1948 Vegabond, no electrics. I prefer the tail high, or as we call it the wheel take off . I find I have better control authority over the little machine through the roll over the tail low , or soft field attitude. That being said I think it takes off a little earlier in the soft field attitude, although it feels vague and mushy. Wheel take off full fuel with me on board is just about 365 feet every time, I measured, half a tank of fuel is considerably less. Bought a c85 this winter and shopping for a wooden prop, the old guys say its a much better upgrade than an o200. Enjoy your uploads. Fly safe.
The soft field or tail low take off is definitely a mushier take off. Pulling your flaps with the tail in the air. I find to be the most responsive takeoff as the aircraft leaves the ground. But I like the wheel takeoff or tail high take off best, It's probably the one I'm most proficient with. Good luck with the engine swap, stay turned we may have something in common on that front.
I find setting the flaps to be easier and more consistent, but that is the way I practice most often. I think if the 108 had larger flaps there would be more of a penalty rolling with the flaps down. This is what I find fun about technical flying. Everyone has their own procedures.
@@GreatMichiganBushCo I may (or may not) have 3 notches of flaps. It seems when I start my roll with 1 notch, my tail comes up quicker than no flaps. Do you notice this? I attributed it to downforce of air from the flaps lifting the tail faster. Then less drag and shorter roll. I pull more flaps when I rotate. I love these planes!
Scooter, a few years ago Dave Hirschman (AOPA) did a takeoff comparison tail low vs. raising the tail in a C-180. In that demonstration he found no difference. My guess would be that popping the flaps would get you off the runway in the shortest distance but then accelerate in ground effect until achieving Vx. I agree the Stinson with standard 7.00-6 tires could use a higher attitude sitting on the ground. I guess the 8.50's help a little in that regard but probably still not enough.
I've spent a lot of time measuring angles and heights on the 108. 31" tires gets you up to just under 16 degrees pitch. The aero classic 8.5, listed at 22", splits the difference. This update/re-release video was put out as a prelude to a new video where we will use 3 planes that will each do 3 type of each takeoff to see if there is a difference. With a sample size of 9 using different aircraft I hope to get more accurate data of takeoff distances for each style of takeoff.
The STOL competition community has confirmed tail high, yank back and try to damage the tailwheel is the most efficient way. Painful to watch, but works.
Well done my friend. If anything, I need to reduce the weight of the pilot!( there I said it, so you don't have to!) Panning the ramp at AWO that poor -3 is still on the ramp and never flown. Just sits sadly on flat tires.😒
@@GreatMichiganBushCo if it's helping with AOA, the plane was likely not designed right, or for that purpose. side note, a perk of trikes is not being so limited in pitch/AOA on takeoff and landing. Big tires increase drag and weight, increasing takeoff distance. They are helpful if taking off on rough terrain but totally unnecessary for pavement or smoother fields. But they help on rough terrain the same way tanks use tracks on rough terrain.
@@SoloRenegade What you say about rough terrain and drag is true. You don't even bring up angular momentum and acceleration. Yet rolling AOA is important in takeoff distance especially when you are looking at STOL type takeoffs (contest style.) You bring design errors. Well the late 30's to late 40's aircraft were built underCAA CAR23 rules. This lead to a lot of airplanes built by different companies being very similar. Think Cub, Champ, 140, ect. They all have very similar designs because of limitations set forth in regulations. This allows pilots to switch between different airplanes safely as many important characteristics were similar Even today Part 23 requirements still limit aircraft design in the same way. One of these was the requirement of how many pounds of backpressure is required to go from a trimmed aircraft to a stall, at takeoff this limits the amount of nose up pitch allowed while sitting on the ground. If you look at aircraft designed outside the US (think Buker BU 131) that sit with a much higher pitch on the ground . Putting larger tires is a way around this limitation. Run the equations, there are a bunch of calculators online to make it simple, (I have) do the measurements on your aircraft (I have on mine) and you will clearly see if it makes a large enough difference. On the 108 the increased AOA overcomes the weight so the additional pitch will reduce takeoff speed. Remember parasitic drag is square of speed so at slower speed such as those accelerating to takeoff the amount of added drag is going to be minimal with larger tires. I am not the first person to run the numbers on this and in the STOL community pilots talk about this often. We are looking at shortening distances by 5-10% (in my case this is 15-30’) so for the average pilot it’s negligible, but we are talking about how to take off in the shortest possible distance. I appreciate debates like this an am glad that a video like this starts one, I spend many weekend evening around the airport talking with groups of guys just like this. So thanks for commenting.
