A friend of mine has decided to STOL-modify his C172 and is looking at VGs. I am interested to know how you like them with that aircraft?

I have suggested he goes with the Sportsman, but that idea didn't take hold.

Edit - I did search first, let me know if I missed a thread.

You're right the sportsman is a way better idea!

Push him on the Sportsman

This debate has here raged ad nauseam and there is plenty of reading to be had with a quick search. That said, it's an oldie but goodie and it's about time to have it again, so here we go....

Generally its considered that the single best addition when going down the STOL road with a high-wing cessna is the Sportsman. The anecdotal jury is in and there is nothing left to debate. You can take it to the bank that folks who are anti-sportsman are either too cheap to fork up the dough, or already have a Robertson, Horton, or other some-such and want to feel as if their cuff is as good or better.

Just how much better the Sportsman is vs/ other cuffs ranges from night and day to the same, just depends on who is doing the talking. But the general consensus is that Sportsman is the best hands down.

IMHO, as mentioned above, if your buddy does anything, he is best served starting here.

From there, the debate can go all over the map... but from my own simple experience, (speaking only w/ respect to 170's and 180's) the things that made a huge difference w/ respect to STOL/off-airport were: Double puck breaks, then larger tires, stiffer gear (on the 170,) and then a Babybushwheel. I cant speak specifically to a 172, but I would venture to guess that the same would apply... bigger mains, bigger nosewheel, then brakes.

As far as VG's go... This is a more cloudy debate and the anecdotal evidence is a bit more murky, but again, lots of nay-sayers are coming from a thin wallet perspective and use that as grounds for dismissal. There are also the guys who bitch about them getting in the way of fueling (BS) and some that claim they rip wing covers (seems valid) or make it a bitch to clean snow and ice (very true.)

LOTS of guys with no personal experience like to poo-poo them, so its important to weed thru the BS, but there is indeed a small cadre of older pilots who claim they have flown with them and don't like them. Generally speaking, it is my understanding that most folks who install them say they are a benefit.

Net net is its a bit harder to make up your own mind when basing it on the peanut gallery, but here are the facts: Most big iron have em. Small fleets like Cape Air have installed them on all their airplanes. Micro Aerodynamics have sold hundreds and hundreds of kits over the years, and, there is quantifiable data (dont ask me to find it as I can generally be a bit hyperbolic) on VG's in general.

I look at it this way... If there is even a 1% increase in a safety margin by the addition of VG's and you dont mind spending the $1300 (Oshkosh deal) than why not?

This was my logic and I personally installed them on my 180. I have 75hrs under my belt now with the Sportsman/VG combo and I can attest to the benefit of both. I fly MUCH slower with tons more confidence. Would I do it again... yes.

Now its probably time for MTV to chime in.

I wanted to make my little C150/150TD STOL-ier, but the Sportsman cuff at about $2K for the kit (plus a pretty involved installation) was a bit rich for my blood. So a few years ago I let myself get talked into buying a set of Micro VG's, which for the 150 cost about $700. (I think they're about $1400 for the longer-winged Cessnas). Installed them myself, a pretty easy job.
Now...I'm not gonna say they do nothing, but the improvements they provide in stall speed and low-speed control response are VERY subtle. Given the chance, I would not again install them on a stock Cessna wing.
I have heard that they provide somewhat more improvement to a cuffed wing, and that they make a big difference on the Cub airfoil-- esp on the short-wing models such as the Pacer.
Sometimes I think some of the positive reports on various modifications are made because nobody wants to admit (even to themselves) that the mod they just spent a lot of money on didn't really do what it was supposed to do.

Cessna wing.
Cessna 182 bought it with Horton and flap gap seals, added VGs ,slow approaches were at 60mph, plane sinking.

Removed Horton, added Sportsman, removed flap gap seals, added ailerons gap seals and VGs. Approaches at 50mph and stable.

So it really DOES make a difference.

Im glad I asked in this forums before I removed the Horton to go to the Sportsman, I was convinced by some guys with the knowledge and I couldnt be happier.

Thanks for the responses so far guys. This is good stuff.

Great analysis Greg.
I would add that I have seen people say that stol kit/vg's didn't make a difference, even made the plane harder to land. I would suggest that these folks weren't willing to fly the plane at the slower speeds that the plane was now capable of.

I had done both to my 180 and was very happy how it performed. It would fly comfortably at 50kts w/flaps and touch down at 35kts @ 7,000' DA, I felt that was pretty good. And did no damage to my cruise speed. Not very often you can gain on one end and not lose on the other end.

I also believe there were some safety considerations for added benefit. Better glide, softer landings, less chance for wing stalls. I could do a power off glide at 40kts forward speed and dropping at 1200'/min from 10.000' which I thought was a reasonably safe speed/decent in an emergency situation.

I will do the same mods to the Margwagon.(C-170B) when time and finances allow.

Gary

Gary

Greg, I would bet that Cape Air has VG on their 402s because the STC gives them a max gross weight increase=more pay load=pure profit per trip when you can charge for one more bag. People who make money with airplanes don't do mods which don't have a direct benefit to their operation. A few years back I and a few friends spent 30 minutes visiting with Ray Arnold at Chamberlain Basin in Idaho. He was flying a stock late model 185 that didn't look like it had any STOL mods and was on 8.00 x 6 tires. He went wherever the customer was willing to pay. Experience beats mods. If an owner wants to trick his plane out with all of the "cool" mods that's fine, but don't tell me I don't have a Sportsman STOL because I'm cheap. I don't need it for where I want to go and I think it looks like crap where it fits around the wing root and landing light opening. To each their own.

Greg is right....there's a lot of BS out there in regard to the effectiveness of VGs on CESSNA wings. And, some of that has been repeated on this thread already....

First: As Bat443 just pointed out, you cannot compare a commercially operated twin like a 402 or a Navajo with a high wing cessna.....or a cub, or pretty much anything else. Those two airplanes get a 200 pound plus increase in takeoff weight with VGs, and that's the reason those operators install them, not because of any other reasons. And, they get the GW increase because the VG kits improve single engine performance. So, unless you have a couple engines, that argument is specious at best.

You cannot compare what VGs do for a Super Cub/Scout/Maule, etc wing to what they do or don't do on a Cessna wing. Every wing is different. On some wings (like the Super Cub) VGs are great, and I'd go there in a heartbeat. But, even there, there are significant differences in individual airplanes as well, the most important ones being weight and rigging.

Second: I was one of the cheap bastards who opted to install the VGs on my 170 instead of the Sportsman cuff. I had flown the Sportsman on a number and wide variety of Cessna models, and loved it, so I should have known better. I had not flown any with the VGs alone, and I figured at a couple thousand less, the VGs were worth a try. Bear in mind that I had several hundred hours in that 170 BEFORE I added the VGs. Here's what I found:

The stall speed did not change measurably, despite Micro Aero's claims of dramatic stall speed differences. The stall CHARACTER did change, with the stall somewhat mellower, and less tendency to break. That's all good, except for one characteristic that I definitely did NOT like:

The VGs virtually eliminated the stall precursor buffet. Before VG installation, the airplane presented a distinct aerodynamic buffet just prior to the stall. That buffet allowed me to work that airplane on short, short final very close to stall speed, affording maximum short field performance. That buffet totally went away after the VGs were installed. And, since the stall SPEED didn't decrease, what wound up happening is that I had to fly my short final approaches FASTER than I had before the VGs were installed. Otherwise, the airplane would drop out from under me, because I could no longer feel that wing about to give up. So, a good STOL improvement?? Not hardly. And, I have talked to several other high time Cessna pilots who expressed similar opinions.

I put another several hundred hours on that plane after the VG installation, and never learned to like them. Had I been willing to ruin a nice paint job, I'd have pulled them off.....I didn't. But, I didn't like them.....I didn't hate them enough to remove them, mind you, but I'd sure never put them on a Cessna wing again.

Now, you may not ever be comfortable working your Cessna down in that low speed range where you feel the tickle of the buffet anyway. But, that's where you'll extract the maximum performance from your Cessna. And, it's perfectly safe if you spend some time to learn your airplane.

Third: The folks that are arguing that the Sportsman AND VGs are a great combination may in fact be correct....I don't know, because I've never flown such a combination. But, the QUESTION the gentleman asked was "Should this person install VGs on a Cessna wing" NOT, should he install a Sportsman AND VGs.

And, how do these guys know that the vast majority of the benefit they're seeing isn't just from the Sportsman? Have they flown the same plane with just the Sportsman, and then installed the VGs? Or flown with just the VGs? That's an important question to ask. Mixing mods is often fine, but unless you do them separately, and fly them with each mod individually, you'll never know what each mod does.

I too am a firm believer in the Sportsman cuff on a Cessna wing. I've flown several Cessnas extensively (as in a couple thousand hours) before and after the addition of a Sportsman cuff, and I have always been impressed and very pleased with that mod. I'd do that again, in a heartbeat, but, it is expensive, and as previously noted, I'm a cheap bastard. The planes I flew those mods on were owned by someone else...

