...

and you'll notice that when you research the various options available none of the kit suppliers will mention anything about loss of cruise performance. If you choose the Petersen Katmai conversion you will get a couple of neat tables to set your beer on while working on the engine. Unfortunately you can't move them when they get in the way.
 
The problem with the original question is... which 182 flies the same cruise speed as another one even without the STOL kit? :)
 
You'll be fine if you just get the most powerful engine you can find and put on all the lift enhancements, particularly airfoil micro VGs on wing and elevator, which supposedly DO NOT add drag or lower cruise speed. Check for STCs on these mods.
 
lightening it up will increase short field performance and cruise speed.

the only thing i would add to a 182 would be a towhook.
 
My dad flew a stock 182P out of a 1200 foot grass strip for years, I am not sure I would want to fly in and out of one much shorter even with a STOL kit. :D The owner said it was 1500 feet, but he wasn't the best at measuring. ;)
 
N747JB said:
My dad flew a stock 182P out of a 1200 foot grass strip for years, I am not sure I would want to fly in and out of one much shorter even with a STOL kit. :D The owner said it was 1500 feet, but he wasn't the best at measuring. ;)
Click to expand...

At what field elevation? That isn't all that difficult without obstacles and lighter than max gross.

The STOL kit gets you off the ground sooner but actually decreases performance over an obstacle, something lots of folks miss in the numbers.
 
denverpilot said:
At what field elevation? That isn't all that difficult without obstacles and lighter than max gross.

The STOL kit gets you off the ground sooner but actually decreases performance over an obstacle, something lots of folks miss in the numbers.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to turbocharge it for DA ops....
 
My first STOL modification to a 182 (or any other aircraft for that matter) would be an AOA indicator. When I can max the AOA indicator out without blinking, then I might consider a STOL kit if I still needed one.

I've always wanted to fly the Petersen Katmai and see how good it really is.
 
As the Op, I will give more information

I live in Florida, so DA is not really a concern, I have absolutely no wish to go anywhere when it is cold, and work would never take me to a cold climate. Yes I do work all over the place, but only visit northern locals in the summertime.

I was just asking being I am looking at 182's

Thanks for your thoughts so far
 
Zhunter said:
As the Op, I will give more information

I live in Florida, so DA is not really a concern, I have absolutely no wish to go anywhere when it is cold, and work would never take me to a cold climate. Yes I do work all over the place, but only visit northern locals in the summertime.

I was just asking being I am looking at 182's

Thanks for your thoughts so far
Click to expand...

What do you plan to use the STOL for?
 
Alexb2000 said:
What do you plan to use the STOL for?
Click to expand...
Yes, please define the mission a bit more, OP.

Do you intend to visit short strips? Did your most recent aircraft have a STOL kit and you are just used to that?

I got a STOL equipped 182 because I trained on a STOL equipped 172 and was used to it. I also routinely land at a short strip.
 
I don't think the OP intends to use STOL, and as such wanted to know if he should eliminate them from his consideration.
 
The one thing that the STOL 182s seem to have better than stock is general low-speed handling qualities. I've flown both a Robertson STOL 182 and a 182 with vortex generators, and both exhibited better manners close to the stall (with the Robertson handling better than the VG equipped one, likely due to the fences on the wing).

Ours is stock (aerodynamically), and is properly rigged, and it handles just fine, but not as precise a response to control inputs at low speed (below 60 KIAS).

The best STOL improvement you can get in a 182 is a bigger engine. We have a Pponk (275 hp), and that makes a huge difference. However, we operate in the mountains/high DAs frequently. If I was a flat-lander, I don't know that I'd care much unless I was planning to operate from fields <2,000' long.

Jeff
 
I was more curious than anything. And the possibility of shortish strips in the Bahamas is of course a consideration.

Definitely looking at the PPonk and higher HP's
 
Zhunter said:
I am wondering if a STOL equipped 182 would have the same cruise speed at the same settings of course as a non-STOL 182?
Click to expand...

Depends which mod, the Katmai is considerably faster than a stock 182, and even for the same power approximation it's still faster I'm supposing from losing all that down force on the tail the wing has to lift.
 
Zhunter said:
I was more curious than anything. And the possibility of shortish strips in the Bahamas is of course a consideration.

Definitely looking at the PPonk and higher HP's
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused: What strips in the Bahamas are 'shortish'?
 
Small island private strips associated with Fishing destinations, which is one of my primary interests :)

Cat Cay is 1100 ft for instance.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Oslick said:
The one thing that the STOL 182s seem to have better than stock is general low-speed handling qualities. I've flown both a Robertson STOL 182 and a 182 with vortex generators, and both exhibited better manners close to the stall (with the Robertson handling better than the VG equipped one, likely due to the fences on the wing).
Click to expand...

The main difference seems to be that the ailerons stay more effective and it's difficult to get a stall to "break" in ours. It just plows along with the nose way in the air and the VSI showing a massive sink rate.

This could bite someone (the sink rate) without warning signs, but your ears help more than anything (well, an AoA indicator would be ideal) since the fences "sing" loud enough to hear them at low speeds if you're paying attention.

You can hang 40 flap out at idle and wrap both firearms around the yoke and hold it all the way back and it'll just bob fire and aft with almost no tendency to drop a wing that rudder won't fix, eventually. It'll lean to one side for a while since the rudder isn't as effective at that speed. All while dropping at about 800-1000 FPM.