@@GreatMichiganBushCo "You bring design errors." I'm referring here to aircraft like Draco, who's angle of incidence was insufficient with all the mods applied. He was leaving performance untapped due to design errors. "Putting larger tires is a way around this limitation. " I'm well aware of how big tiers changes the angle, but some aircraft could already achieve stall angle in the 3-point attitude without big tires. If you put big tires on not knowing this and try taking off 3-point, you'll never get airborne. Many aircraft, even certified, can achieve just about their stall angle in the 3-point attitude, once they get light on the suspension. "On the 108 the increased AOA overcomes the weight so the additional pitch will reduce takeoff speed. " but small tires and changing the landing leg length would achieve the same thing at a potentially lighter weight nd like a lower drag. If every foot of extra takeoff performance is what matters to you, then make sure to truly do it right. A lot of STOL pilots to me are teh same guys who complain about weight, while they personally are 50lbs obese and would be better served eating healthier while simultaneously improving their airplane's performance. I'm the type of pilot that will land a ratty C150 on stock wheels next to a Carbon Cub on a backcountry Idaho strip. I've got hundreds of hours flying light piston helicopters and Cessnas in the Rockies, even doing things like shooting approaches in a helicopter without sufficient power to stop my descent OGE onto a mountain top (was not done recklessly and was thought and having escape routes preplanned). Too many people want to buy their way to performance rather that truly understanding their aircraft and how to get the most out of it. "We are looking at shortening distances by 5-10% (in my case this is 15-30’) so for the average pilot it’s negligible, but we are talking about how to take off in the shortest possible distance." and yet most STOL pilots are still leaving tons of performance potential on the table. If I had the time and ambition to build a STOL plane, I could beat just about any STOL plane out there without too much difficulty. I know it sounds arrogant, but that's because you don't know how much time I've spent thinking about it and what my approach would be (I'm also a mechanical/aerospace engineer, so consider how I've been looking at this both as pilot and engineer).
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
1948 Vegabond, no electrics. I prefer the tail high, or as we call it the wheel take off . I find I have better control authority over the little machine through the roll over the tail low , or soft field attitude. That being said I think it takes off a little earlier in the soft field attitude, although it feels vague and mushy. Wheel take off full fuel with me on board is just about 365 feet every time, I measured, half a tank of fuel is considerably less.
Bought a c85 this winter and shopping for a wooden prop, the old guys say its a much better upgrade than an o200.
Enjoy your uploads.
Fly safe.
Oh yes I'm running the 65 Continental
The soft field or tail low take off is definitely a mushier take off. Pulling your flaps with the tail in the air. I find to be the most responsive takeoff as the aircraft leaves the ground. But I like the wheel takeoff or tail high take off best, It's probably the one I'm most proficient with. Good luck with the engine swap, stay turned we may have something in common on that front.
@@GreatMichiganBushCo Alas no flaps on the Vegabond. It's pretty basic flying,
Good stuff! I like tail high and pull flaps in my -3.
I find setting the flaps to be easier and more consistent, but that is the way I practice most often. I think if the 108 had larger flaps there would be more of a penalty rolling with the flaps down. This is what I find fun about technical flying. Everyone has their own procedures.
@@GreatMichiganBushCo I may (or may not) have 3 notches of flaps. It seems when I start my roll with 1 notch, my tail comes up quicker than no flaps. Do you notice this? I attributed it to downforce of air from the flaps lifting the tail faster. Then less drag and shorter roll. I pull more flaps when I rotate. I love these planes!
Scooter, a few years ago Dave Hirschman (AOPA) did a takeoff comparison tail low vs. raising the tail in a C-180. In that demonstration he found no difference. My guess would be that popping the flaps would get you off the runway in the shortest distance but then accelerate in ground effect until achieving Vx. I agree the Stinson with standard 7.00-6 tires could use a higher attitude sitting on the ground. I guess the 8.50's help a little in that regard but probably still not enough.
I've spent a lot of time measuring angles and heights on the 108. 31" tires gets you up to just under 16 degrees pitch. The aero classic 8.5, listed at 22", splits the difference. This update/re-release video was put out as a prelude to a new video where we will use 3 planes that will each do 3 type of each takeoff to see if there is a difference. With a sample size of 9 using different aircraft I hope to get more accurate data of takeoff distances for each style of takeoff.
The STOL competition community has confirmed tail high, yank back and try to damage the tailwheel is the most efficient way. Painful to watch, but works.
Well done my friend. If anything, I need to reduce the weight of the pilot!( there I said it, so you don't have to!) Panning the ramp at AWO that poor -3 is still on the ramp and never flown. Just sits sadly on flat tires.😒
I wandered over and looked at that -3. Once such a nice plane, not so much now. Thanks for watching.
