Talk:List of STOL aircraft

This list
Based on that fact that we had a previous consensus that this same list should not be part of the STOL article, I am not sure that it should exist as a separate article or that any of the problems that existed when it was part of STOL have changed. Already there are aircraft that don't meet the STOL definition on this list and soon aircraft like the B-737 and C-17 will probably be added by fans. As can be seen on the Talk:STOL page a complete list of aircraft that do meet the definition will be very, very long and include almost all light aircraft. Given the name of the article as "List of STOL aircraft" and not "List of STOL fixed wing aircraft" I don't see how it can arbitrarily keep off helicopters, gyroplanes, balloons and other types, which are all STOL aircraft, by the definition. I think this is the proverbial "can of worms". I would like to hear from other editors about whether this list serves any purpose or should be deleted, redirected or merged. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous consensus. Too many varying definitions of STOL, despite the referenced definition at STOL. To most editors, "STOL" equals "short-field", which usually just means shorter than most airport runways. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only will this list (if it is kept) need a tight, consistant, definition of STOL, it will also need to be referenced - currently I notice a complete lack of sourcing - particularly as aircraft article do not generally include take-off and landing distances.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nigel: That is a very good point, list articles are not exempt WP:V. I have tagged it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article creator seems determined to keep items in here when they do not meet the definition of STOL given in the document - then the article should be Deleted - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Ish (talk • contribs)


 * That's the funny thing about consensus, it can be change to fit new facts. IE the Earth was flat, the new consensus is that it is round, Someday it may be that it is a flat disk riding on the heads of four elephants riding the back of a giant turtle soaring thru space.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that is why I didn't stand on the previous consensus on the matter, but we are working on a new one here on this specific article. So far we have three in favour of deletion and one for keeping it. I'll let it run a few days and see what others think and then we can either keep it and work on improving it or go to AfD, depending on what the consensus is at that time. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure this list is really needed when we have a category, but before it goes for deletion disucssion can we add the Wright Flyer certainly short take off run, not sure about the 50 feet! MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wright flyer has a ceiling given of "30 ft" - so guess not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a pretty good ref for take-off and landing distances and have added a few Cessnas from the list, but there are many hundreds more I could add, all light aircraft. As MB1 points out all pioneering aircraft can be added, along with almost everything built before 1930 or so, all balloons, airships, helicopters, gyroplanes, etc. I am really not sure the resulting list would be of any value when it was done, which is really the conclusion we came to last time. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I say delete it. It would have to be very tightly defined, and at the least renamed "fixed-wing STOL". Even then, I don't know how much good this list does.... like others have said, basically every light aircraft meets this definition. -SidewinderX (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for short term at least to see how we can develop/maintain the article. We have a strict definition to work to as given in the introduction and we require references (I added the Pioneer with ref, but held back with the Gugnunc because I couldn't find a ref) We can also do a bit more with a list than we can with a category eg adding the year of flight. This puts the aircraft in a historical perspective. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the subject of content - perhaps it would be worth noting that VTOL aircraft/rotorcraft are not required in this list.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that VTOL aircraft meet the DOD/NATO definition, which is the only ref we have for inclusion. I don't see how we can just set aside the ref as that makes the list arbitrary and non-encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that this is a list of aircraft that are only STOL, and there is a list of VTOL aircraft (that list explicitly has helicopters excluded) I see no problem so long as the criteria are clear. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but what do we do with V/STOL aircraft like the CL-84, which is on this list right now? It can hover, but at certain weights was STOL and not VTOL? - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) So far we have four to delete and two to keep. I don't think that is clear enough to delete/redirect the list at this point in time, so let's keep it going for now and see what others say. In the meantime to prevent the inevitable fancruft "I once landed a C-130 in 1499 feet and therefore it should be on this list" sort of problem I suggest we comply with the policies at WP:V and WP:RS. To that end I will try to source the aircraft on the list, but unsourced right now, and once I have run through the list we can remove any unsourced leftovers. I think this is the only way to prevent this becoming a fancruft mess, like last time. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. If we end up with every item on the list sourced, this might end up being the "best" list on WP... All that aside, can we include the C-130 "Carrier-Edition" ? :D -SidewinderX (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Every aircraft that operates from a carrier is STOL (plus or minus catapults and arrester hooks) or else it falls in the water!! On a more serious note, I agree - let's source the aircraft on the list and remove the rest. I have some good refs and will get at this later on today. If anyone has good refs, particularly Janes, please do jump in! If we are going to keep this list then it should meet policies. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can the C-130 make 50 feet after a carrier take-off more probably goes below the level of the flightdeck! MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it took off with a gross weight of 121,000 lb, and was able to take off in 745 ft with a "maximum" payload. According to this article, the Navy determined a C-130 could carry 25,000 lb of cargo with a range of 2,500 mi in it's COD role. Not too shabby! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the carrier heading into the wind and at what speed? That's different to taking off from the ground and not necessarily representative of the rest of them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, I'm not suggesting that we include it on this basis, just joking around with an interesting case. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft removed
It's probably worth keeping a list of aircraft removed because they don't meet the requirements, and why, so people won't keep adding them.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aeritalia G.222 - 1000 m take-off to 50 ft, 775 m landing from 50 ft - Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988-89, p.144


