Couldn't a WW2 STOL do the same?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The aircraft used for that stunt is a Cubcrafters Carbon Cub UL (Ultra Light), which is based on the Piper J-3 Cub, which, during WWII, was the L-4 Grasshopper.

The J-3/L-4 is a very easy plane to land/take-off in an STOL fashion and with a good head-wind, might be able to do something comparable to that Red Bull stunt.
 
Both the L-4 and Fi-156 use expander tube brakes....Not a chance they could do it without tremendous headwinds at the time of landing. Adding the balloon tires and braking capability would be almost zero. If you look at the a/c used, it's got big disk brakes, and they ran very low tire pressures.
 
There were several WW II aircraft that could descend vertically IF they had enough head wind.
Not something you can plan on.

Fi167_f-300x249.jpg

Legend says "During a test flight, Gerhard Fieseler himself let the plane drop from 3,050 to 30 metres (10,000 to 100 ft) while staying above the same ground point."

Now define staying above the same ground point.
Also remember that this plane had a wing span just over 44ft so there isn't much room for error.
 
Meanwhile in the USA, Stinson produced the O-49 (L-1) which emulated the Storch. Also check ( I don't have a link) the annual bush pilot's short field takeoff & landing competition.
 
There were several WW II aircraft that could descend vertically IF they had enough head wind.
Not something you can plan on.

View attachment 711641
Legend says "During a test flight, Gerhard Fieseler himself let the plane drop from 3,050 to 30 metres (10,000 to 100 ft) while staying above the same ground point."

Now define staying above the same ground point.
Also remember that this plane had a wing span just over 44ft so there isn't much room for error.
Its performance suggests that, like the Fairey Swordfish, it was expected to operate in very bad North Atlantic conditions. With a high deck wind speed a Swordfish could fly over the stern and settle down further on by closing the throttle. With a deck speed (ie carrier speed plus wind speed) of 30 knots they would be approaching at only 10 knots faster so moving over the deck at a modest bicycle's pace. In principle, were the deck speed higher than 40 knots (not at all impossible), then it could land backwards ie letting the carrier overtake it slowly and settle down when it was underneath. Of course the amplitude and frequency of the heave of the vessel is a key matter. Having several thousands of tons of carrier hit you from underneath is not going to be an altogether good thing. Not to mention the pitch at either end. There are good reasons why some peacetime carrier operations resulted in wartime levels of aeroplane losses and damage in bad weather. There is much more to it than just a small runway. If you can find the runway. Which has a habit of moving around the ocean at it's own whim and may not be pointing in the desired direction when you do find it.
 
Meanwhile in the USA, Stinson produced the O-49 (L-1) which emulated the Storch. Also check ( I don't have a link) the annual bush pilot's short field takeoff & landing competition.
You might be thinking of this? Its a pretty wild event.


Kk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back