This Forum is a place for Piper Comanche pilots to communicate and discuss technical issues
If you join or reset a password, please check your Spam Email box for emails from Admin at ComancheTechTalk.com
Please put your questions on the forum as well so everyone can read and respond. Someone else might be having similar questions.
All questions or topics on the Forums automatically get sent to the Tech team as well.
Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down
When I added the Robertson to my airplane, (It was number 2 or 3 done by Robertson) I felt I lost 2 to 3 mph in 65% cruise power settings. Later, after I added various Lopresti, Knots 2 U mods, and Han's hubcaps, I feel the airplane is slightly faster than the original. I get just under 160 knots burning 15 to 15 1/2 gallons per hour when I fly in normal temp air at 6 to 8 K altitude.
I once took off just behind a turbo 260 Comanche near San Francisco and we were both flying to near Portland, Oregon. We were at the same altitude. (around 8000 feet as I remember) We ended up making the same time enroute and both airplanes burned almost identical fuel for the trip. With this experience, I would be interested to know how your speed and fuel burn compared with the other airplane. If either of your instruments were off, I can see how the speeds could be distorted for a comparison.
One other thing that I would consider: When I was buying my airplane, I had no twin experience and asked the Piper dealer to demonstrate VMC and single engine performance. He slowed down with one feathered and the next thing I knew we made a quick 1/2 to 1 turn spin. He recovered and didn't seem bothered and I assumed that's the way it is and should be. I bought the airplane and then for the next few years I read about all the VMC training accidents, changing of VMC speeds, stall strips, counter rotated engine, and rudder dam by Piper. When Robertson advertised their mod, they emphasized single engine safety. I went for a demo ride with their check pilot. When I feathered one and slowed down below VMC, the airplane started over the top. I shoved the nose down and stood on the rudder and the airplane recovered nicely without upset or the spin.
The demonstration ended then and there. I told the demo pilot I wanted the mod. They wanted to get some of the kits out in the field and I believe the special price I got was $3500 installed.
With the speed mods I have added, I am now slightly better than Piper book speeds, but I would even accept losing a little speed to acquire what I feel is a great modification to the PA30. I have landed on 1000 foot strips and have for many years operated off of a 2500 foot grass strip.
The 3800# gross is nice when headed of OSH with a load of camping gear.
Warm regards, Al Powers ICS 2978
- SLIMDREDGER
- ICS member
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 6:20 pm
Kristin Winter- ICS member
- Posts: 1299
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
- Location: Northern California
It is itsy stuff on both airplanes... baffles, gear ... Matt has my gear going back up in the wells further than a turtle's head retracts... I have/had many mods on both airplanes.
My 39 (with Robertsons) is about 5 kts faster than the B... and man do I love that 200#s. My wife and I can fly to FL with everything that she possibly needs for two weeks (5 suitcases) and I just pack my toothbrush... no problems.
I filed my B at 160 kts.. I file my 39 at 165.... it just works out that way.
Your and my airplane mostly differ in that I have the Miller nose... but I don't think that is a "speed mod".
Let's compare notes... The C is a fast airplane. Zach claims that the turbo C is the fastest Comanche ever made... but a properly trimmed C shouldn't be "big time" faster than a properly trimmed twin even with a Robertson
- MULEFLY
- ICS member
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:34 am
- Location: Wisconsin
It is itsy stuff on both airplanes... baffles, gear ... Matt has my gear going back up in the wells further than a turtle's head retracts... I have/had many mods on both airplanes.
My 39 (with Robertsons) is about 5 kts faster than the B... and man do I love that 200#s. My wife and I can fly to FL with everything that she possibly needs for two weeks (5 suitcases) and I just pack my toothbrush... no problems.
I filed my B at 160 kts.. I file my 39 at 165.... it just works out that way.
Your and my airplane mostly differ in that I have the Miller nose... but I don't think that is a "speed mod".
Let's compare notes... The C is a fast airplane. Zach claims that the turbo C is the fastest Comanche ever made... but a properly trimmed C shouldn't be "big time" faster than a properly trimmed twin even with a Robertson
- MULEFLY
- ICS member
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:34 am
- Location: Wisconsin
But I do think the Robertson slows a Twinkie down by 3 to 5 kts down low. I also think that this comes back at around 12K, and that at higher altitudes the Robertson may be faster.
