Forum

Notifications
Clear all

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

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
888 Views
Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1162
Topic starter  

Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down

Postby Scott Ducey » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:17 pm

 
User avatar
Scott Ducey
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 2:11 pm
  •  

Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down

Postby SLIMDREDGER » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:58 pm

Hi Scott: From my experience, I wonder if your instrumentation is incorrect. ie You are not getting the power that the settings would indicate.

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
ICS member
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 6:20 pm

 

Postby Kristin Winter » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:12 am

When looking for a twinkie, I ruled out all aircraft with the Robertson mod. I didn't care to pay the price in speed and I don't operate out of a tiny strip. I really think that Piper/Swearingen got it right the first time. The Vmc characteristics don't bug me as I learned to respect Vmc and don't find the Twinkie scary in that regard, unless you feel compelled to practice single engine stalls. I can resist any urge to do that.
Kristin
User avatar
Kristin Winter
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Northern California

 

Postby MULEFLY » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:39 am

Scott you may have flown a 260C with incorrect instrumentation too. I owned a B for 12 years... had it tuned like a concert piano... my 39 Robertson is tuned pretty darn good too... the 39 would leave the B in the dust.

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
ICS member
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:34 am
Location: Wisconsin

 

Postby MULEFLY » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:22 pm

Scott you may have flown a 260C with incorrect instrumentation too. I owned a B for 12 years... had it tuned like a concert piano... my 39 Robertson is tuned pretty darn good too... the 39 would leave the B in the dust.

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
ICS member
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:34 am
Location: Wisconsin

 

Postby Jay » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:18 pm

I wouldn't trust anything based on indicated airspeed. There is an awful lot of instrument variation out there.

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

Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
User avatar
Jay
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
  •  

 

Postby N8632Y » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:52 pm

Scott,
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
PA30-1773 N8632Y
User avatar
N8632Y
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: N14 South Jersey
  •  
  •  

Robertson STOL = slow me down

Postby SLIMDREDGER » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:02 pm

Jay: One more thing on the Robertson mod. I believe it accomodates ice better than the sharp nosed standard wing. Don't ask why I have that opinion.

AHP

SLIMDREDGER
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 6:20 pm

 

Postby Jay » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:03 pm

Al, I agree on the ice carrying, but "further deponent sayeth not."

We do have to remember that we still have the stock stab, and I worry about ice on that as much as on the wing.

Jay

Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
User avatar
Jay
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
  •  

Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down

Postby SLIMDREDGER » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:37 pm

Jay: I agree fully with your stabilator icing comment. I have also noted that my approach to flying around icing conditions is much more conservative than it used to be. A tail stall due to ice is something that I would not care to experience.

Warm regards, Al Powers ICS 2978

SLIMDREDGER
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 6:20 pm

 

Postby Jay » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:50 pm

Yep, same here. Brings to mind something about old pilots and bold pilots...

All the best,

Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
User avatar
Jay
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
  •  

 

Postby Kristin Winter » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:58 am

I wonder if a stabilator will stall in icing. I never ran into it in the Aztec, and never heard of anyone doing that. Not so some airplanes with a horizontal stabilizer/elevator combination.

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
User avatar
Kristin Winter
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Northern California

 

Postby Jay » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:14 pm

I've never heard of a stab stalling on a Comanche, but then, you probably wouldn't, if you know what I mean.

Ditto on the camera. Wouldn't be bad to show the main gear, either.

Jay

Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
User avatar
Jay
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
  •  

 

Postby Kristin Winter » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:43 pm

Jay,

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
User avatar
Kristin Winter
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Northern California

 

Postby Jay » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:45 pm

Yep, I talked to a guy who had a horizontal stabilizer stall in a P-Baron over Arizona or all places. I seem to recall he lost something like 6,000 feet recovering.

Jay

Jay
PA 30 N7702Y
User avatar
Jay
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

 

Postby Chris Kuyoth » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:58 am

Scott,

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
ICS member
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:20 pm

 

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:01 pm

Yes, the Robertson modified birds are slower. Depending on how straight the install, it could be 5 kts slower. Honestly, the Twins aren't that much faster than the singles if you really look at it, even in the books. As for believing ASI's for speed claims...hell half of them are indicating 30 kts sitting on the ramp! There are only two Comanches that I know are indicating the correct speeds, and one I'm not too sure of...if you get my drift. GPS ground speed 3 way or two way after finding the wind are the only real ways to verify your air data. Going for a flight and drag racing with another aircraft is valid for bragging rights but it doesn't verify anything as far as instrumentation accuracy. It will give you an idea where you stack up speed wise.

-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.

"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down

Postby Scott Ducey » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:12 pm

Zach - but I think my airplane is 10-12 knots slower than it should be. I talked to Dave Fitzgerald (who also has the same mod), and his conclusion was the same. This mod was put on in 1972. Thereafter, the owners threw on every speed mod that is out there, i suspect to offset the Robertson STOL drag.

Steve - maybe we can try your test down in the Bahamas this week.

Regards,

Scott Ducey

User avatar
Scott Ducey
ICS member
ICS member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 2:11 pm
  •  

 

Postby Zach Grant L1011jock » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:08 pm

Scott,
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
"Keep it above 5 feet and don't do nuthin dumb!"
User avatar
Zach Grant L1011jock
Technical Advisor
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: Indianapolis KEYE

Re: Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down

Postby James Oates » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:03 pm

I've been doing a lot of speed study lately, and with a 260C with the robertson STOL, I can't see more than between 1-2 knot loss over book across all power settings. Some power settings (around the 24 square space) appear to be right at book.
User avatar
James Oates
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:08 pm

Re: Robertson STOL = Slow Me Down

Postby MULEFLY » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:19 pm

James... I agree with you.. I think that there is a 2x2 matrix here that applies... you have No Roberston/Roberston on one axis... You have poorly rigged airplane/well rigged airplane on the other axis. I firmly believe that a well rigged, Robertson equipped airplane will be a poorly riggled, non-Roberston anyday of the week.

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
ICS member
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:34 am
Location: Wisconsin

   
Quote
Share: