I'm thinking hard about adding the wing-x wing extensions to my '74 180J. It has an 0-470 and an 88" prop.

Anyone with similar aircraft willing to share your experience with this mod?

Frankly, I really like my plane the way it is. The GW increase wouldn't be bad, and there seems like there's an advertised performance increase, but I have no personal real world experience with the mod.

Put the $10,000 toward gas or make the wings longer?

You've probably already thought about this, but do you ever use a hangar...and if so, will you still be able to with the wing extensions? Seems to be the reason lots of people opt out of the mod.

Ten-thousand here and ten-thousand there, and before you know it you're talking about real money! How many times have you had to make two flights because of the gross weight limitation...and how many thousands of dollars did that cost you? That right there should tell you if it makes any sense. Might want to factor in pain(t) when you're adding up the cost of the mod...

Personally I've found that money in the bank is more comforting than airplane modifications, all it all.

$10,000 worth of gas makes a much better pilot-
That better pilot is good for All flights-

Arctic Flyer wrote:Frankly, I really like my plane the way it is. The GW increase wouldn't be bad[...]

If one of the reasons for considering WingX is the gross weight increase, then look at the Kenmore STC. It's much cheaper, you get a higher gross weight (3190 vs 2950), and you can keep your plane the way it is.

Chris

As an instant non-expert I flew a Wing-X C180 for 1.5 hrs this Fall. Flight review. Five minutes off the ground and I remarked how slow the ailerons were compared to planes I flew 5+ thousand hours but admittedly 20 years ago. Given that I let it go and dealt with the apparent change. Aspect ratio at altitude maybe a yes. More GW for Part 135 ops maybe yes. For me a Sportsman cuff would suffice.

Gary

PA1195

I can only refer you to this thread. Fundamentally its your choice. What's important to you?

https://backcountrypilot.org/community/ ... ance-21017

gunny

What's your mission? You will gain 400lbs of useful load. The roll rate will seem sluggish yet like I say often, your not doing aileron rolls on final. The slow flight gain is worth it if slow and short is what your after. The speed on the fast end is really not effected and wash. Personally I would do it again in a heart beat. Love the big wing and slow flight characteristics no question. You will gain 8-10 mph on the bottom end.

AKT

Arctic Flyer wrote:Anyone with similar aircraft willing to share your experience with this mod?

I have installed the WingX on several customer's birds now as well as put 500hrs on my 180H with the mod.

My .02 to your question is (as always) it depends. The first thing I would do if I had your bird would be to get it on the scales and get a "real" weight. This would drive a bunch of my advice as the mod does add about 16lbs. I say "real" because every bird I work on gets weighed first, and every one has been at least 100lbs over what the paper was. This is often the case even when the paperwork says it was actually weighed. Last month I weighed a 172 TW conversion that supposedly had been put on scales claiming 1213. The actual weight was 1609.

In your case, if it was heavy, (because it's a late model 180) I'd say no. If light, I would say "it depends." The "depends" part would be based on your actual mission. My feelings on the WingX are mixed... In one aspect, it is a fantastic mod. The added lift, climb, and small speed bump are great. The additional STOL capability is a real bump, especially at high DA. On the other side, the longer wing does hamper the use of some smaller hangars. Also, (as Hammer mentioned) the aileron response does get tossed in the garbage.

I had read all the hype on the web and was really excited to begin the install on my bird. I took my time, and was really happy with my install... until I initially flew it. After the first flight, I was beyond angry. I remember calling up Willie Stene spitting fire. The airplane was a totally different bird, and not in a good way. I had felt that the fun was now gone, and that it was like driving a big truck. I remember saying that after the two initial hours of flying that I was gonna pull them off and drive over them with my 35" truck tires.

Willie talked me down off the ledge urging me to give it some time. After about 10 or so hours, I did indeed settle, and finally came to the conclusion that (for me) the benefit did indeed outweigh the deficits. For my specific case, the performance attributes outweigh the loss of responsiveness. I love how my bird is set up, and would do it all over again. (this would be Sportsman, WingX, and VGs.)

Quick note on the GW increase. The GW increase the WingX provides is indeed nice, however as mentioned, the Kenmore kit is a much easier way to go. That said, the STC (yours has it, but if you didnt) requires the install of a 185 V stab, which is extremely expensive now. (much more than the WingX kit.) The WingX also gets you a much "safer" way to handle the additional weight because it adds stiffeners to the fwd spar at Sta. 100 (bottom) and then on top around Sta 136 as well as additional sq footage to the wing. The Kenmore only adds a small doubler to the leading edge of the H stab.

