New style STOL competition?

Hopefully I’m not repeating what has been suggested before, I couldn't find anything regarding it. Also, hopefully I'm not stepping too hard on any toes, but I wonder if Gulkana style (Back in the day), Valdez, and now also Texas style STOL events should be modified a little bit. It's my belief that the STOL competitions started when talented backcountry pilots flying QUALIFIED airplanes flew against each other to see who was best at the task they've chosen to make a living at. The sport grew and Gulkana got pretty big and now Valdez has been a must attend event for years and Texas is really taking the concept to another level. HOWEVER, somewhere along the way, the part about QUALIFIED airplanes may have been lost? The point of the competition was to compete with airplanes with off airport capabilities, right? Starting even back at Gulkana, there were airplanes that weren't really all that rugged, not much of a load hauler and you wouldn't want to take them into rough places - - - But they were incredible STOL performers, but we're talking apples and oranges here.

I think it would be interesting if the powers that be would consider creating a competition “ENVIRONMENT” that will guarantee that only the QUALIFIED airplanes compete. I think that the local promoters should hire the local rock quarry and create a 300' landing area with a layer of 4" to 6" rocks to land and takeoff from. This would automatically eliminate planes that aren't actually qualified to fly into the backcountry and would level the playing field to the aircraft that are the ones that are supposed to be in the competition to begin with. You won't see planes that haven't been set up properly, no small tires, no flimsy gear legs, no cut down tail wheels, no MISSING tail wheels, they'll be airplanes that are SUPPOSED to be in the backcountry.

What is the point of building a short field airplane, if the only field your airplane is capable of landing on - - - is an airport?!?! If the competition is on 4" to 6" rocks, it will naturally weed out the airplanes that aren't really qualified airplanes. Just something to consider…..

Great idea! Only limit it to 26" tires!
Try this out on some old 25x11x4s!

D.A. I like your your view on STOL comps & agree!

However any on going Comp will lend itself to tech inovations limiting a machines usefulness to any thing else.
Much like Nascar back in the day, when they drove the vehicles to the race, raced, & drove home.
Look at the "stock" cars now!!

Need to be hauling 500 # and fuel for 200 mi.

4-6 inch rocks appears smooth. 10 to 12 with a few deal killers thrown in--maybe with some shale.

Haha yup. And forget 500# and half fuel. I wanna see two dead moose and a guide in the back of each airplane. They've just got to add a "working class" along with the experimental, touring, etc classes.

Maybe the new class could be called "The Real Class". If your airplane can't haul Caribou quarters, what is it doing there? But seriously, I believe a stretch of rock could be put in where the competitions are being held real easily.

DA
Are you going to pay for the carnage that the rocks cause?? It is real easy to do 50 grand or more damage if a landing go's wrong. Lots of the competitors are using working cubs for the event and they can not afford to bend them just for bragging rights. There are several good pilots and planes that don't make it due to spring bear. Just take the event for what it is worth, a good time with friends/fellow pilots. You will never be able to take the wind factor out of the event and that is one of the most important factors in STOL. 10 mph on the nose makes me I heck of a good pilot. I don't mind seeing the other aircraft with all the mods being built for the event. People talk about making it real world, well sometimes in the real world you only fly out the meat in more than one trip and make the hunter/packer walk to a bigger strip, or you wait for the wind to be in your favor. I did like it when they took top 3 with 300 lb loads, that would be a real pain to try to get everyone through the mill loading and unloading sandbags. Most any aircraft at max load are not fun to watch take off or land because they don't do it short.
DENNY

Also, when I said "Missing Tailwheel", I wasn't referring to tricycle airplanes. I think a a C-206 is a dang good backcountry airplane. I'm referring to a skid, for competition only, where there SHOULD have been a tailwheel on a taildragger.

I just had 250lbs of bacon in my cub, vacuum bagged and in boxes, out of a buddies farm strip....mmmm bacon.

D.A. said:

Also, when I said "Missing Tailwheel", I wasn't referring to tricycle airplanes. I think a a C-206 is a dang good backcountry airplane. I'm referring to a skid, for competition only, where there SHOULD have been a tailwheel on a taildragger.

Click to expand...

we called the fish hauler 206's 4 point planes.... both mains, tail on runway and nose wheel on the ground also.... was a different "crazy bill" than the one that passed a few years ago....