 * Persistent aren't you?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the G.222 article?--71.246.30.208 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the lead paragraph of the G.222 article:

"The Aeritalia G.222 (formerly Fiat Aviazione, now Alenia) is a medium-sized STOL military transport aircraft. It was developed to meet a NATO specification, but Italy was initially the only NATO member to adopt the type. The United States purchased a small number of G.222s, designating them the C-27A Spartan.    The C-27J Spartan is a more modern development with the engines and systems of the C-130J Super Hercules." You will see that the G.222 is a STOL aircraft. So I will reinstate it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As seen from the reference - the G.222 DOES NOT meet the definition of STOL aircraft givin in the introduction to the list - therefore it should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also removed the two C-130s on the list. The manufacturer's website shows that the latest and more powerful "J" model can make 1500 ft on take-off and landing but only at a reduced weight and not over the required 50 ft obstacle. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are working to some other definition of STOL then that needs to be defined, but I have provided the DOD and NATO definition along with a ref and the G222 doesn't make it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed Bombardier Dash 8 - this was specifically designed as a non-STOL aircraft and doesn't even come close - Ahunt (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you have put the 222 back in, even though we have a ref that says it doesn't make the definition. I have removed it again, please don't put it back in without a ref that is more authoritative than Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Dash-7 as its standard take-off distance is 689 m and landing distance is 594 m and those are ground rolls, not to 50 feet! I realize this is ironic as the Dash-7 was designed as a "Quite STOL airliner", but it doesn't make the definition. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The following aircraft have been shown to not belong on this list and have been removed:
 * Let 410 - manufacturers data
 * Cessna 208 - manufacturer's data
 * De Havilland Canada DHC-5 Buffalo - manufacturer's data from brochure shows at gross weight take-off and landing are 2100 ft
 * Gippsland GA8 - manufacturer's data
 * Quest Kodiak - Flying mag data

- Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More removed:
 * Harbin Y-11 and Harbin Y-12 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1993-94, pp 49-51
 * An-72 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1993-94, p371
 * Do 228 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988, p89

Nigel Ish (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I have provided refs for all I can find and tagged all I can't. I suggest we give it a few days for others to find the missing specs and then remove any unreferenced aircraft. I will add a hidden comment to the list as well about refs. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now exhausted my few refs that give take-off and landing data to 50 feet. So, as indicated above, let's wait a few days for more refs to appear and then clean up the unref listings. If an aircraft is removed and then a ref appears it can be re-added anytime. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the An-72 was taken off the list. The collaborators on this article may be using a cutoff, but does it factor in 1) technology and 2) payload? The Antonov An-72 and the Boeing YC-14 prototype used a novel engine mount to maximize the amount of lift that could be extracted from the Coanda effect -- not mere blown flap aerodynamics, but an upper-surface blowing (USB) configuration. This is all oriented toward STOL, whether it broke any records or not. A.k.a. (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ref cited showed that the AN-72 didn't meet the NATO definition of STOL, which is what we were using at that point in history of the article. Since then the number of definitions has proliferated. It can be put back in if you have a ref that shows that it meets one definition or another, or was marketed as STOL. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Iffy" Aircraft
I hate to get something like this started, but I was trying to help out with the cites here (or at least trying to whittle the list down). I looked up the IAI Arava on Janes. The 201 variant "STOL T-O run" is listed as 963 ft, but the 202 variant's "STOL T-O to 50ft" is listed at 1,520 ft, which is just outside of the definition we have. (the 201 doesn't have a T-O to 50ft spec listed.) This raises a couple questions. Thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, what do we do when you have several variants of an aircraft, where some meet the definition and some don't?
 * Second, what do you do when the spec quoted in the source is *just* outside of the range, and it's not a manufacturer? If we can get a manufacturer spec, I'd trust that, but a third party, like Jane's, might not be quite right (esp. when it's this close!). Note: I'm looking for a general response to this, not specific to this example. I have access to a Jane's subscription, which I use for background, but I don't like citing it because it's not easily verifiable.


