STOL twins

alaskaflyer

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
7,544
Location
Smith Valley, Nevada
Display Name

Display name:
Alaskaflyer
So, what are thoughts about (relatively) affordable NA twins that have relatively good short field performance compared to others?

We can leave out the twin Otter please, and since I put NA I don't mean the King Air, which, yes, for all of its other attributes has pretty darn good short field performance. I'm talking sub-$150k aircraft that are good cross country machines...

I see stories of Seneca II's in and out of all manner of grass strips on here :lol:
 
The Twinkie does pretty well. That's why I'm shopping for one (as time allows and it's not allowing much right now)
 
I wouldn't say all manner of stories about Seneca IIs. They are lousy on short grass strips owing to the lack of propellor clearance with the struts fully compressed. I have about seven inches in that condition.

That having be said, a 420 horsepower Twin Cherokee, operated at 1000 undergross, has a lot of power, and low wing loading, and does pretty well. I have done 6Y9 it's first year (2000 feet with trees) and do Gaston's (not short, but obstructed) annually. But That IS ALL for short and obstructed. Both strips are meticulously maintained.
 
Well, if "good cross-country machine" does not exclude taking your time and getting your hair mussed, you really can't get more STOL twin than an Air Cam, at any price (but they can be built or bought for under $150K).
100-foot takeoff roll, 2000 fpm.

http://www.aircam.com/

And it has a tailwheel... :D
 
I'm a fan of the Aztec. Good short field performance, good trip machine, naturally aspirated. Should do really well in Alaska. When I've taken off in sub-freezing temps the thing really moves.
 
So, what are thoughts about (relatively) affordable NA twins that have relatively good short field performance compared to others?


56 Baron. Gets off in less than 1200' and cruises at 250, but it has turbos. It will fly out OEI, nicely....
 
Last edited:
56 Baron. Gets off in less than 1200' and cruises at 250, but it has turbos.

Not to mention engines that have been disavowed by their manufacturer as ever having existed. ;)
 
Not to mention engines that have been disavowed by their manufacturer as ever having existed. ;)

They are expensive, but still serviceable. They got a bad rap by people running them at marketing numbers as well as the cam issue inherent in all Lycomings.
 
Grumman GA-7 can get out in 1,800ft, land in 1,400. Plus the O-320s are reliable fuel sippers at 20gph or less total burn. One for sale on Barnstormers for 49k but it's kinda high time. Could go with an early model T-Bone...STOL and take everything with you!
 
I'm a fan of the Aztec. Good short field performance, good trip machine, naturally aspirated. Should do really well in Alaska. When I've taken off in sub-freezing temps the thing really moves.

The 10 hours or so I've got in an Aztec would lead me to agree with the above statement. Even in the middle of a summer day in Kansas City, the PA23-250 didn't waste any time coming off the ground. Granted, we were light, but it was still impressive, to me.
 
DC34ME said:
Grumman GA-7 can get out in 1,800ft, land in 1,400. Plus the O-320s are reliable fuel sippers at 20gph or less total burn. One for sale on Barnstormers for 49k but it's kinda high time. Could go with an early model T-Bone...STOL and take everything with you!

"t-bone"= turbo Baron?
 
Familiar with the 337 and been looking into the Aztec mostly because I read Ted's posts. Know absolutely nothing about the Grumman. Color me intrigued.
 
As for mission: four seats, normal baggage, 650 nm average trips, MEAs around 12k, based at 2200ft rough asphalt with trees at either end. High performance single is certainly not out of the question but let's stick to twins for this particular armchair session.
 
I operated a Seneca II that had the 220 HP engines on it. It was a really good short runway airplane. It also has good long x-c capability and can carry a good load. The one that I flew came from AK. It was being flown up there by some christian organization into the back country on some less than improved fields.
 
"t-bone"= turbo Baron?