DA.. Is some of the issue that a C-85 Experimental with a tail skid does well against the NOS monsters and 300+ HP? So who has the advantage?
1- it's fair to say that most dress for the conditions.. a competition isn't much different. If conditions allow light tires and the trade off of AOI is acceptable.. why not.
2- Skid? As you know that's the way many of these things left the factory.. it's lighter and allows more AOI. The first year we had our Experimental flying we did 470 hours of which half was up the Knik River landing everywhere with some pretty tight spots! The skid made a reasonable pilot better. You just don't drop the tail into the boulders, it's as real as your tail assembly and it works with a 1300 pound limit. BTW with full fuel and pilot the hauling capacity is 380# (that's a lotta bacon) . It won't do a full moose at Eureka but does more than Grampa with the same basic machine.

Although he isn't here.. I know my father, who flew underpowered J-3/J-5/SC machines for 40 years in the bush is smiling when our little C-85 does well against a flame breathin' monster, all the while using 4GPH!

A competition is for the crowd, they want a show, it's our job to make them realize it doesn't take a $300,000.00 Cub to have fun and even win.. our crew of two (Grandma and Grampa) can pull it off once in a while! With excitement and no accidents we might draw a few more into our GA world.

Just one persons thought but using up margin with weight and rocks sounds more like a demolition derby than a STOL competition but then we just fly a Lil C-85 with a tail skid. ;-)

Neat. Lots of good points to consider here. Never really considered STOL a sport, maybe it is, but introducing the concept of calling it a competition certainly brings out that connotation. Seems to me a contest is a somewhat less formal run what ya brung type deal. I like the idea of adding complexity in to the mix, in a practical and safe way. I made a comment about the cones in Llano being used to SAFELY simulate a 50' obstacle for hitting the spot. The reply was that there are ideas of introducing turning touchdowns into the mix. Ideas like these and the ones that will spawn from discussion will undoubtably bring about more interesting concepts that would bring more attention, interest, spectators and maybe some new pilots into the mix, we sure need them. I like things staying small and simple which is contrary to a healthy and affordable aviation industry, so I understand the need.

Being a former formula car racer I can draw many similarities. CHAMP, IRL, Formula One, are all MUCH more demanding, dangerous, and faster than NASCAR. NASCAR does well because people can see the whole race from one seat, not so much in road racing. People having the desire to see carnage also enhances this success, though many will deny it. They may also deny liking to see what is essentially cheating which is putting their competition into the wall on the last lap or two because they really couldn't pass them and stay in the lead, only able to keep up due to the draft. In car racing most cheat, in one way or another! I suspect this is the case in any competitive motorsport. I never cheated at a race in my life, if I can't beat you fair and square, how could I see it as a victory? Tech inspections and appropriate classifications would alleviate many of the concerns mentioned here. I like the idea of a real working airplane that can be used in a practical manner for something other than competition, these would be my favorite categories. Other's opinions will vary. When things get serious, doesn't matter if it's go-kart to Formula One, money wins races, even in spec classes because, again, cheating abounds, and even if not cheating, money buys horsepower and saves weight, this leads to disparity in the competition, when this happens spectators lose interest. So then comes rules which leads to degraded performance. However, greater advances are made with these rules, but there are some awfully deep pockets that make this possible.

I see nothing wrong with either. I was recently told that Valdez may have 50 Super Cubs show up as transportation but not compete. Why??? because who wants to be shown up by someone that's spent a fortune on a plane that doesn't really pass muster for the class in which it is registered, and have a competitor that can afford to put one on it's nose now and again. These incursions beyond the edge of the envelope teach the greatest lessons. The average person cannot afford this, nor would they want to be without their plane for 6-12 months when it's the grocery getter. So, again I say, stricter rules with tech inspections, stiff penalties for those who violate, classes that fit the airplane and the pilot will provide an increase in participation and interest from spectators. This model has been proven time and again over the years in other motorsports.

Flame me if you like, but I don't think it would be possible for me to be too far off the mark. To each their own, some may like the most highly modified competition only airplanes, fine, but don't lump them all together, or allow the lines to blur between them.

Take it or leave it, just my .02

I have an easy solution. Form a competition committee. Have the committee build one cub and select the site for the competition. Bring in all the "hot" cub drivers and have them fly the supplied generic "working cub". If nobody bends the airplane you should be able to crown your king.

At the NW SC Flyin, one year we had the "Bush Challenge". We took the top three finishers, loaded 300# and tried again.
Jim Richmond in a SS Cub, Greg Miller in his Got Rocks Cub and Jerry Burr in his 100HP J3. Three pretty damned good sticks...
Jerry Burr won.

To make a high risk competition work you will need large amount of cash to attract competitors. Who is going to risk an airplane for a trophy and a set of tires? Additionally, the cost of insurance would be very high.