Which brings me to another point.....when folks start singing the praises of ANY mod, the very first question you should be asking them is this:

How much flight time have they flown that mod on the airplane before the mod AND after the mod. Note that Greg specified that he's flown his newly modded 180 75 hours with the Sportsman and the VGs and thinks it's wonderful....That's certainly enough time to get a good feel for the plane as it's now configured. But how much time did he fly THAT airplane with a stock wing, with JUST the Sportsman, or with JUST the VGs? So, which kit did the good? Or, did all the other mods he did to that airplane make some of the difference, like reducing the all up weight substantially??? How much flight time does he have with that Cessna 180 in totally stock configuration before he started his refurbishment?

I'm not trying to be harsh with Greg....he's done a great job refurbishing and improving that airplane. It is certainly an airplane an a lot of hard work to be very proud of. But, how do you know what the effect of ONE mod is unless you fly the plane extensively without and then with that mod, BEFORE you add the next mod? The answer is, you can't.

I also had to laugh at Greg's suggestion that the concern over cutting oneself while fueling with the VGs is BS. I'm the one who has made that comment. Bear in mind that I've fueled high wing Cessnas on wheels, floats and skis, in all sorts of weather conditions, and almost exclusively without the benefit of a ladder, which can be found at many "civilized" fuel facilities. But, I thought this was a "backcountry" flying forum. I've fueled from 5 gallon cans, while wearing hip boots--wet hip boots, because I was pulled up to a muddy bank to refuel. Again, how much has Greg refueled with a VG equipped airplane in the bush Ever try fueling a Cessna on skis with five gallon cans, while standing on those fueling steps, wearing bunny boots? Then again, I'm a short cheap bastard . Maybe Greg's tall.....

Trust me, VGs can leave a mark if you slip while fueling. Then again, I'm kind of a klutz in any case.... There are some fairly important blood vessels and tendons down there in your wrists, though....

I've flown just about every STOL mod ever created for high wing Cessnas, most of them extensively before and after, and while working those airplanes. The absolute best of these in my experience is the Robertson STOL kit. A fairly close second is the Sportsman cuff. But, I would NEVER again install a set of VGs on a Cessna wing.....

Unless, that is, I had the opportunity to fly a Cessna with the Sportsman cuff first, THEN had a set of VGs installed, and had the chance to fairly evaluate that combination. I'm open to different mods....but, while I'm not from Missouri, I ascribe to their state motto: Show me....

I do have VGs on my Cub Special, and they're good on that plane. Again, be sure you compare apples to apples.

Finally, as Greg implies, beware the internet "experts"....always ask how much experience they have with a mod BEFORE and after the mod so you can evaluate it as a fair assessment----not how much internet "research" they've done on the subject.

Got my Nomex jammies on, so flame away

MTV

I've got some time in a 172 W/VG's and a 180HP engine... I honestly couldn't tell the difference between a standard and that one. If anything, I thought the roll rate was a little slower. When you strap a 180 on the front of the 172, makes all the difference in the world. Dunno, VG's wouldn't seem worth the money to me.

I'd go with a Sportsman STOL conversion.

I've flown many different year models of 172s, with and without the Cessna cuffed wing. My 63 P172D with an Avcon 180hp/CS conversion has the non-cuffed wing--I think the Cessna cuff started in 1973--but also has the deeply drooped Madras wingtips installed by a previous owner, and I added flap gap seals. The drag of the droopy wingtips cut the cruise speed; the flap gap seals increase the cruise speed by about the same amount, so they're a wash.

Comparing my airplane to other 172s I've flown with non-cuffed wings, it's a whole lot more stable at very slow speeds, which I attribute to the droopy wingtips. It gives some aerodynamic warning of a stall, although to call it much of a buffet would be an exaggeration--it's just enough to let me know it's coming, well below the speed that the stall warner starts buzzing. I don't make it a habit of flying that slow, though--whether before or after I had the AOA gauge installed, it would be unusual for me to make a short final approach at less than 1.2 Vso.

Some say that the addition of the flap gap seals inhibits slow speed approaches--in what way, I can't tell. I'd flown the airplane for about 2 years and over 120 hours without the flap gap seals, and I've flown it for more than 400 hours since they were installed, and frankly, I can't tell the difference. The benefit of the extra 5 knots of airspeed, bringing it back to what it would have been without the droopy tips, is what I was looking for and what I got.

Now about VGs vs. my somewhat modified wing. For the first few years after I bought my airplane, my hangar neighbor had a mid-70s model 172 with the factory cuff, a 180hp PennYan conversion and VGs. I don't know whether his was limited to 30 degree flap extension or still had the 40 degree flaps (mine has 40 degree manual flaps). The day we discussed the "benefits" of the VGs, he of course touted the "much lower stall speed and much slower final approach speed" with the VGs than without. But when he told me that his typical final approach speed lightly loaded was 60 knots, that didn't compare too favorably to my typical final approach speed lightly loaded of 65 mph (after my AOA was installed, that's been reduced to 55-60 mph, depending on how hard I want to try).

