I agree with you- I think it's a worthwhile investment, but it would certainly make the airplane more expensive so not everyone might agree. The wing structure would have to be revised, the builder's job gets more complicated, and the kit gets more expensive.

I think fixed slats are something of a curiosity. They really only "work" in niche airplanes whose mission includes both super STOL and very short range. Some of the reviews of the 701 compare it to helicopter-like performance if you have a strong enough headwind. I think that's a pretty good mindset to have for the airplane. It's very unique and fascinating to me (so are the 750 and 801).

Doug:

Thank you. I plan to demo one.

I agree and don’t want something that feels like a bucket of bolts.

KJ

I have mostly done wheel landings.
I figure I have done 3 point landings only around 50 times total, maybe only 40.
Yesterday I flew down to Pageland, SC. 3700 paved runway with good grass beside it.
I was hoping/guessing I could get my Citabria GCBC stopped in 350 feet. I stepped off distance between telephone poles and climbed in. My good friend Alex grabbed a can of red spray paint out of hangar.

Four tries.
Shortest landing 220-ish feet
Shortest take-off 255-ish feet

GCBC has 5 notches of flaps.
Full flaps for landing
3rd notch of flaps for take-off

PHUN PHUN

Brad:

Great STOL performance.

For comparison, what engine and what is a normal cruise speed?

KJ

Yes, just plain fun! I’ll recommend tailwheel training for everyone

I would have to say tailwheel landings are a bit harder though.

Maybe better put would be to say that tailwheel landings take more focus.
I have made darn near perfect wheel landings with 15mph+ crosswinds.

It’s those 7-10 mph crosswind landings where I forget I am flying a tailwheel that can get a bit embarrassing.

That’s great! As I said earlier, a light Explorer is a good little STOL plane as long as your respect it’s limits and don’t pretend it’s a super cub/carbon cub. I imagine you could still get another 20 or 30 percent reduction in those distances with a climb prop and 31in bushwheels (for the higher aoa) if you are willing to give up the speed.

yep
People like to say "back in the 1940's this is how everyone flew". The part they leave out is that they wrecked a whole lot of them back then too.

Lycoming O-320 engine
160 HP
Wheel pants currently off. Normal cruise around 115-120mph@2500 rpm
Sold Cirrus couple weeks ago so I moved Citabria into my T-hangar yesterday and plan on putting wheel pants back on which will make it a little phastR.

I was taking off/landing in the middle of the runway near my friends hangar so NUTHIN in the way to clear before my touchdown spot. Grass I would call really smooth and a hair high.

First landing was way better/shorter than I thought I would get.
second one....meh
Third one- dropped in what would have been hard, I quickly added power to arrest decent and touched down not so hard. With a little more experience I might be able to get 20ish% shorter landing with this technique but I left power full in and went around.

Slow progress mo bettR than bent metal

Fourth landing was shortest.

As someone posted earlier Citabria is NOT in the category of super short STOL.
Just me and about 1/2 fuel.

I figure hone my technique until a real STOL bird calls me name

Shortest takeoff: Full throttle while holding the brakes ( zero flaps). When the tail is up ( may not be possible on your bird) release the brakes. As soon as you feel like it will fly, pop in the flaps, and simultaneously rotate hard for takeoff. If your timing is right, it will fly right as the tail bangs the ground. Do not dump the flaps until you have accelerated, otherwise you will have an abrupt settling back to the ground. Timing is everything!
Shortest landing: slightly behind the power curve ( make all corrections with the rudder. Do not lift a wing with the ailerons!!). As soon as you plant the mains in a three point, dump the flaps. This will kill the lift completely, and give maximum braking power.
These techniques, when mastered, will shave another 25-50 feet off of your numbers.

Fast forward through the different classes as they ran at our Lonestar STOL event last spring here in Texas. You can see how the best of the best get the absolute most out of their planes.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/eq8CH43YHsQ[/youtube]

I just watched some of that video - incredible stuff. Do they ever set up the landings to simulate coming over the typical 50' obstacle? I noticed one of the shortest landings where the pilot flew just above the runway then touched down right at the line - amazing. The 50' obstacle would make it interesting.

Way to go Tony.

When the Texas STOL contest was held previously (2017-18), they did both "standard" and "50 foot obstacle" landings. They used a pair of 50' pylons, and observers in a "lift" aligned with the top of the pylons to determine if the pilot cleared the 50' obstacle, else they "DQ'ed"... And many of the pilots DQ'ed on both attempts.

It was really fun to watch the various techniques. One of the best was a Bearhawk LSA (no flaps) that cleared the obstacle, went into a HARD slip, and then landed quite short. I believe he wound up placing second in the LSA class, competing against a bunch of Carbon Cubs that cost 3-4 times as much... His two attempts (plus his practices) in both "standard" and "50-foot" contests were very consistent, which impressed me because of the variable conditions that day.

Some of the guys did much better on either the takeoff or the landing, but then DQ'ed by landing short or dropping back onto the runway after takeoff... In the real world, they might as well be rolling dice to determine whether they would survive or not...

I don't really care how short I can land my airplane once. I landed my RANS S-6ES in only about 10 ft into a howling headwind (had to go to almost cruise power to taxi into that wind!), but that was the wind, not me... I've gotten lucky and landed and stopped in about 100 ft once, when I had about a 15-knot headwind. But the only number I care about is my "consistent" landing distance, which is about 250 ft from the end of the runway to fully stopped, with calm wind. (The S-6, like many other RANS designs, takes off in less distance than it uses to land, so landing distance is the determinant factor.)

But getting back to the Texas STOL event from a couple of years ago... My very favorite "competitor" was the guy in an absolutely stock Champ (65 hp!) who flew each event with one of his grandchildren on board – a different kid for each event. He came nowhere near winning any of the prizes, but participated in every event, including the flour bombing contest. He definitely won the day, as far as I was concerned!

Sometimes we forget that we're supposed to be having fun out there...

I very much enjoy my Carbon Cub. It is capable of some very short landings and takeoffs. Most importantly it is fun to fly and the plane I go to when I have a spare hour or two. I can just hop in and off I go. Have flown most of the other planes mentioned and for me the CC was just more “fun” to fly. I agree that they are expensive for what they are, but the good news is that the re-sale market is strong so you tend not to lose much in depreciation.

Good luck and if you find yourself on the Colorado Front Range happy to take you for a spin.

But living next to places with massive super cub and 180/185 fly ins like I do, it now appears to be mostly practiced by severe clear weather Newbie hobbyists

Which is why we bought the super cruiser......so we can be one of them. [/quote]
yep
People like to say "back in the 1940's this is how everyone flew". The part they leave out is that they wrecked a whole lot of them back then too.[/quote]. Lots could repair them too.

Not old enough to have flown in the 1940’s but I can say much of my research shows that most landed on the local 40 acre farm field and always “into” the wind. The difficulty began in WWII and all the strips built for training around the US. The airport moved after the war from the ‘field” to the “airport” that had one/two runways. Lots of challenges created by the concrete and wind for the tail wheel.