 * No problem: close is not good enough - it is "in" or "out"! I have found a couple of aircraft, like the Comanche and the Cherokee Six where some variants are inside the definition and some are outside - just specify the variant, though a piped link if need be! Janes gets their specs from the manufacturer, so they are usually as good as the manufacturer. I would take the specs you have, but give greater weight to Janes or manufacturer specs if there is a conflict. Again check the variants, though, because if two sets of data conflict they may be different models or engines! - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This ref was from Jane's, but I got it from the subscriber's section. I usually don't like citing those, as it's tough to verify. -SidewinderX (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are allowed, but, of course, a more available ref is better if available! - Ahunt (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How many ?
I have added a few from Brassey's directory but it lists loads of light aircraft with take-off and landing distances that meet the criteria I think if I add them all the list will be pretty meaningless, have you seen how many fixed wing microlights dont need a lot of room to fly! Perhaps time to think of what this list is trying to show. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that was kind of the point of the discussion above and also the previous decision over at STOL to do away with this list in that article in the first place. A totally complete list of all aircraft that qualify would have probably 10,000 designs on it, including all ultralights, most light aircraft, all pioneer aircraft, all biplanes and so on. Right now the list includes properly qualified aircraft that no one considers STOL, like the C-172 and Grumman Traveler, while it excludes aircraft most would consider STOL, like the Dash-7 Quiet STOL airliner and DHC-5 Buffalo, because they don't qualify as STOL under the DOD/NATO definition. Of course if we had a different definition than the DOD/NATO one that would change the whole list, but as we have discussed before that is the only properly sourced definition anyone has found. Of course it is hard to justify putting STOL aircraft like the DHC-5 Buffalo or Dash-7 on a list of STOL aircraft and excluding non-STOL aircraft like the C-172, when the 172 takes off and lands in less runway than the STOL aircraft do! I am not convinced that the list is encyclopedic or in fact serves any useful purpose at all. I thought perhaps if we got it properly referenced and in accordance with policies like WP:V that we could all have a long, hard look at the result and take another straw poll at that point, to see if it is worth keeping. If nothing else it will be well-referenced and free of fancruft! - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK understood, not sure I want to add any more aircraft to the list even though I have references as we have lots of other far more important stuff to do! MilborneOne (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I put in a lot of time on the article the last couple of days. I hate it all ending up as "deleted edits". - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And now that you have referenced the heck out of just this list, can you add references to all the other aviation lists (ie VTOLs, gyrosopters, helicopters, etc) that are unreferenced. Or, is it just your agenda to delete this article because YOU don't think that it is necessary?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, as I stated above, my intention is to make sure that this list complies with policies and then see what the consensus is about keeping it or not from the total number of editors working on this list. Policies are policies, but my opinion is only one of many on the future of this article. Whether it stays or goes it should at least meet the quality standards for Wikipedia and then it can stand or fall on its merits and not because it is unreferenced and full of fancruft and other distractions. As far as those other lists you mention, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice, Other stuff exists apparently allows you to disregard your own reasoning for this article. How convenient for you.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. All it indicates is that you can't use the fact that there are other crappy articles to justify starting another crappy article. Ideally all articles would be on encyclopedic topics and properly referenced. As of today there are 3,119,387 Wikipedia articles in English. Probably half of them have issues that need fixing, such as poor refs, incomplete topic coverage, POV or COI problems, etc. I can't personally fix them all, but I am working on fixing this one today, along with a few others. Just for the record I am not trying to have this article deleted, if I was I won't put so much time into fixing it up, I would just AfD it, which is a lot less work. I, along with several other editors, are making it as good as it can be within the topic limitations and then we'll see what everyone says, you included. I am happy to abide by the consensus of editors, because collectively were are all wiser than any one of us. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on the referencing it was mentioned that VTOL, helicopters etc were not referenced but just to note most of these are listing the obvious a list of helicopters or even VTOL is unlikely to be challenged but STOL is a bit of grey area it is not obvious on first glance what is STOL. I suspect the list includes some aircraft (like Beech Bonanaza) that even long time aviation contributers here would have questioned that they were STOL. So work with us and see how it goes. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like picking and choosing.--71.246.30.208 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, with now 3,119,813 articles to work on, yes you have to "pick and choose" which ones to work on. There isn't time to work on all of them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

T/O table
Would it help if we added the Take-Off distance and Landing distances in a table to try and add some value into the article:

Any thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be helpful, but it would have to specify the definition we are working to:


 * - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the refs dont explicity mention the 50 ft do we need to note that, for example is it original research to say that a TO distance of 150ft is going to make that height a thousand odd feet later? MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we need to only use data that shows that the aircraft makes defined parameter. I have mountains of books that show take and landing roll, but not 50 foot distances. We can't assume that just because an aircraft can lift off in say 1000 feet that it can clear a 50 foot obstacle in 1500 feet - maybe it can and maybe it can't, but as you note that would be OR if the ref doesn't say that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to go back and check if some of my additions are not OR !! MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the challenges is that a lot of early aircraft, including those certified to early CAR3 standards like the J-3 Cub, have never been tested for their 50 ft distances, so there is no data. This measurement wasn't required to be done as part of certification until later CAR3 and FAR 23. The same goes for many homebuilts and ultralights. Janes publishes the 50 ft distances when the manufacturer gives them to them, but often the manufacturer doesn't have the data themselves. In these cases I think it is pretty clear that there is no data with which to include them on this list. They might qualify or they might not. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Visually, in my opinion, it's a terrible table with all those gaps. I would wait until you are confident you can fill 50% of the gaps. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well let's see what I can do to fill some in. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have completed what I have here. I think the table looks a bit better now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your hard work on that, looks a lot better and I think a more usable page. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is certainly more useful to potential readers in table form. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the table is sortable, but because of mixed numbers and text is sorting the distances incorrectly? "Columns containing mixed data will be sorted alphabetically." Maybe the units, ft or meters, should be included in the column heading?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.215.113 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Unref entries
I have removed the following aircraft that were on the list here to the talk page because they are unreferenced. If refs can be found then they can be moved back to the list. This also allows removing the ref improve tag from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aero A.200 - no aircraft entry found in Janes
 * Aero L-60 Brigadýr - no aircraft entry found in Janes
 * Aeronca Sedan - no data found in Janes
 * Antonov An-2 - no data found in Janes
 * Antonov An-3
 * Antonov An-28 - data found, aircraft moved to article
 * Auster AOP.9 - data found, aircraft moved to article
 * Barrows Bearhawk - no data found in Janes
 * Boeing YC-14 - no data found in Janes, but the ground rolls make it unlikely that this aircraft qualifies
 * Breguet 941 - no data found in Janes
 * C-123 Provider - no data found in Janes
 * Conroy Stolifter - no data found in Janes
 * De Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou
 * Dornier Do 27 - data found, aircraft moved to article
 * Fairchild F-11 Husky - no data found in Janes
 * Fieseler Fi 156 - no data found in Janes
 * Fieseler Fi 167 - no aircraft entry found in Janes
 * Fisher Horizon - no data found in Janes
 * Helio Twin Courier
 * Heston JC.6
 * IAI Arava - data found, aircraft moved to article
 * Messerschmitt Bf 163 - no data found in Janes
 * Murphy Rebel
 * Myasishchev M-101T
 * PZL M28
 * PZL-101 Gawron - no data found in Janes
 * PZL.19
 * PZL.26
 * Piper J-3
 * Praga BH-111
 * Roe I Triplane
 * RWD-6
 * RWD-7
 * RWD-9
 * RWD-18
 * Sukhoi Su-80
 * Technoavia SM92 Finist
 * YC-125 Raider
 * Yakovlev Yak-12 - no data found in Janes
 * Zenith STOL CH 801 - data found, aircraft moved to article