That pretty much eliminated any thoughts I might have had about adding VGs to my airplane--no likely benefit for the expense. I admit that I am too cheap to add a Sportsman, as my normal flying and the places I go with my airplane just do not justify the expense. Heck, I run stock tires and don't even take off the wheel pants!

But like everything else in aviation, if an owner wants to spend money on this or that, that's OK with me--it's not my money.

Cary

mtv wrote: . Maybe Greg's tall.....

MTV

I am tall...

This site is one of my very favorites among all I visit. Maybe I'm misreading what's going on here, but the apparent sniping does not enhance the experience for anyone and borders on childish. At least in my lowly opinion. We all have different areas of expertise. Some are high time with much experience and accomplishments in many different types. I certainly respect that. Some are highly skilled instructors, mechanics, restorers, etc, etc. I respect that also. I'm none of the above and am not threatened nor do I feel lessened by stating that. I have a pretty fair education and don't feel slighted when someone knows more than me or has an opinion counter to mine. I'm also not wealthy in dollars and am hopefully not pretentious about what I do have. I guide for everything that's guided in the Adirondacks of NY except rock and ice climbing, and have guided well over a thousand customers over the years, most on whitewater. The absolutely cheapest I've met have always been the most wealthy. Different priorities I guess. I'm here to learn, enjoy a common passion, and contribute if I can. I'd hate to see this become a site where we nurture perceived slights and snipe at one another at every opportuniy. I think we're better than that, and if if I'm wrong I'll sure miss this place.

Frank

Frank,

Sorry if you've construed my comments as "sniping". They certainly weren't intended that way.

I was also not trying to thump my chest regarding flying experience....there are no doubt a number of folks on this forum with more flight time than I.

I was simply trying to suggest to folks on an Internet forum that they need a little bit of background info prior to accepting as fact "data" regarding flying, aircraft mods, etc.

And that also applies to anything I post as well. I've always told my students to listen to what I present, ask questions if you like, THINK about what I presented, and if it makes sense, give it a try. If it works for you....it's now yours. If not, drop it in the round file and move on. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

I THINK that should likely apply to any Internet forum.

I do have a lot of experience with various mods, having flown for nearly 30 years for an agency which conducts an extensive amount of off airport flying. And, that agency did a lot of experimenting with various mods to try to improve our fleet's capability.

I know I dug into Greg a bit, and if that was taken as harsh, my apologies to all, especially Greg. I know my posts sometimes come across as harsher than they are intended. Guess I was always thinking about getting aboard my horse during Mrs Brown's classes on etiquette.

MTV

Done before and after on C185 with factory cuff. Same wing as C172, but more weight. Micro vg's. 3 pilots, 2 with significant experience and then me. The consensus was the bang for the buck ratio was fairly low. Better to put the $950 or whatever it is towards Sportsman or to a lesser degree a Horton.

Agree with above in that many, many old school Cessna operators who do it for money use it just how Cessna put it out the door and do just fine. I personally need all the help I can get so I like to try STOL mods.

MTV,

I didn't think you were being unduely harsh or sniping any more than anyone else. Actually based on what I read about your background from your posts you seem well qualified to post as usual. I probably just misunderstood.

Frank

Frank, I didnt take it as sniping either.

One of the things that makes this forum so special is the camaraderie and mutual respect I think we all have for one another. A bunch of us have been nibbling at each other in good fun for a while now so If you dont know the history here as well as on some of the others such as the 170 board, it might sometimes look like mean spirited banter. Besides, I did ask him to make a comment...

All in friendly good fun in the pursuit of the same love of the insanity. Besides... its just the f-ing web.

Shit, I can't describe how much I've learned and put into practice from reading from BCP!

bigrenna wrote:Besides... its just the f-ing web.

You are very good at throwing money at your plane (it's bad ass, and I like it!) but it's just not the fucking web for those of us that are here to learn.
Looking for some pics of that beast off the asphalt?

Terry wrote:Shit, I can't describe how much I've learned and put into practice from reading from BCP!

bigrenna wrote:Besides... its just the f-ing web.

You are very good at throwing money at your plane (it's bad ass, and I like it!) but it's just not the fucking web for those of us that are here to learn.
Looking for some pics of that beast off the asphalt?

I think my point eluded you bro. "Just the f-ing web" means that when an individual takes a swing and insinuates someone else has less experience, their opinion/knowledge is in some way less valid, is not as cool, or is in some way less deserved, that they don't take it personally. But I guess its easier said than done, cuz here I am on a Sat morning sitting in front of the computer...

Saying that Im good at throwing money at my aircraft while implying I don't know how to use it is uncool.