In Sweden, outside built-up areas you just need the land owners permission to operate an aircraft. In built-up areas you also need permission from the police.
Early on in this thread Peter posted a picture of my King Katmai (STOL converted 182). This aircraft is not cheap but it ticks just about every box mentioned in this thread. It is a full 4 seater with a massive payload capability, 1000nm range, fully IFR, a heater that works brilliantly, lowered panel so you can see out the front, Garmin glass, leather interior making the best of a Cessna,
Wing extensions make it very stable in turbulent conditions, the canard wings drop the stall speed to 31 knots, the 300hP IO550 continental ( similar to a Cirrus) engine produces a 200ft take of run, landing in 350ft with practise, big wheels for landing in my soft short field at home. Cruises at 135 knots and 12.8 GPH at FL070 LOP. Cruises at 142knots and 18.5gph ROP. Parts are plentiful and not badly priced.
You can even fit a ballistic parachute if you want. With standard wheels the cruise speeds go up by 15 knots but I need the big wheels for my soft field.
Downside:
Old fashioned
Only up to 1980 airframes ( up to 182Q) can be modified this way. Continental engines shorter than Lycomings fitted after 1980.
Careful corrosion management required (mine is in a heated hangar).
I can now fly from my home in the Isle of Man to my business in NE England in exactly one hour. That is leaving my house to being in the office at work, one hour. Landing fees (voluntary contribution) £5 at Hexham Airstrip. Landing fees at home zero. If IFR weather then Carlisle £28.
In the past with my TB20GT based at Ronaldsway it took 2.5 hours from door to door. 40 minutes by car to the airport, one hour flight, 30 mins from Newcastle Airport to office. Landing fee at Newcastle £90, or Carlisle £28.
Longer flights say to Jersey or Guernsey are still quicker in the Katmai from home than my old TB. The differential in speed LOP is only 7 knots (my TB would cruise at 142knots and 10gph at around 7000ft as I recall) so you have to be going a very long way or have a very fast aircraft to compete with the Katmai from home.
The Katmai is worth the investment for my mission profile and I intend to keep the aircraft long term, in short it works for me.
I’m interested to hear of any other European Countries that allow you to land where you like (with owners permission). In the UK we have the Fling Farmers Association. This is a fantastically useful resource and have used several of these farm strips and met some fascinating people as well.
The Katmai is worth the investment for my mission profile and I intend to keep the aircraft long term, in short it works for me.
Right on man !
STOL Man might you share some real life stats on your typical field lengths, and whether you operate light or up to MAUW?
The Reims 182Q was corrosion proofed and may be the ideal base type for a Katmai?
Presumably the early 182 A through C can’t be modified?
With only a mild torturing of the statistics the 182 has a very good safety record. Current IFR pilots bring the fatality rate within shooting distance of 1 in 500,000 hours ( i.e. if you exclude 182 fatalities that involve non rated or non current pilots in VMC into IMC fatal accidents). With airbags and/or BRS you might be getting closer, for all practical purposes, to Class A safety in a GA aircraft that has reasonable load carrying and range utility.
I am assuming the Katmai, or Wren as it was originally called (without the engine upgrade), with the air bags STC could pull off the Antonov AN2 trick of a controlled crash with similar G impact to landing with a parachute?
I think STOLman is definitely on the right track for a “future-proof” UK/Euro tourer….because the future is Green…as in grass runways….as all the useful GA airports are gradually converted to housing / industrial estates….
… which is true only and exclusively in UK…
And even then it is very hard to find more than 1 pilot willing to stick his hands in his pocket 
One could do a great deal in terms of creating grass airfields, if a few people got together. For example it costs about €100k to install 800m x 20m of the “covert” plastic mesh reinforcement and then you have a runway good enough for any reasonable piston aircraft (maybe a 421C would damage it). But good luck getting that sort of money together…
I have looked very closely at such a project and it isn’t easy. Certainly not in the south east UK where the problem is worst.
Happy to share some stats here about the Katmai and its operation.