T Bone = Twin Bonanza = Travelair on Steroids

3018593824_ba829ce2bf.jpg
 
Well, if "good cross-country machine" does not exclude taking your time and getting your hair mussed, you really can't get more STOL twin than an Air Cam, at any price (but they can be built or bought for under $150K).
100-foot takeoff roll, 2000 fpm.

http://www.aircam.com/

And it has a tailwheel... :D

That's super cool.

Wasn't that airplane featured in AOPA about a year ago?
 
As for mission: four seats, normal baggage, 650 nm average trips, MEAs around 12k, based at 2200ft rough asphalt with trees at either end. High performance single is certainly not out of the question but let's stick to twins for this particular armchair session.

The C337 Skymaster fits your requirements. I have a 74 337G model. 125 gallons fuel, fuel burn averages 20gph for 160KTAS and a useful load of 1600 pounds.

With current market conditions Skymasters are a real buy right now.
 
56 Baron. Gets off in less than 1200' and cruises at 250, but it has turbos. It will fly out OEI, nicely....
A B55 with an IO-520 or better yet IO-550 conversion (600HP vs original 520) does very well from short fields but like any twin, to get the maximum short field performance you must operate in a regime where losing an engine early in the climbout means aborting the takeoff and landing on whatever lies ahead. It also sometimes means taking off in a configuration (flaps extended for non-hard surface, flaps extended for obstacles) that is NOT conducive to a safe return to earth shortly after takeoff.
 
As for mission: four seats, normal baggage, 650 nm average trips, MEAs around 12k, based at 2200ft rough asphalt with trees at either end. High performance single is certainly not out of the question but let's stick to twins for this particular armchair session.

A lot will depend on your risk tolerance. I personally don't like flying at MEAs that are close to what the plane will want to do. In the Aztec, if you're loaded up then 12k is about all it wants to do. Really cold temp will make an improvement in that. I don't know what your 4 seats and standard luggage refers to in terms of weight. When by myself, the thing happily does 13,000. When loaded up (pretty close to gross), 12k is the highest you can go without losing a lot of airspeed. Turbos would help there, and they did make turbo Aztecs.

With Alaska air, 2200 ft should be plenty doable, even loaded and with an obstacle. I've not flown the GA-7, but I'd question something with 320s being able to do that. Then again, it might have a low enough gross weight that it can. It's all in the weight - with half fuel, the plane will really jump off the runway. At 144 gallons total (140 usable), half fuel is a 420 lb weight reduction, and still gives you about 3 hours of fuel, at least it does the way I run the thing.

Lance is right about short field takeoffs in twins potentially getting you in a bad operating regime for certain parts of flight. For me in the Aztec I've still managed to accelerate up to blue line and be off by about mid point on a 3300 ft strip with 5 big people in the plane (probably pretty close to gross) on a cold day.
 
A B55 with an IO-520 or better yet IO-550 conversion (600HP vs original 520) does very well from short fields but like any twin, to get the maximum short field performance you must operate in a regime where losing an engine early in the climbout means aborting the takeoff and landing on whatever lies ahead. It also sometimes means taking off in a configuration (flaps extended for non-hard surface, flaps extended for obstacles) that is NOT conducive to a safe return to earth shortly after takeoff.
Another conversion to consider on the Barons is the D'Shannon VG kit on the 55s...my understanding is that back when the airplane first came out it had takeoff charts for 15 degrees of flap. Somebody, somewhere, decided that it was probably a bad idea to be flying below Vmca, so they took those charts away. The VG's lower Vmca adequately, so the D'Shannon kit gives you those charts back. Makes a noticeable difference in takeoff distance.
 
That Twin Helio is one ugly airplane! As for the Grumman, I know very little about it also. In fact, I've never seen one in person. I know what I would get if money wasn't a factor...an Angel 44.
02Ramp34s.jpg
 
The C337 Skymaster fits your requirements. I have a 74 337G model. 125 gallons fuel, fuel burn averages 20gph for 160KTAS and a useful load of 1600 pounds.

With current market conditions Skymasters are a real buy right now.

Always liked the Skymasters, even with their relative dislikes. Used to salivate over the Reims models and the Riley Rockets.
 