It would be tough for organized STOL competitions (Valdez, etc) to set up real life, obstacle type scenarios. Liability insurance I'm guessing would be cost prohibitive. But I do think some things need to change if the typical Cub pilot wants to compete and stay interesting in these types of things. It's pretty tough for a 1150-1250 lbs Cub to compete with a 650-750 lbs J-3 with most of the "important" stuff removed from the airplane. All things being equal, if Paul Claus had to compete against himself; Paul in Alpha Cub and Paul in his 185 - any takers on what airplane would win?

Big rock for free? One hunting season on the slope I got the stab, had to Reskin the inboard one side and change the prop on my 180.Now make it worth while like a half of a moose for 1st, a Caribou for 2nd, etc. I'd think about it.

Tom we are practicing STOL on your new strip, we took care of that one pesky branch that stuck up too high, what did we win?

Glenn

You can keep all the firewood you can chop with the prop. How are the approaches ? I've never flown in there yet.still haven't closed on it yet, I hate the waiting but better safe than sorry.
When I close maybe I can bum my first ski plane ride ever.

68Papa we like your comments.. possibly weight classes will be the answer? In the experimental class lack of weight is a benefit and so is a blast of NOS, soon we might have classes of one and that becomes no fun too. I really don't know the answer other than lets keep the f_u_n part! For sure we will run the other way if it gets tied up in to much thinking and regulation.
What happens up the Knik is great.. just do your best and no one is measuring anything.. that way we all have bragging rights! ;-)

I remember being up at Atlees shop back in the mid 1980s and there was the usual gang of cub experts, you know the type; they can TO in 150' but takes em 500' to land . And of course "how short they could get off" was
The constant "number 1 conversation " as usual, they were promoting extended wings, and larger souped up engines, some claimed
To be able to compeate with a Hughes 500 on wheels, and a Black Duck on floats.............. Atlee got up to go back to work, and said to
Them all, " a good J3 with a 90hp" ,will whip any Super Cub I ever saw...... You could have heard a pin drop for a moment.............. then after Atlee
Was out of hearing range, one of the self acclaimed aeronautical engineers with an old beater cub, that had hit everything but the DailyDouble, that wouldnt get out of its own way, says "It wont beat mine"

My dream competition is to use the same stock supercub for all the pilots. Give them all a few days to fly it and then set them loose on the "course". Still has insurance challenges, but not quite as many as some of the above

sj

The more planes and pilots the better. I love seeing all the different planes and pilots showing what they can do .
Cubs , Super cubs , Maules, Cessna's , Experimentals, you name it. Heck I loved watching the Volmer Jensen VJ24 Ultra light at Oshkosh !
I can what if and handicap them in my mind to my hearts content . The best competition is where there is no prize and everyone fly's and has fun. !

Doug

SJ said:

My dream competition is to use the same stock supercub for all the pilots. Give them all a few days to fly it and then set them loose on the "course". Still has insurance challenges, but not quite as many as some of the above

sj

Click to expand...

Yes, SJ!

Remember the old IROC - International Race of Champions where each driver had the exact same prepared model of race car? That competition came as close to testing actual driver skill as any.

Daryl

Many of these ideas have been thought of and discussed. I think that a variety of events is great. The combination of what the organizers want to do, what competitors want to do and what the host airport can do all play in. If we announced there are going to be inspections I'm certain participation would go to about zero. Just the fear that the feds may inspect keeps people away (we know of two getting ramp checked in 11 years in Valdez and the FAA specifically avoids it.) Also what is the definition of a "stock" cub? we are going to leave that to the pilots consciousnesses and the FAA rules.

We don't pretend that this is the real world looks like the ramp at Valdez, it is just a consistent area to demonstrate ability. Last year a point of emphasis for the airport was to avoid FOD on the field. Literally and seriously we were to watch about peanuts on the ramp. I'm not kidding. That would preclude 300 feet of boulders here. We are happy to have the space though, it is a good place to park 300 planes. I agree that it would be cool to have the top three fly the same plane but we were worried about pilots getting into a situation where instincts and controls didn't match. Liability is a concern too. Could three really good pilots do this on their own? Certainly and it would be fun to see. We are not able to weigh planes quickly to fly them all at gross and also there is less margin for error when people are at gross. While it would be interesting it wouldn't seem as interesting to the masses. Phil's idea of simulating the landing over an obstacle is cool. We had talked about trying to do it but couldn't figure the details, it sounds like Phil has. That should be fun. The more variety the better. I bet other events have good ideas too.

I wonder if people don't worry to much about others peoples airplanes. I notice that while people may have really "hot" airplanes they also put in hundreds and hundreds of landings in them. Perhaps technique and practice count for something.