Since you removed all these aircraft, would you please be kind enough to edit their articles and remove and STOL inferences?--71.246.30.208 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that these aircraft do not meet the definition (unlike say the Cessna 208, which the manufacturer provides data that shows that it doesn't) or that they do. They are just missing refs that show that they do, as per WP:V. The other consideration is that even if they don't meet the definition, many manufacturers may use the term "STOL" as a marketing term for the aircraft, which is one of the problems that clouds the whole issue. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I suspect that the Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer and the Helio Twin Courier as twin engineed developments of aircraft that are on the list (supported by refs) do meet the STOL criteria, but so far I have not found a ref to support that. I have found articles that refer to them as STOL but not specific to the definition we are using for this list. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A good example of the marketing use of the term STOL is the Fisher Horizon 1. The manufacturer markets the aircraft as "STOL", saying: "The Horizon provides true STOL performance, good slow speed stability and a startling climb rate." They don't define STOL or give any data to show that it is STOL, other than "Take-off Run 250-500’" and "Landing Roll 250-350’". Lots of manufacturers use the term "STOL" the way others use the term "Sporty" - undefined and just a means of selling aircraft. As we have seen in examples here, just because a manufacturer tags an aircraft as "STOL" doesn't mean it meets the DOD/NATO definition. At least to Cessna's credit they don't use the term "STOL" to describe any of their aircraft, least of all the 208. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yesterday afternoon I managed to get downtown to our city central library where the almost complete collection of Janes All The Worlds Aircraft are kept and tried to track down many of the aircraft on the list above. One thing I did discover is that the 50 ft take-off and landing data was often not collected on aircraft and is not included, even in Janes, for certain types. Janes seems to have published it when the manufacturer was able to provide it. Due to this limitation it is very likely that many aircraft built before the 1960s, like the J-3 Cub, will not have this data available, because it wasn't required for certification and therefore we have no basis for including these aircraft on the list. As a consequence I shall update the article and also update the list above to indicate the most current information that I have found and therefore what is lacking. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately (!) taking away the most famous of them all, the Fieseler Stork, is just travesty. All under the banner of "improvement", guess that´s how "wikipedia" rolls these days. 89.204.139.221 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. BTW, all my (English-language) sources call it the Storch so I have gone with that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

First Flight
Not sure what first flight has to do with STOL? MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit of context, as opposed to the straight alphabetical listing. One could also add country of origin (no flags!). Next stop wikitable sortable? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the sortable idea! no flags !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition conundrum
Graeme has just pointed out that we have a real definition conundrum with this article. We have two refs for the definition of STOL and I mistakenly thought they agreed, but they don't.

The first is the US DOD/NATO definition, which says:

"short takeoff and landing: The ability of an aircraft to clear a 50-foot (15 meters) obstacle within 1,500 feet (450 meters) of commencing takeoff or in landing, to stop within 1,500 feet (450 meters) after passing over a 50-foot (15 meters) obstacle. Also called STOL."

and the second is from Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 492. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2, which says:

"STOL (Short Take0f`f and Landing). STOL performance of an aircraft is the ability of aircraft to take off and clear a 50-foot obstruction in a distance of 1,500 feet from beginning the takeoff run. It must also be able to stop within 1,500 feet after crossing a 50-foot obstacle on landing."

Graeme has emphasized that the DOD/NATO definition says "or", which means that an aircraft that can land over a 50 ft obstacle in 500 feet but takes 5000 feet to take off is a STOL aircraft. The Crane definition clearly says it must both takeoff and land over a 50 ft obstacle in under 1500 ft or it is not STOL. I submit that the DOD/NATO definition is self-contradictory, since it specifies that the term STOL means "short takeoff and landing", but then defines it as short takeoff or landing.