Over the last 7 years of obsessive working on Cessna's, here is my broad brush takeaway on the WingX. (and I mean broad brush... Mission really drives the decision)

• If you have an early model 100 series Cessna, do it.
• If you fly a late model 180/185 with the camber lift wing, weigh the bird. If you are over 2000, keep the bird stock. (this means no Sportsman or WingX) (exception would be float ops)
• If you have gutted the above bird and have a high HP Ponk or 550, rethink the above bullet.
• If you do the WingX, do it LAST. Plenty of other things to do first. Lighten the bird, Sportsman, Bigger tires, more HP, dbl pucks, etc...

Most of all, try to get behind a friends bird with a WingX first before you take the plunge as it really does make the bird fly a bit different. I'm south of Boston and am always happy to go flying with a fellow BCP member.

FWIW... I am building a 180HP 170B right now to use as a trainer... (Paul has been saying it for years and we shall see if it happens this Spring as he claims, but) my plan is to install the WingX on the 170B the second it is approved here in the US. This is explicitly for the STOL bump.

Hope that helps.

The statement that it would be good if doing float ops, but not others, is ridiculous IMO. If it improves getting the bird out of water, the same came can be said for ski ops as well as land ops. More wing period. And yes I have flown a 185 with and without wing-x on wheels. Performance was great with the wing-x.

I’ve tossed around adding it to my ‘56 182, but ultimately I don’t see myself ever doing it. I’m 90’ asl with no plans to move to higher altitude, 500 miles from the nearest semblance of mountains with a summer work schedule that prevents trips to them, and the small gw increase wouldn’t help me much. The biggest detractor for me personally, is the reduced roll rate. Sure it’s not a sporty airplane, but the controls are perfectly balanced and it’s a delight to fly.

"Quick note on the GW increase. The GW increase the WingX provides is indeed nice, however as mentioned, the Kenmore kit is a much easier way to go. That said, the STC (yours has it, but if you didnt) requires the install of a 185 V stab, which is extremely expensive now. (much more than the WingX kit.)"

I thought I looked into the Kenmore, but my plane didn't have the correct Vertical stab. Am I incorrect?

- I certainly like to slow things up, so losing some speed is attractive to me. Always nice to hit your spot as slow as possible.
- unfortunately, I almost never have access to a hangar so I'm not too worried about that concern.

The aileron effectiveness and decreased roll rate is interesting to me. Seems very obvious, but I neglected to anticipate it. A Cub I fly for work has extended wings, but not extended flaps or ailerons. The ailerons feel heavy on that plane; the stick is heavy, but I am used to it. FWIW- I love the wing on that Cub. Just an amazing flying wing in my opinion, and I really like the stall characteristics the extended squared Cub wing produces.

I appreciate everyones feedback. Thank you for replying. This is a great website.

Arctic,

If your avatar photo is the plane in question, it does NOT have the later, 185 type vertical fin. To utilize the Kenmore STC, you’d need to find one of those. Bring $$$.

MTV

I’d love to get it for my 57’ 180A. Mostly to bump my 2650lb gross weight to 2950lbs. Unfortunately my hangar is too small....

TMI

My note above about aileron feel wasn't meant to discourage. It was just an observation over a short time while on floats. I've had Cubs with stock and long wings w/o extended ailerons and grew into the length but prefer the normal configuration. Just me I guess.

The only time I've said "this won't end well" in a C-185 was on AWB 3600 wheel skis in deep snow...some wet some with no real base. If a longer wing would help then that's a plus. When the loaded plane won't reach takeoff speed it gets interesting. Would they help?

At altitude aspect ratio helps performance so that would be a plus. On floats if the longer wing lifts off at a lower speed below terminal velocity then that's also a potential plus.

There's a few around here with that mod and the ops seem to like it but mainly due to the G/W bonus. If the extension carries it's weight plus the extra allowed at no loss in performance than that's a plus.

Gunny's tests are informative and others should offer theirs as experience develops.

Gary

I have it on my C185F, would do it again, could care less about a piece of gross increase paperwork.

Steve

Had it on my previous plane, want on my current.

Gone.

One nice thing about Wing-X, is that it's not a huge deal to remove when you don't need/want it.

Another thing to consider is the crosswind scenario, it is much sportier landing in a stiff crosswind than a regular wing, but that may have just been a competency issue on my end. Interested to hear what others with more time flying them think about crosswinds, did it decrease your comfort level etc.?

Wing-X is really great for it's intended purpose, just know that the pros come with some cons, which may be significant to you. I was not a fan until seeing how easy it was for a buddy to remove his, now I am considering it. [emoji857]

aktahoe1 wrote:What's your mission? You will gain 400lbs of useful load.

I think that Arctic Flyer has a C-180J, which has a 2800 pound gross weight. So he would only gain a 150 pound increase in useful load, minus the weight of the modification. Which is not insubstantial; I wish I could bump my useful load by 150 pounds. But it's a big difference compared to 400 pounds.