Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:18:04.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STOL Aircraft—A Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

R. D. Hiscocks
R. D. Hiscocks*
Affiliation:
de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The interest in Canada in the design and manufacture of utility aircraft with a short take-off and landing (STOL) performance may be traced back to the difficulties of surface transport in the early development of the country and the widespread use of bush aircraft.

The leading characteristics of the STOL aircraft are examined with particular reference to design features essential to a short take-off and landing. The choice of powerplants and lifting systems is discussed with emphasis on the requirements for powered lift in the larger sizes of aircraft. The augmentor-wing is described as an example of an integrated propulsion lifting system with promise of a high performance.

The phases of the take-off, transition, climb and landing manoeuvre are reviewed to illustrate the relative importance of various parameters in design and operation. The importance is stressed of good stability characteristics and effective controls for manoeuvring in a confined air space and a consistent landing performance.

The requirements of a para-military mobile force tor a rapid response, deployment overseas and transportation in an area are examined. Some estimates are given of the probability of finding suitable airstrips in a particular region and the cost of constructing new airfields in a dynamic situation. The operating environment in potentially troubled areas of the world is examined briefly to provide guidance in design. The costs of a military supply system are discussed using various modes of transport which include trucks, helicopters, STOL and conventional transport aircraft with results which suggest that the system employing STOL aircraft in the tactical theatre has advantages in cost and effectiveness.