I have no idea what we do with this problem. All I can suggest it discarding the DOD/NATO definition as lacking credibility, since it contradicts itself. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill Gunston's Jane's Aerospace Dictionary says Usually defined as able to take-off or land over 50ft screen within a total distance of 1500ft MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting complex isn't it. Though a very long take off and a very short landing would meet the DOD/NATO spec what sort of aircraft design would manage one but not the other so it may be the case that the military definition takes into account the obvious that high performance in one is probably matched in the other. Looking at the Bregeut 941 in the Flight archives I see reference to Project Hummingbird and the NMBR-4 requirements. Anyone got anyhting on either of these? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually think the DOD definition is trying to indicate that it must meet both, but it is such a bad piece of military writing that it is very unclear. If this wasn't case the the term would be "short takeoff or landing", which it isn't. That sort of performance isn't of much value in a military context, i.e. "We can land okay, but not take-off again." At least since the days of glider assaults it hasn't been of much focus. I think we need to come up with some sort of consensus on what to do here or else we are stuck with two contradictory definitions, which for me means that the list makes no sense and therefore the topic is inherently non-encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How much will adopting the either/or approach affect the article? So far we have only two extra aircraft (I think there's something somewhere on the Bregeut but its eluding me). I notice also the DOD/NATO doesn't specify a weight limit. We are not in the position to discount the ref because we don't like what it says (that it's more inclusive than the other one). I have found a source for 1,000 ft or in an article on V/STOL that 500 ft could be considered the limit but no other well sourced definitions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * F-100_zero-length-launch_trial.jpg I don't find it more inclusive, I find it self-contradictory. There is also much implied in the definitions which isn't stated but should have been. Aircraft should meet the definition distance at sea level on a standard day at max gross take-off weight, zero wind and without ancillary devices, like vertical decent parachutes, arrestor gear or catapults, but none of the definitions explicitly say that. Almost any aircraft can clear a 50 obstacle in 1500 feet when empty, with a minimum fuel load, in a 40 knot wind, at a DA well below sea level, with extra RATO attached.


 * I was hoping that this iteration of this list would survive by use of a clear definition and the requirement for solid refs and even listings of the take-off and landing distances. Back when it was part of the STOL article it was constantly filled up with fanboy stuff (even the B737!!) that we ended up having to get rid of the list as of no value and a target for constant abuse. Policing it was a full-time job. I would hate to see that happen again here because of weak and conflicting definitions, but we are on that road again. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, whatever is decided here needs to be consistant over at STOL, which lists the "or" definition ATM. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, quite true. - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I recently found a third official and well sourced definition of STOL that is used by both Transport Canada and the Arizona Department of Transportation:

"An aircraft that, at some weight within its approved operating weight, is capable of operating from a STOL runway in compliance with the applicable STOL characteristics and airworthiness, operations, noise, and pollution standards."

In many ways this definition is even worse than the DOD/NATO definition, because it relies on the designation of "STOL runways". Fortunately the US DOT defines both STOL aircraft and STOL Runway, although this adds a fourth official definition of STOL:

"A STOL aircraft is an aircraft with a certified performance capability to execute approaches along a glideslope of 6 degrees or steeper and to execute missed approaches at a climb gradient sufficient to clear a 15:1 missed approach surface at sea level... A STOL runway is one which is specifically designated and marked for STOL aircraft operations, and designed and maintained to specified standards."

That ref also indicates that the DeHavilland DHC-7 is specifically certified for STOL, although I will point out that it doesn't meet the DOD/NATO STOL definition.

Incidentally that ref also discusses "Project Hummingbird", which it explains: "as far back as 1961, the FAA published the second report of Project Hummingbird which examined the possibility of producing steep-gradient aircraft with vertical and short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) characteristics. That report concluded that present technology could produce STOL aircraft but that development would depend largely upon a more extensive use of low altitude terminal area airspace and close-in and in-town small size landing areas."

So now we have four definitions of STOL that are all well sourced. Let me innumerate them here:

We also know from examples that some companies market aircraft as STOL without giving any justification or data to back up that marketing claim.

I should also note that none of these official definitions limit STOL to fixed wing aircraft, all could include gyroplanes, helicopters, airships, gliders, balloons, ornithopters, etc. None of them specifically state that the aircraft must qualify at sea level on a standard day in no wind, at gross weight or without ancillary devices, like rockets, catapults, arrestor gear or parachutes. In fact the TC-ADT definition specifically says that it doesn't need to be at gross weight.

Graeme has quite correctly indicate above that we can't pick and choose definitions, we have to accept all well-sourced ones, like these four and perhaps company marketing claims as well. There may be more definitions yet to be discovered.