Nothing is "un-stallable" but it's certainly close. The porpoising gets worse to a point (dynamically unstable) but then stops getting worse and keeps doing it at the same rate after it finds two speeds it likes to stall and recover on its own at.
 
Power on stalls in a STOL 182 are fraking trippy...
 
Morne said:
Power on stalls in a STOL 182 are fraking trippy...
Click to expand...

I do find that to be different depending on density altitude. Up here most days, it wallows and wants to slowly roll (usually left) and no amount of full rudder can eventually stop it, just slow the roll unless you release some back pressure.

Down flying with Jesse, it was harder to do that with all the additional engine power in -10F weather at night in Nebraska. The deck angle had to be higher and then it would start to roll quicker and you had no choice but to release back pressure.

But the end of either one, your arms are tired. ;)
 
Zhunter said:
Small island private strips associated with Fishing destinations, which is one of my primary interests :)

Cat Cay is 1100 ft for instance.
Click to expand...

At sea level you should be fine with out a STOL kit depending on obstacles. At full gross, 3100 in my plane, and a 3500DA I took maybe 2000ft of ground roll with no short field technique. Flaps 20 can really shorten the roll a lot, especially if loaded, even just yanking up into ground effect to accelerate helps. The key to that is to let the plane accelerate, otherwise it is possible to just wallow the length of the runway with too little speed to break ground effect if you are heavy enough
 
Zhunter said:
Small island private strips associated with Fishing destinations, which is one of my primary interests :)

Cat Cay is 1100 ft for instance.
Click to expand...

Cat Cay should be a piece of cake in a normal 182. You don't have any obstructions on either end. My SOP short field in a stock heavy T206H is well less than 1000.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Cat Cay should be a piece of cake in a normal 182. You don't have any obstructions on either end. My SOP short field in a stock heavy T206H is well less than 1000.
Click to expand...

Book says 705' at max gross standard day for a stock C-182P and 1150' over a 50' obstacle.

Robertson addendum to book says at Sea Level and 59F, 425' and 800' over a 50' obstacle for a "normal" flaps 20 takeoff.

Same conditions, Robertson STOL takeoff with flaps 30, 390' and 735' over 50' obstacle.

Add 10% distance for every 20F higher in temperature, per Robinson.

Change your variables as necessary.

Drop to 2000 lbs from the 2800 max gross, and add a 20 knot headwind, Robinson claims a 65' ground roll and 185' over a 50' obstacle at 59F at Sea Level DA.

Given lighter than max gross loading and a cool departure temp, with a headwind, I have no doubt a stock 182 can do it.

Better make sure the pilot can, though. Practice on a larger airfield, highly recommended. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Given lighter than max gross loading and a cool departure temp, with a headwind, I have no doubt a stock 182 can do it.

Better make sure the pilot can, though. Practice on a larger airfield, highly recommended. ;)
Click to expand...

Good post. I just use the 1,000' runway markers as an absolute end for practice. The most important thing to be able to do IMO is put it on brick one every time. If you can do that, I have found the book numbers very easy to meet with light braking.
 
denverpilot said:
Given lighter than max gross loading and a cool departure temp, with a headwind, I have no doubt a stock 182 can do it.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about the Pponk mod, is that no changes are made to the book performance numbers. What this means, practically, is that you can plan for scenarios using the book numbers (for takeoff), and know you will actually have *a lot* of margin. Being able to land/stop, of course, isn't helped by the bigger engine.
 
That's great, but also limits their liability a bit disingenuously.

You screw up a takeoff, FAA visits and says "Let's see your numbers", and all you have is stock numbers to work from?

That's a bit insulting really. I really want a P.Ponk engine next time around, and like their work, but owners should complain they've left them hanging in the wind a bit legally, in any investigation if one ever occurs.

Can you legally launch one of them from a runway known to be, say... 25' too short for conditions in a stock 182 POH? Did you violate an FAR doing so?

Pedantic, I know... But for the money those things pull, a real POH or Addendum would be nice.
 
I use taxiway F at HAO, if I can make it on landing and be off before it on take off I am in good shape. Yesterday I made it with only minor braking, granted I was light at about 2300lbs
 
denverpilot said:
Can you legally launch one of them from a runway known to be, say... 25' too short for conditions in a stock 182 POH?
Click to expand...

No, you can't, without violating the POH limits.

Pedantic, I know... But for the money those things pull, a real POH or Addendum would be nice.
Click to expand...

The Pponk costs about the same as a factory OH.

There is nothing disingenuous about it. Actually, I found working with Steve Knopp to be a fantastic experience, and I highly recommend his shop. You have to understand that the Pponk is technically placarded as a 235 HP engine. It was specifically done this way to limit development costs, and thereby keep the cost of the STC reasonable. Keep in mind how many models of 182s the Pponk is approved for - each would need separate flight testing. In practice, many Pponk-engined planes have multiple performance mods. It is the IA's responsibility to sign off that these mods are compatible with each other.

We have the higher gross-weight STC on our plane, which includes new performance charts (which are essentially adapted from the 182R; we have "Q"). In practice, what we see is at the higher gross weight (3,100 #) with the Pponk we can readily achieve the book values listed for a lower weight configuration (2950 #).

Jeff
 
That WAS my point. It's not flight tested because the process is ridiculous for a small shop like his. So you end up being illegal doing something the airframe and power plant will easily do.

I don't see it so much Steve's problem as the overall certification system's problem.

If you made an aircraft perform better, and everyone can stand next to a runway and see multiple examples of it on multiple airframes, but Steve can't document it because it'd bankrupt him; there's something wrong with that system. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top