Page 2 of 3

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 3:07 pm
by c170b53
I would guess 9 gal/hr would be your real world numbers for the engine conversion. Sketchy might describe paperwork from the late 60's early 70's STC's, so hopefully you can sorting through it,

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:58 pm
by flyingredyeti
Thanks Jim. Maybe I'll post some performance data on here once I've put some time on her.

-joshua

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:09 pm
by swixtt
That is similar to what i'm seeing for fuel burn too. i do see lower when i'm just cruising around which of course my FS450 is very handy for. i programmed mine to work with 37gal.

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:37 pm
by c170b53
175 wings will fix that

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:27 pm
by flyingredyeti
Thanks Swixtt. Jim, how so?

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:42 pm
by swixtt
Or the 15gal stc from Chris.
I have the Bush stol kit on my 170sb

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:45 pm
by bagarre
swixtt wrote:Or the 15gal stc from Chris.
15gal stc from Chris? Is that Del Air or is there another option out there?
I have approval for 175 wings but they are tricky to come by in good condition (not attached to a 175).
So, repairing my wings with bigger tanks is still being explored.

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:48 pm
by flyingredyeti
swixtt wrote:Or the 15gal stc from Chris.
I have the Bush stol kit on my 170sb
Swixtt, you're referring to the STC which allow a 7.5 gallon addition to be welded to each stock tank, correct? If so, that seems to me the best option as far as stability is concerned.

-joshua

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:32 am
by ghostflyer
So what basis you make your qualification statement on regarding it being the most stable with the 7.5 gals cap welded on to the existing tanks ? Wouldn't the role the 170 is going to serve have some influence on selection . It's a shame that you never talked with Harry Delicker . As a lot of other members will attest to he was the expert in this area .

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:02 am
by bagarre
flyingredyeti wrote:That's a possibility. Although, the pilot was able to float her in between 42 -45mph with no stall horn enunciation. On the other hand, given that the density altitude on that warm, Colorado day was 8500', the likelihood of these performance numbers being accurate is suspect.

Can any of you with experience with this configuration offer me some hard numbers here? I'm curious to hear your take on both stall speed & rotation speed.

One aside, what does the Horton leading edge look like? Is it as conspicuous as the Sportsman STOL, or does it rest more discreetly on the leading edge?

Thanks
What's your basis of approval for those strut fairings on your 170?
I'm curious if there is an STC for those or if you had to get a 337 field approval as they are not original to the aircraft.

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:43 am
by wingnut
Aryana wrote:
bagarre wrote: What's your basis of approval for those strut fairings on your 170?
I'm curious if there is an STC for those or if you had to get a 337 field approval as they are not original to the aircraft.
We need a popcorn eating emoji added to the forum.
popcrn.gif
Subscribed...
:lol: I'm not a popcorn eater, but I just threw some in the microwave

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:56 am
by flyingredyeti
ghostflyer wrote:So what basis you make your qualification statement on regarding it being the most stable with the 7.5 gals cap welded on to the existing tanks ? Wouldn't the role the 170 is going to serve have some influence on selection . It's a shame that you never talked with Harry Delicker . As a lot of other members will attest to he was the expert in this area .
I'm not stating facts here, I said: "...it seems to me". That = an impression. I haven't researched the project, and have nothing vested in this data.

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:16 am
by flyingredyeti
bagarre wrote:
flyingredyeti wrote:That's a possibility. Although, the pilot was able to float her in between 42 -45mph with no stall horn enunciation. On the other hand, given that the density altitude on that warm, Colorado day was 8500', the likelihood of these performance numbers being accurate is suspect.

Can any of you with experience with this configuration offer me some hard numbers here? I'm curious to hear your take on both stall speed & rotation speed.

One aside, what does the Horton leading edge look like? Is it as conspicuous as the Sportsman STOL, or does it rest more discreetly on the leading edge?

Thanks
What's your basis of approval for those strut fairings on your 170?
I'm curious if there is an STC for those or if you had to get a 337 field approval as they are not original to the aircraft.
That's actually a fair question David. I wasn't aware they weren't original. To be honest, I don't know the basis of approval, as I am not the person who restored this bird, nor have I taken possession of her yet. I would have to research the FAA records I have on her, and possibly contact the majority owners.

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:10 pm
by bagarre
While you're checking, verify you have an entry for rebalancing the control surfaces after being painted.
Your opening post stated that you were a partial owner and have already flown the aircraft.
How did you do that? As an owner operator, it's your responsibility to ensure the aircraft is airworthy. You didn't verify all modifications were safe and legal before operating that aircraft?

Re: Horton STOL performance

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:17 pm
by flyingredyeti
In fact I did check the STCs, ADs, 337s, and logs before flying it David. The fact that I overlooked the strut fairings simply illustrates that I am new to the 170, and is the first piece of useful information you have provided in any of your responses to my posts. So, thanks for that tidbit.