You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I follow a few aeroplane-based instagram accounts, as, well... aeroplanes.
One thing I had never seen before, though, was in just how short a distance those bush planes in Alaska and Canada's North are able to land and take off again. I mean, we're talking a matter of, say, 20 metres!
What's with that?
I know that their straight wings enable them to fly more slowly, but even crop dusters don't have the sort of take off and landing capabilities these incredibly cool craft do (at least I didn't think so). How is it possible to get lift in such a short space, and at such low speeds?
I mean, look at this!
They weigh less than a gnats chuff.
You need as a high a lift coefficient as possible, so maximum lift at lowest possible speed. You do that with leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps to control and manipulate the shape of the aerofoil.
I imagine there is quite a strong headwind being used, combined with low weight and high lift wings.
I’ve watched them before, look really cool, but I don’t think there is anything more fancy going on than the above. Pretty sure their top speed etc is massive;y compromised, but v cool for what they are used for.
Note, I am a marine biologist. So science based conclusions may be compromised!
Lots of power, light and a lot of lift I guess. The Landing also seemed to be very windy, so maybe the plane's speed into the relative wind was high enough that it speed relative to the ground was near zero.
Then good brakes.
Good pilot skills though, would not want to have to rely on a landing strip that short for anything normal!
No conveyor belt. Disappointed....
Some take it to the point where the aircraft are extreme even in STOL circles
No conveyor belt. Disappointed….
Well it's about aeroplanes taking off. What use would a conveyor belt be in that situation?
A very light aircraft with a large wing will have a low stall speed. For example, the Slepcev Storch has a stall speed of 25 mph. If you have a headwind of 15 mph, it only needs 10 mph of groundspeed to be able to fly. With 25 mph headwind, it can land vertically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slepcev_Storch
Nothing to add to the science discussion other than to agree it must be the ratio or lift to weight.
But anecdote; my mate flies big passenger jets, now 777's but was on 747's before, and as a young pilot was rostered to take a 747 from Gatwick to Manchester for maintenance or something. So they only put about 10 litres of petrol in it, rather than the 70 trillion it usually takes. No passengers, no luggage, no in flight catering.
He trundled along the runway to take off speed, pulled back on the column and nearly shit himself as the thing shot almost vertically into the air while the skipper next to him pissed himself.
Hang-gliders easily take off and land at walking/jogging speed. Which is sort of fortunate considering the landing gear! Takes a bit of slope/updraft for the take-off of course.
Power to weight, props design for lots of low speed pull or bite, very low wing loading and wing designs for high lift rather than cruising efficiently laminar air flow at high angles of attack.
Check out Mike Pateys "Scrappy" 13L engined replacement for the wrecked Draco. Some interesting work on wing design to with double slats on the leading edge to get higher speed air flow over the top of the wing and stay laminar over the massive flaps at high AOA.
As above, big wings relative to size and weight. The down side is all that lift at low speeds generates a lot of drag at Hugh speeds. That's why planes that are made to go fast have tiny wings and need very fast takeoff speeds.
massive flaps
and double slats at the front
That’s why planes that are made to go fast have tiny wings and need very fast takeoff speeds.
or wings that can change shape. F14, F1-11, Su24, Tornado, B1 Lancer, Tu160 etc etc
That's rubbish. Have you watched a pigeon recently?
Most of them have naca ducts
Short landings are really cool, but whats cooler ?. Doing it on one wing 😯
But anecdote; my mate flies big passenger jets, now 777’s but was on 747’s before, and as a young pilot was rostered to take a 747 from Gatwick to Manchester for maintenance or something. So they only put about 10 litres of petrol in it, rather than the 70 trillion it usually takes. No passengers, no luggage, no in flight catering.
I often go to MAN to take photos and always enjoy those short positioning flights. Not that long ago TUI were retiring another one of their 767's and it almost looked fake as it went up like a rocket and seemingly only using about 5% of the runway!
That’s some good skilz, landing with one wing! I guess his power to weight and drag improved with one less wing but his lift also halved! To quote Rob Warner, how does he sit down!
Looks like some of the STOL aircraft generate lots of lift from their own prop, tail plane on OP certainly gets lift with 0 ground speed.
See also Trent Palmer on YT.
Mike Patsy and Trent Palmer are amazing on this stuff.
Tail plane doesn't typically produce any benefitial lift, it's effectively producing weight pushing the tail down to raise the nose to climb.
Mike Patey, not Patsy.
Another way of doing it is to have a very powerful engine then pull the plane off the ground using massive engine power way before the wing is ready to fly. The downside of course is if you have an engine problem you generally stall and spin…….
That one wing landing is fake, in case you couldn’t guess.
That one wing landing
Is an RC model at about 1/3 scale, IIRC.
Erica. Variant of the herc can land turn round and take off on the equivalent of a football pitch. So 100yards/metres.
C130j I think.
An Israeli pilot landed an F15 with one wing missing.
They used to use rocket assisted takeoff on Hercs:
The airflow from the big propeller over the wings provides a significant component of the lift. Couple this with a good headwind and you get your answer.
The bird equivalent of doing trackstands at traffic lights.
https://twitter.com/TheFigen/status/1551511299682623489