Take off eh!
Sincerely,
Bob & Doug McKenzie
awsome ! good breakdown and well recieved for me #rag170 pilot
The original 170! Thank you for watching the video. I hope it was entertaining.
big tires are meant for rolling over rough terrain, not for adjusting AOA on the ground, nor are they about takeoff distance.
Yes and yes, but they do. Many people don't give it consideration, and that's why I brought it up.
@@GreatMichiganBushCo if it's helping with AOA, the plane was likely not designed right, or for that purpose.
side note, a perk of trikes is not being so limited in pitch/AOA on takeoff and landing.
Big tires increase drag and weight, increasing takeoff distance. They are helpful if taking off on rough terrain but totally unnecessary for pavement or smoother fields. But they help on rough terrain the same way tanks use tracks on rough terrain.
@@SoloRenegade What you say about rough terrain and drag is true. You don't even bring up angular momentum and acceleration. Yet rolling AOA is important in takeoff distance especially when you are looking at STOL type takeoffs (contest style.) You bring design errors. Well the late 30's to late 40's aircraft were built underCAA CAR23 rules. This lead to a lot of airplanes built by different companies being very similar. Think Cub, Champ, 140, ect. They all have very similar designs because of limitations set forth in regulations. This allows pilots to switch between different airplanes safely as many important characteristics were similar Even today Part 23 requirements still limit aircraft design in the same way. One of these was the requirement of how many pounds of backpressure is required to go from a trimmed aircraft to a stall, at takeoff this limits the amount of nose up pitch allowed while sitting on the ground. If you look at aircraft designed outside the US (think Buker BU 131) that sit with a much higher pitch on the ground . Putting larger tires is a way around this limitation. Run the equations, there are a bunch of calculators online to make it simple, (I have) do the measurements on your aircraft (I have on mine) and you will clearly see if it makes a large enough difference. On the 108 the increased AOA overcomes the weight so the additional pitch will reduce takeoff speed. Remember parasitic drag is square of speed so at slower speed such as those accelerating to takeoff the amount of added drag is going to be minimal with larger tires. I am not the first person to run the numbers on this and in the STOL community pilots talk about this often. We are looking at shortening distances by 5-10% (in my case this is 15-30’) so for the average pilot it’s negligible, but we are talking about how to take off in the shortest possible distance.
I appreciate debates like this an am glad that a video like this starts one, I spend many weekend evening around the airport talking with groups of guys just like this. So thanks for commenting.
@@GreatMichiganBushCo "You bring design errors." I'm referring here to aircraft like Draco, who's angle of incidence was insufficient with all the mods applied. He was leaving performance untapped due to design errors.
"Putting larger tires is a way around this limitation. " I'm well aware of how big tiers changes the angle, but some aircraft could already achieve stall angle in the 3-point attitude without big tires. If you put big tires on not knowing this and try taking off 3-point, you'll never get airborne. Many aircraft, even certified, can achieve just about their stall angle in the 3-point attitude, once they get light on the suspension.
"On the 108 the increased AOA overcomes the weight so the additional pitch will reduce takeoff speed. " but small tires and changing the landing leg length would achieve the same thing at a potentially lighter weight nd like a lower drag. If every foot of extra takeoff performance is what matters to you, then make sure to truly do it right.
A lot of STOL pilots to me are teh same guys who complain about weight, while they personally are 50lbs obese and would be better served eating healthier while simultaneously improving their airplane's performance. I'm the type of pilot that will land a ratty C150 on stock wheels next to a Carbon Cub on a backcountry Idaho strip. I've got hundreds of hours flying light piston helicopters and Cessnas in the Rockies, even doing things like shooting approaches in a helicopter without sufficient power to stop my descent OGE onto a mountain top (was not done recklessly and was thought and having escape routes preplanned). Too many people want to buy their way to performance rather that truly understanding their aircraft and how to get the most out of it.
"We are looking at shortening distances by 5-10% (in my case this is 15-30’) so for the average pilot it’s negligible, but we are talking about how to take off in the shortest possible distance." and yet most STOL pilots are still leaving tons of performance potential on the table. If I had the time and ambition to build a STOL plane, I could beat just about any STOL plane out there without too much difficulty. I know it sounds arrogant, but that's because you don't know how much time I've spent thinking about it and what my approach would be (I'm also a mechanical/aerospace engineer, so consider how I've been looking at this both as pilot and engineer).
It's about both. Sometimes you have to use all the advantages, not one over the other.😅