Firstly, there is everything you need to know about the aircraft at http://www.katmai-260SE.com
My field is 1430ft long with a road at one end and a track at the other. Consequently, the obstacles at each end reduce the usable landing distance to around 800ft. Look on Google Earth at 54 19 31N 004 26 29W and you will see the strip. Landing is challenging, take off is simple even at MTOW. Landing, more later.
The Katmai was the only plane I could find that would operate from this field, with 4 people, bags and 92 USG of fuel giving a really good range. When I was looking for a STOL aircraft nothing came near to this ability. I often take off from the field two up, loads of bags and all 4 tanks full, that’s 114USG. No problem at all even in no wind conditions. With 300hP to use its well on top of the job even with the Gross Weight increase STC at MTOW.
I went to Kansas and tried Todd Peterson’s own Katmai. I was hooked, had to have one. His party trick is to taxi to the numbers at the end of the runway, then does not turn round, just takes off the wrong way. Amazing. Another interesting ability is to do a rate one turn at 40 knots. The turning circle is so tight (because you are going slow) it’s another safety feature if you are mountain flying and find yourself up a blind valley.
The aircraft can do this largely because of the Canard Wing. I believe all early C182’s can have the Canard Wing, that’s A through to Q and presumably the Wren 182’s. There is a very good video on the Katmai website explaining what the Canard does however, I’ll try to explain here. Only the Continental engined airframes can have the Canard, that’s up to 182Q. After that model Lycoming engines were fitted which added 1.5 ft to the length of the engine bay pushing forward the Canard by the same amount. This ruined the aerodynamics and made the Canard ineffective. So, on the shorter airframe the Canard becomes a lifting surface below 60 knots. Above 60 knots it does nothing. Standard 182’s are nose heavy and a bit story to fly being heavy in pitch control. With the Canard, it’s like power steering, everything become light, the extra weight taken off the nose reduces the work the tail has to do, suddenly everything is lighter and less stressed. Furthermore, weight is kept off the front wheel when landing so you can land on rougher surfaces without damaging the front end or banging up the firewall.
When I spec’d up my Katmai I really went to town. Firstly, I needed a doner airframe so Todd Peterson found me one in a heated hangar in Minnesota with 700 hours from new. It was a1979 C182Q, with long range tanks (92 USG), 24V electrics and wet wing fuel tanks (did not want bladder tanks). With an annual the airframe cost $110,000. Today, you can buy them for $80,000 or less.
The following was fitted to convert this airframe to a King Katmai:
Wing extensions
Flint wing tip tanks (12 USG per side)
Wing tip lights (LED)
Old engine out, IO550D in (300HP)
Three blade Hartzell prop
Canard Wings
Aerodynamic cleanup
Updates heavy duty running gear
Big brakes
Tundra tyres
Lowered cowl
Full new paint job
New interior including leather seats
Extended baggage compartment
Increased MTOW
GAMI injectors
Cost for this lot $180k approx
Avionics:
2 GNS430WAAS units
Garmin G500 with IFR Charts and synthetic vision
STec 55X autopilot
Garmin GTX330ES with ADS-B out
ADF, DME
EDM700
Fuel computer JPI
406Mh ELT
Cost of that $110K
Total: $400K
Yes, I know, I could have had a nearly new modern plane, Cirrus etc. but, they cannot land in my field. The cost spread over 10 years rests well for me so it works for me.
Final comment:
Landing the Katmai in short distances takes a bit of training and a lot of practise. Best results are achieved when you are just behind the power curve, but only just. This allows a chop in the throttle to give instant descent, useful to land exactly. Strangely, a long final is difficult. Turning in with a really short final seems easier. Landing normally at 50 knots, 45 if really short. And, this is the point about a parachute. I discussed fitting a chute with Todd Peterson and his view is, if the wing fall off or a mid air collision them the chute could save you. However, engine failure is different. Able to stall into a field at 30 knots gives you a really good chance of survival particularly as you can steer the plane at these very slow speeds to avoid things. One you pull the chute you have no control. I took the point and did not fit the chute.
Landing normally at 50 knots, 45 if really short.
Why, if stall comes at 31? I assume you mean “short final spped”, not landing speed…
One you pull the chute you have no control.
I’m not an advocate of the BRS, but it’s main advantage is when the flight controls are damaged and all control is lost. No steering the plane in that scenario.