There also is consideration about the right amount of competition. Many of the pilots we have are not going to risk their planes to win. They need them for their livelihood. Also I don't know that it would be good to have people doing things just for the money, it seems that judgement can get clouded by that. In the end we want to see people fly similar airplanes and show what they can do. Fly what YOU have and fly it well. Last year we had some amazing performances in 172's. How cool is that? As participation increases or changes we will modify classes to divide things up enough to have similar planes together but not so much that everyone ends up with a trophy. There is additional interest this year so we are going to bring back the LSA class. Perhaps if more experimentals enter we will have a touring class there too. Perhaps we could have more by type. A Husky may not beat a Cub but it would be interesting to see who can really fly a Husky compared with others.

Just an FYI plans are in progress for Valdez 2015 May 8-10. The pilot round table will be Friday afternoon, Beach Landing Saturday Morning, STOL Saturday afternoon, Dinner Sat night, Sunday morning flour bombing, Sunday afternoon airshow. We may have some new wrinkles this year so stay tuned. Also we have some really great prizes that we were able to round up at OSH last year. Hope many of you can make it! (I would get to looking for a hotel if that is where you are planning to stay.) Get the plane ready for summer, come on down to Valdez and enjoy the flying!
Joe

J, your competition put competitions like this on the map. It's a growing concept, obviously. I was merely pointing out that classes and rules level the field, even if just a little, and make the average guy think he has enough of a chance to be competitive. I know you're right, many folks won't risk breaking stuff on their moneymaker, but many will. In SCCA, amateur auto racing, you see people run what you brung all the time, there are also classes for lightly to heavily modified cars (GT-1-GT-3). The formula cars vary quite a bit from class to class, but you're right again that people like to see different stuff ran, SCCA classes encourage that except for SRF. Pull up an online copy of the SCCA Formula Continental rules, it'll take you about 15 minutes to read. My CC with a stock 360 isn't going to be a match for Rusk's Javron, 300lbs difference, or a stock pa-18, so why even enter. You can level the field by class, and weight, which I know you do to some extent. Don't need to go to 30 different classes but for those too light you can have a minimum combined landing weight. (plane, fuel, pilot). For tech you can use a smart level zeroed to each plane for incidence, a tape measure, check the fuel for oxidizers, templates are easily made too. For the top three you can select something different each year to check on the engine, bore and stroke, cam, compression etc. keep it a secret what you will check, just let them know that something will be, so if your claiming to have stock hp we'll find out if you're cheating. These are just a few ideas, unless you are at the Valvoline Runoffs (national championship) tech for a top 3 finisher takes about 10-20 mins for all 3 in a class. Just take a look at their rule book and you'll see what I'm getting at. Don't need to be overly burdensome with rules either, that runs people off too. This great competition started up there seems like it was friendly and fun, as with anything engine related, people will eventually start buying the wins with mods or hop ups if not policed somewhat, but yes there should be room for an "unlimited" category, this helps technology tremendously and keeps the well funded lumped together. There will likely come a day where instead of a STOL comp, you end up with a bankroll comp.

Keep up the great work, everyone appreciates what you do, though few probably understand how much work is involved.

I get a chuckle out of these discussions, but doesn't it normally come down to the dude holding the stick?
Does the guy with the .375 or the guy with the .270 have a better chance taking a big bull elk with one shot? It's the guy who's a really good shot.
A Husky may not beat a Cub, but it's tough to beat a really good Husky driver.
Paul Claus, Team Breeden, Ed Doyle, Dennis Wittenberg, Greg Miller, Doug Keller... would be right at home with rocks, then what?
It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

Forgot to mention, it needs to be made clear that the tech inspections are by competition staff and for rule classification only. NOT THE FEDS!!!!!

Carey, you're definitely right, but after a certain level the money becomes a big factor in motorsports. Plenty of people could beat me with my own airplane. Same in the car when I started, but once I got to be one of those guys and started racing against kids with daddies that could spend a million on a year on their race program, it became much more difficult for me to beat them on my 40k per year budget. They drove thousands of test miles in an offseason, I couldn't afford one test day, this applies here too with the price of avgas and peoples work schedules. Anyone that's ever been at a competitive level in motorsports, will know what I'm talking about.

Shooting is a whole other animal, but your analogy applies to those with less experience.

A tech inspection doesn't mean the airplane is un airworthy. But if you have a certified cub, what's the worry? You do have an annual inspection, right? And that's just to compete you need a tech inspection. Not going around with the Feds doing a ramp check. .