To your question about removing the mod, the thing I'd worry about is the cuff and removing it without damaging the integrity of the wing. You may need to talk to a DER about that.
Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
Jay- ICS member
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon
You LOVE your plane, u'd be unhappy without the STOL mod, especially when you're on final for central jersey and u see that tree in the way,,,,,
To test against another twinco for speed, think u gotta run side by side, full power,,,cause if i set at 24 square and you do,,,we're both NOT going to be identical power settings...
ps..i'm out of the shop...
steve
N8632Y- ICS member
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 3:56 pm
- Location: N14 South Jersey
Robertson STOL = slow me down
AHP
- SLIMDREDGER
- ICS member
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 6:20 pm
Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down
Warm regards, Al Powers ICS 2978
- SLIMDREDGER
- ICS member
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 6:20 pm
That being said, I do worry more about the tail in any aircraft than the wing. A very useful addition to an icing protection system would be a little camera mounted to look under the wing and one to look at the tail. Hook it up to a page on the MFD, and you would get a much better idea of what things looked liked. There were times when I really would like to have been able to see more of my lifting surfaces on my "Jo" while running around the Great Lakes.
Kristin Winter- ICS member
- Posts: 1299
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
- Location: Northern California
The NTSB managed to figure out that a few Baron's have stalled their tails in ice.
It would be very comforting to be able to see the landing gear.
Kristin Winter- ICS member
- Posts: 1299
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
- Location: Northern California
Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
Jay- ICS member
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon
I have some time in a turbo-normalized 400 with the Robertson kit. While I do not have any time in a regular 400, based upon my Killough operating manual, the 400 with the Robertson is quite a bit slower than a regular 400. Estimating as much as 10-12 knots. That is largly off-set bu its ability to get up high in the thin air with the turbos, but down low, my 260 is not much slower.
Don't know how much speed loss is contributed by the Robertson kit because the turbo mod adds "gills" to the cowl for added drag and some would argue that without the turbos spooled up, they rob the engine of HP by creating exhaust back-pressure. Don't know enough about aftermarket turbo-normalizing to comment. I can tell you that airplane tends to ride nose high, as if it wants to "plane-out" but can't, especially when heavy. Lastly, if you think a regular Comanche floats, look out with the Robertson STOL.
Not trashing the mod or the airplane. There are a lot of great benefits to the STOL but like everything else in airplanes, nothing is free and there are trade-offs. I wonder how VG's compare to the Robertson mod?
I would imagine that removing the mod would require re-skinning the leading edges of both wings.
Chris
- Chris Kuyoth
- ICS member
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:20 pm
-Zach
PS.- Robertsons carry LOTS of ice...so I have heard, and Kris, I'm with you...never had a problem with tail ice issues in anything with a stab, but it sure did get ugly on occasion. I believe the constantly changing surface angle without changing the effective AOA of the stab by use of an elevator probably causes the stabilators to be more forgiving than conventional tails.
Zach Grant L1011jock- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
- Location: Indianapolis KEYE
Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down
Steve - maybe we can try your test down in the Bahamas this week.
Regards,
Scott Ducey
Scott Ducey- ICS member
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 2:11 pm
I have never had a Robertson normally aspirated twin, but mine like Daves is a Robertson Turbo. The turbos are probably 8-10 mph slower than book down low, but get to book speed about 10-11K and if the turbos are good, beat book above that. Jay has a turbo Robertson also and sees similar numbers. The only other non turbod Robertson I have been around is Al Powers, and he is at most 3-5 mph slower, but has regained the speed lost with speed mods. I guess the question is what is your wind corrected ground speed, and how does that compare with book. Comparing IAS to book is a wasted effort.
-Zach
Zach Grant L1011jock- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
- Location: Indianapolis KEYE
Re: Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down
James Oates- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:08 pm
Re: Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down
Overall is the Roberston a negative?... most certainly... but after that... I know I'm faster (not just indicated airspeed indicated -- GPS tests too) than many of my peers that have well maintained aircraft without Roberston... but they may still have brakes hanging in the wind etc.
All the best!
Jim
- MULEFLY
- ICS member
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:34 am
- Location: Wisconsin