Attention is drawn to the growing requirement for shorthaul, commuter and air taxi aircraft with STOL characteristics. Reference is made to the increases in air travel and the widespread use of large transport aircraft which have encouraged the movement of airports from urban centres at a time when city growth and congestion render surface transport increasingly difficult. The relative costs of commercial systems using the helicopter and STOL aircraft are examined. It is shown that the cost of STOL ports is not an excessive portion of total system costs when all factors are taken into account. Some forecasts are made as to future development trends in transport systems using STOL aircraft.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 72 , Issue 685 , January 1968 , pp. 11 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ellis, FRANK H. Canada's Flying Heritage. University of Toronto Press, 1954.Google Scholar
2. Parkin, J. H. Bell and Baldwin, Their Development of Aerodromes and Hydrodromes at Baddeck, Nova Scotia. University of Toronto Press, 1964.Google Scholar
3. Parkin, J. H. Wallace Rupert Turnbull, 1870-1954: Canadian Pioneer of Scientific Aviation. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, December 1955.Google Scholar
4. Molson, K. M. Canadian Vickers Vedette. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, October 1964.Google Scholar
5. Molson, K. M. The Made-in-Canada Fairchilds. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, February 1967.Google Scholar
6. Halford, Robert G. The Saga of the Norseman. Aircraft Magazine, September 1959.Google Scholar
7. Sutcliffe, P. L., Merrick, V. K. and Howell, A. R. Aerodynamic and Propulsion Considerations of Minimum-Field Aircraft. 8th Anglo-American Aeronautical Conference, 1961. Royal Aeronautical Society.Google Scholar
8. Ellis, N. D. A Computer Study of a Wing in a Slip stream, Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto, TN 101, February 1967.Google Scholar
9. Law, W. Some Effects of Soil Surface Conditions on STOL Aircraft Operations, DHC-DIR (4.3 1964/65), Structures/7, March 1965.Google Scholar
10. Klein, G. I. The Snow Performance of Aircraft Skis. National Research Council of Canada, NRC No 722, June 1938.Google Scholar
11. Johnston, G. W. Factors Affecting the Field Length of STOL Aircraft. AGARD Report No 81, August 1956.Google Scholar
12. Anderson, S. B., Quigley, H. C. and Innis, R. C. Stability and Control Considerations for STOL Aircraft. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, May 1966; AGARD Report 504, June 1965.Google Scholar
13. Johnston, G. W. Some Recent Aerodynamic Advances in STOL Aircraft. Journal of Aircraft, Sept-Oct 1965.Google Scholar
14. Wygnanski, I. The Effect of Jet Entrainment on Loss of Thrust for a Two-Dimensional Symmetrical Jet-Flap Aerofoil. McGill University, Montreal, Report 64-13, August 1964.Google Scholar
15. Garland, D. B. Jet-Flap Thrust Recovery: Its History and Experimental Realisation. AIAA/CASI Paper 64-797, October 1964.Google Scholar
16. Whittley, D. C. The Augmentor-Wing, a New Means of Engine Airframe Integration for STOL Aircraft. ICAS Paper 64-574, August 1964.Google Scholar
17. Templin, R. J. A Momentum Role for Optimum Aircraft Performance in the V/STOL Transition Regime. National Aeronautical Establishment, Ottawa, Report LR 470, January 1967.Google Scholar
18. Johnston, G. W. and Saint, H. N. Optimum Lift Coefficient for STOL Take-Off. de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Aerodynamic Note No 1Google Scholar
19. Bade, E. Power of Arrest, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Shell Aviation News, No 346, 1967.Google Scholar
20. Air Registration Board. Preliminary Draft—Proposed Performance and Handling Requirements for Group C Aeroplanes Having Short Take-Off and Landing Capacity, April 1967.Google Scholar
21. Federal Aviation Agency. Proposed Rule Making, Part23, Notice 67-11, Airworthiness Standards, Small Air planes Capable of Carrying More than 10 Occupants, April 1967.Google Scholar
22. Dressler, R. F. New Approach to Air Safety Statistics. Journal of Aircraft, Vol 4, No 4, July-August 1967.Google Scholar
23. Litchford, George B. The 100 ft Barrier. Astronautics and Aeronautics, July 1964.Google Scholar
24. Puvrez, Paul A. The Variations of the Landing Distance of Fixed Wing Aircraft in STOL Operations. AIAA Paper No 64-345, July 1964; DHC-DIR (LIB 1963/64) AERO 27, March 1964.Google Scholar
25. Horne, Walter B. and Tafford, J. W. Leland. Influence of Tire Tread Pattern and Runway Surface Condition on Braking Friction and Rolling Resistance of a Modern Aircraft Tire. NASA Report TN D-1376, September 1962.Google Scholar
26. Smith, R. E. A Comparison of V/STOL Directional Handling Qualities Criteria for Visual and Instrument Flight Using an Airborne Simulator. NRC, NAE Report LR-465, September 1966.Google Scholar
27. Nettleton, T. R. Handling Qualities Research in the Development of a STOL Utility Transport Aircraft. AIAA Paper No 65-713, October 1965.Google Scholar
28. Henshaw, D. H. Some Possibilities for Research on Stability and Control at STOL Flight Speeds. DHC 66-8, June 1966.Google Scholar
29. Howard, J. Flight Test Evaluation of a Technique for the Measurement of the Lateral Stability and Control Derivatives of STOL Aircraft. DHC-DIR 65-10, Jan 1966; Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, March 1967.Google Scholar
30. Howard, J., Colavincenzo, O. M. S. and Henshaw, D. H. The Lateral Dynamic Stability Equations in Terms of an Equivalent Aircraft in Level Flight Without Inertial Cross Coupling. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, January 1967.Google Scholar
31. Johnston, G. W. and Brenckmann, M. Analogue Computer Evaluation of the Steep Landing Manoeuvre with a Modulated Reverse Thrust Aircraft. DHC-DIR (Al.le) AERO/12, July 1963.Google Scholar
32. Cook, D. L. Propeller Control at Low Airspeed. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, January 1966.Google Scholar
33. Wilde, T. and Ridler, D. Flight Investigation of Propeller Beta Control on STOL Aircraft. Report DHC- DIR 65-2, July 1965.Google Scholar
34. Posvar, COL. Usaf, Wesley W.. The Political Environment for Military Planning. Air Force Magazine, Dec 1966.Google Scholar
35. Taborek, R. J. Some Observations on Selecting Vehicles for a Mobile Force. Report DHC 67-6, May 1967.Google Scholar
36. Powell, COL. E. L., et al., US Army. Environmental Considerations for World-Wide Military Helicopter Operations. The 20th Annual National Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Inc, Washington, May 1964.Google Scholar
37. Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationary, Ottawa. House of Commons, 1st Session, 27th Parliament, Standing Committee on National Defence, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No 11, 21st June 1966.Google Scholar
38. Gunzler, T. and Case, E. Ryerson. A Statistical Approach to the Design of Aircraft Undercarriage Systems. AIAA Paper No 67-710, October 1965.Google Scholar
39. Waldo, Richard K. and Tilton, Peter D. An Economic Analysis of Commercial VTOL and STOL Transport Air craft. Final Report FAA-ADS-25, February 1965.Google Scholar
40. Harris, A. and Taborek, R. J. Potential for STOL Transportation in Urban Areas. Report DHC 67-7, May 1967.Google Scholar
41. Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. A Systems Analysis of Short Haul Air Transportation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass, Technical Report 65-1, August 1965.Google Scholar
42. Department of Transport, Ottawa. Scheduled Helicopter Operations in Canada, November 1966.Google Scholar