That means if we are to continue with this list we have to accept any aircraft which meets any of these definitions, which I think is pretty clear includes close to all aircraft ever built. We had a local documented incident of a DC-10 at minimum weight, landing into a good headwind in close to 1500 feet on a short runway as part of a one way trip into an airport to be dismantled, so it would qualify under definition #1. Certainly the F-100 illustrated above would qualify, too under definition #1. The Dash-7 which fails definition #1 and #2 would qualify under definition #3 and #4. The Fisher Horizon has no data, but the company calls its a STOL aircraft. The previous list over at STOL started to run into trouble when an editor quite justifiably started adding gyroplanes.

I think it is unavoidable to conclude that this list is unencyclopedic, based on that fact that there is no single accepted definition of STOL and a list that uses all definitions would serve no purpose.

The alternative is to do something else, like redirect this list to Category:STOL, which is the only course of action I can see. I would like to see if we can gain a consensus on this and move forward. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though I have proposed turning this list into a redirect no one has responded to that "for" or "against", however editors are still adding aircraft and data to the list. I will assume that this adds up to "no let's not redirect the page". However we still have a problem in that we have only one definition being used on this list while we have at least five definitions that are sourced. So lacking any discussion I will add all the definitions to the list here and let's let it run and see how it looks in a few months. I'm game. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only way as to not being accused of Original Research is to present the distances and refs and let the reader do the original research! from the definitions. I do think that we should note in the comments if it doesnt meet all the criteria Doesnt meet NATO standard but ..... or something similar. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added the definitions to the list. I was thinking we could add under comments or a new column which definition it complies with. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, the another alternative is to list all 4 definitions (and more as we find them), and then have a column in the table to list which of the definitions it meets. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Great minds think alike. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go! - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the attempt to “qualify” aircraft as STOL based on their performance specs, while well-intentioned, crosses over into OR. Because there isn’t a firm, standard definition for the capability, I believe that any aircraft added to the list should be cited to a reliable source that identifies that aircraft type as STOL. In fact, it should be a firm requirement for inclusion.  I’ve added some notes and additional references to the STOL talk page that may be of benefit for better understanding of how the term “STOL” is used.  Askari Mark (Talk) 01:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That pretty much makes it a "marketing" term alone then. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not really. If an aircraft is considered to be STOL, there will be sources besides the manufacturer who will call it such. "STOL" aircraft are generally designed as such. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or modified as such, like Horton STOL kitted C-172s that come with a STOL decal to stick on the tail. Or versions of aircraft, like the so-called STOL version of the 737 that we ran into a while back. It might be possible to insist on a ref that calls an aircraft "STOL" to include it on the list, but, as we have found, many manufacturers use the term strictly for marketing and it may not mean much or fit any definition. The concept we had been hoping to achieve with this list was having a tight definition and then sticking closely to it, but the multiplicity of definitions has meant every aircraft now qualifies to be on the list, making it pretty unencyclopedic. Maybe it is not a bad idea if we went to a "ref that says STOL" approach, as this list is not working out well with the many definitions we have now. Policing the fancruft would become an issue, as it has been in the past, but that could be done. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or modified as such ... which brings up another issue regarding the scope of this particular article. The offering of a mod kit, besides indicating that the basic aircraft isn’t considered to formally be a “STOL” aircraft, begs the issue of whether there should be a section either listing the aircraft for which such mods are available or else a list of mod kit offerings. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the STOL article probably needs to be expanded to include Horton, Robertson, Micro VG and other STOL kits. Just need to find good refs for it! I don't think you can conclude that an aircraft for which a STOL kit is available, like the C-172 for instance, doesn't meet a STOL definition without the kit. It could be the case that the kit just makes it "more STOL" than it already was. This is, of course, in my opinion, part of the problem with the whole concept of an article or a list on this subject. It is fine to cite aircraft designers like Chris Heintz, but I guarantee I can find another reliable source who has conflicting ideas and uses a different definition. For instance I recall literature from Horton at one time that insisting that their STOL kits were to increase margins of safety on take-off and approach and not to be used to get into smaller strips. Totally different STOL concept. I should see if I still have that stuff somewhere. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, there will always be exceptions to the rule, and it's even more problematic when the rule isn't clear and precise in the first place. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably saw that I added some STOL kit info to the STOL article. It occurs to me that if we require a ref to say "STOL" to be included on this list, that all the aircraft that there are Horton, R/STOL or Micro VG kits for would qualify, which is most of the light aircraft already on this list, including some improbable "STOL" aircraft like the Cessna 402 and 421. I am just wondering if that would make the list any better than it now is? I would really like to have a well referenced and tight list here, but we need a way to accomplish that. As it is going now it is headed for a "list of all aircraft", as you can see by the recent additions. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to have two general list sections: one covering aircraft designed to be STOL (and so identified by independent, reliable sources) and a second for STOL kits, with annotation of which aircraft the offeror provides mod kits for. Such a differentiation between "built as such" and "so modified" aircraft might help keep the former list more coherent. A "so modified" aircraft would not be eligible for inclusion in the "built as such" list unless an RS was provided for it. Does that help? Askari Mark (Talk) 04:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Two lists would make sense, one for aircraft with refs that say "STOL" and one for aircraft with refs that say "STOL kit available". If they either become too long then they could be split into two list articles. I am hoping we will get some input here from some of the other editors who have been recently working on this list, as there have been quite a number of them. Going to your concept would require deleting the majority of the aircraft already on the list and mostly starting over, so I wouldn't want to flush all their work without some input. I suggest we give it a few days and see if there are any objections and if not move to your suggested concept, as I think it is probably the only way to avoid this becoming a "list of all aircraft". - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition List
They way it's formatted now looks bad on my screen; can it just be a section before the list? -SidewinderX (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did try that in an earlier version but it made it not look like a list article. We could go back to that format, what do you think? - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks better to me, but I don't know the technicalities of list articles, so if it conflicts with that we'll have to find another solution. -SidewinderX (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No restrictions that I am aware of - I just didn't want the list to start too far down the page! I tested the current format out at several screen widths, but I realize that page formats like a table and a box may not work well on cellphones, blackberries and netbooks. Let me change it to the previous format and let's see if we get any complaints. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! Let's see if there are any complaints. Just for future testing of formats, which browser and screen resolution are you using? I am editing using Google Chrome (which uses the WebKit rendering engine) and 1440 X 900 pixels, but anything that looks contentious I tend to test in Firefox (which renders with Gecko) and at widths that simulate the display down to a width of 900 pixels or so. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At work I'm on a 22" screen at 1680x1050, with Chrome at about 75% of screen width. At home I'm on a 24" 1920x1080 monitor with firefox about 60% wide. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is interesting as you are looking at a similar width that I am on 1440 px in full screen, with the same browser! Was there a rendering problem (ie overlapping elements or similar), or did it just look "too busy" and cluttered with the info box on the right? - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was too busy IMO, but the biggest issue was that it was like 4 words to a line for the definitions... It was just a very odd, hard to read square of text.
 * It looked kinda of
 * like this. Which is hard
 * to read and really just
 * cluttered the page badly,
 * at least in my
 * opinion
 * That's my $0.02! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! I did play around with the box width, making it wider, but then it ate up too much of the space for the table, especially at narrower screen widths. I hate to think how it would look on a blackberry! Perhaps we just have to avoid tables with boxes beside them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re indent - since the text is already on the STOL article, I left the brief statement on this List and referred back to the article for the full definitions. Not that they couldn't be formatted better there too. GraemeLeggett (talk)