Last edited:
That Twin Helio is one ugly airplane! As for the Grumman, I know very little about it also. In fact, I've never seen one in person. I know what I would get if money wasn't a factor...an Angel 44.
02Ramp34s.jpg

I have flown this plane. Gets up & down very well. VERY heavy on the roll forces. Has mud scrapers on the mains, so that tell's you it's intent. Here is a video.

http://www.angel44.com/Stream.html
 
Last edited:
Out of the price range, but the Cougar Baron by Rocket Engineering would be neat. Two 500shp PT6As on it.
 
Actually Ted, not talking about Alaska. Montana, summer DA's in the 4000 ft range :skeptical:

Hmm... well, an Aztec might work for that, but heavily dependent on how heavily you load it. Turbos will be nice as well if you're high enough that you lose a couple inches of manifold pressure.

That's a fairly tough order to fill. Maybe an Aztec with 300 hp 540s. :)
 
Twotter's supposed to be decent, isn't it?

They also burn kerosene, are slow as tar, and cost about 10x the original listed budget.

Very capable aircraft, though...
 
Ted Ano who spends most of his time on the Red board has a Peterson STOL kit on his Seneca. Full legnth flaps and spoilers instead of Alierons. It is a sweet plane and in pristine condition. I don't think there are many out there though so I guess its not an option .... but it is nice.
 
Unmodified? Aztec.

If mods are OK? Twin Comanche with Robertson STOL mod. 500 foot takeoff roll, 500 foot landing roll, Vyse reduced to 95mph. Flaperons for the first half of flaps, when you go full flaps they become ailerons again. And once you're off the ground it goes faster for a lot less fuel burn than the Aztec.

It's easy to recognize the R/STOL Twinkies in the ads due to the stall fences on the wings:

attachment.php


The stall fence is the piece of metal halfway from the nacelle to the tip. If you look near the tip, you can also see the leading edge cuff that gets added. The landing light is how the wing is originally shaped, right next to it you can see the added cuff.
 

Attachments

  • 82189943.jpg
    82189943.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 173
Last edited:
They are expensive, but still serviceable. They got a bad rap by people running them at marketing numbers as well as the cam issue inherent in all Lycomings.

I never said they weren't servicable, but they do have a reputation associated with them.

I still wouldn't think twice about buying a P-Navajo (Lyco TIGO-541), Duke (Lyco TIO-541), or 421 (Continental GTSIO-520, which has a similar reputation) if I decided any of those planes are what fit my mission requirements.
 
I never said they weren't servicable, but they do have a reputation associated with them.

I still wouldn't think twice about buying a P-Navajo (Lyco TIGO-541), Duke (Lyco TIO-541), or 421 (Continental GTSIO-520, which has a similar reputation) if I decided any of those planes are what fit my mission requirements.

The 421 gets a bad rap due to bad pilot behavior. Flown right that can be a very reliable engine. However, an owner that owns any of those airplanes has to be prepared to properly maintain them.
 
The 421 gets a bad rap due to bad pilot behavior. Flown right that can be a very reliable engine. However, an owner that owns any of those airplanes has to be prepared to properly maintain them.

That was my point exactly.

I've found that most things that have a bad rap generally are the victims of bad owners and/or bad mechanics.
 
Well, maybe not most...

Well, that's just a bad example. ;)

I'd still say most, like this one (my first car that when I bought it had no interior, steering wheel, and couldn't move under its own power):

Family_2003_Daddy_s_Bday_Buried_Pipes_Stuck_Bobcat_Ted_s_Jag_042.jpg
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If mods are OK? Twin Comanche with Robertson STOL mod. 500 foot takeoff roll, 500 foot landing roll, Vyse reduced to 95mph. Flaperons for the first half of flaps, when you go full flaps they become ailerons again. And once you're off the ground it goes faster for a lot less fuel burn than the Aztec.

Nice. This sounds like something that might work very well for my mission, so long as I'm realistic about ifr altitudes.
 
Back
Top