 * Well that will work too. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The future of this article
This article seems to have stabilized with no edits in almost a month now. I wanted to hear from editors watching the article and see what you think - does it serve a useful purpose or is it basically an unencyclopedic list due to the huge proliferation of definitions of STOL in use that means that any aircraft can qualify? Also to be considered is User:Askari Mark's contention (above) that taking a definition and looking up which aircraft qualify is original research. He has proposed above that the definitions should be removed from this article and aircraft should only be included if a ref can be found that says they are "STOL".

So which way do we go? Personally I am not committed to any course of action at this point, but I don't want the article to drift just because everyone has moved onto more interesting projects. Please post your opinions! - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is and expand over time
 * Remove all aircraft that don't have a ref that specifically says "STOL"
 * AfD as non-encyclopedic
 * Some other course of action


 * Personally, I think this article is in pretty good shape as it is. As for the OR question... I'm of the mind that this is as much OR as converting pounds to kilograms is in specs tables is. The premise of the articles is based on those definitions, and I find it hard to believe that comparing two listed numbers is original research.-SidewinderX (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the case here is more like converting kilometers into miles when nobody agrees whether it should be nautical, statute, international, survey, etc. It also offers to include aircraft never considered to be nor claimed to be STOL simply because they are capable of it.  It rather tortures normal and traditional usage of the term as applied to specific aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure the article provides any value to the reader other than prove that the type meets the criteria, not sure why anybody would use it to compare figures. Perhaps it may be better just to add the data as an optional bit in the performance section of each aircraft spec in the individual articles, with that and the STOL cat it does not leave much for this article to show. With the facts in each article this can be discussed in the article text if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MB1: Your argument seems to support taking it to AfD? - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I would like to see the info put in the individual aircraft articles first if that gets agreement. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see that would make sense for aircraft that were designed as STOL aircraft from the start or at least marketed by their manufacturer as such. I am not sure what we would add to the text of articles such as Cessna 172? "The aircraft is not considered STOL by its manufacturer, by pilots or operators, but it meets the DOD/NATO definition"?? Perhaps we will just have to skip that sort of aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes in most cases we can just add the two landing and t/o distances to the specs and let the reader do the OR! (this presumes we can now update specs!!) MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that this morning - a whole other problem when you lose your template designer! Okay so far we have one to "keep as is", one for "keep but remove all that don't have refs that say STOL" and one for "move info to articles and delete". Any other opinions? - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is quite satisfactory at the moment. There is no problem with adding to the individual articles as the specs table (both the older and new version) includes the |more performance= line for adding miscellaneous information such as this. If it was regularly required for all article it could be added to the template relatively easily - the coding required is not the most esoteric. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:GraemeLeggett: thanks for pointing out that out in the template. I agree that it is probably easiest to just add take-off and landing distances under "more performance=". Thanks too for your input on the list. As it seems the most "votes" are to keep it as is and there certainly isn't a consensus to do anything different, so let's let it float and see how it goes over time. We can certainly start adding distance info to the individual aircraft articles anytime without affecting this article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of STOL aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314082256/http://www.azdot.gov/aviation/library/MP_PDF/1G4_MP_APP_B.pdf to http://www.azdot.gov/aviation/library/MP_PDF/1G4_MP_APP_B.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Styling and production status
The style guide at WP:AVILIST says not to use in-table styling unless agreed as a special case. STOL types are not a special case with regard to status, so styling should not be used here. Also, the status indicators have not been defined here - see the linked style guide for the standard approach. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what the pretty stuff means, e.g. does the red indicate never in production or no longer in production or both? What do the single dates mean? Etc, etc. I intend to reformat this table to conform better with the style guide and I do not want to lose your information unnecessarily. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with the current list is what it lack utility. Being cluttered with anything ever produced which has a STOL characteristics, while many people would be interested to search for the STOL state-of-art. And this situation will only deteriorate over time. So here we have a special case where WP:AVILIST is harmful for page utility (not flexible enough). Alternative without styles would be adding 2 more columns, with production start and production end dates, but i considered amount of work to do it too large.
 * Red mean what the aircraft is no longer in production. Green mean current production. Single date is remnants of the previous versions (still fixing).
 * --Trurle (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The style guide does not allow for current vs. discontinued production, that is true. Perhaps the Project can be persuaded to allow that in the Status column. Certainly, if one wishes to group all currently-produced types for comparison then the other notes need to be in a different column so that they can be sorted on too. Adding more columns improves the ability to sort on features of interest, so two narrow columns are better than one wide multi-topic column. Production end dates are not worth including, the date of first flight is sufficient. So I think that the style guide actually offers a better solution to the reader than us being lazy and not bothering to make the structural improvements needed. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [Update]: The Project showed little interest, see here. We default to the consensus that the discontinuation status is too much detail for lists such as this one: the Status column merely records the status achieved. There is no reason to treat STOL types as a special case. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
I propose to change the criterion for inclusion in this list, to be that the aircraft is identified as a STOL type in reliable independent sources, per WP:VERIFY. The current use of official definitions and even self-published promotional materials has not been helpful; definitions conflict, judging any type subject to such conflicts can be construed as original research, self-published sources are not citable, and it has allowed too many private/light types to be included. Does anybody have any substantive and encyclopedic objections? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would a manufacturer's or military's definition be considered reliable?24.192.250.124 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the main point here is that the definitions and the aircraft that qualify as STOL is very confusing and not useful. The main objection to what you are proposing is that you will end up removing some light aircraft that are not advertised as STOL specifically, but that have shorter field performance than aircraft left here that are. It is a mess, all right! - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It may well be a mess, but that is not our problem. Wikipedia's job is to faithfully mirror any such mess as it may occur in verifiable and otherwise reliable sources. If the real world is inconsistent and makes arbitrary declarations, we have to reflect that. The reliability of manufacturer's and military definitions are judged as reliable or otherwise according to WP:RELIABLE. For example a manufacturer's self-published definition would seldom if ever be reliable, while a military definition might depend on context. For example one must be extremely careful whether say "A STOL aircraft has [certain characteristics]" is defining STOL in terms of those characteristics or is defining those characteristics in terms of the idea of STOL. Military documents therefore need very careful evaluation. It is far safer to stick to more obviously reliable sources such as established trade directories, reputable journals and books which are not self-published. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You make some good points there. I would indicate though that most trade publications and directories, etc will repeat the manufacturer's claims, so if the manufacturer says it is "STOL", then the trade publications will indicate that. Part of the problem is the lack of accepted definition, which means that "STOL" is whatever anyone wants it to mean. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I say, that is not our problem. For example if Jane's says it's STOL then it's STOL, but if Jane's conspicuously excludes a class of craft from labelling as STOL then for our purposes it is not STOL unless someone equally reliable says that it is. If the real world is messy then we reflect that in a messy list and we must not shrink from it. To look at it another way, never ever ask "How do we define STOL?" but stick strictly to, "Do reliable sources say that this machine is STOL?" and avoid both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH like the plague. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as you indicate, we really have to go with what WP:RS says. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have cleared out a mountain of cruft, mostly everyday light aircraft. It was a bit of a rough cut, so probably some got away and a few babies disappeared with the bathwater, to mix metaphors. Still, at least we can see what we are doing now. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, is OV-10 Bronco STOL? ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is, if you have a reliable source that says it is. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I found some:   ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources #1 and 3 are good, #2 maybe. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One more: Here is what I found: "Likewise, the aircraft could be considered a short-takeoff-and-landing craft, but it could take off in the advertised 800 feet only “with a light load on a cool day,” Burin says." ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

confusing conversion
There is a table in this page that lists the distance from starting to a set height. It says 9 feet (10m). The conversion is clearly wrong as 1 m is almost 40 inches (100 / 2.54 = 39.37007874015748031496). So either 9 feet is 2.74320 m, or 10m is (10 * 100 / 2.54 / 12) = 32.80839 feet. I can't fix the article because I don't know which conversion went wrong, but surely one did. Thank you.


 * Thanks for pointing that out, the error was as a result of a very recent edit and I have fixed it now. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)