All Ya'll-

I've got a 180A with a Sportsman Cuff. My Daughter had (until today) a 182A with WingX. I'm in the process of testing performance and would appreciate some assistance. I would like Stall series numbers from an early model stock wing 180/182 to add to the database for my Sportsman and the WingX. I'll be adding WingX to my 180/Sportsman and then Vg's. I'll post it all when I'm done, a little premature right now. I also intend to do tuft tests;) Now that is fun.

The stall series I would like to see is solo, about 2300lb, about 3,000MSL, temps about 30-ishC. Stall speed Clean Wing (and reaction: mush, break, hard break, etc), 10 flap, 20 flap, 30 flap and 40 flap. It would be nice to have an actual flight tested performance database to go along with the anecdotal stuff that is out there. But I have no access to a plain stock wing. Disclaimer, I'm also not concerned with a manageable margin of error, gotta make do with what I have/can afford.

By the way of a teaser, the Sportsman is a little better than the WingX (and I suspect a lot better than stock) in the stall regime. But the WingX is better for takeoff performance (that whole more lift from bigger wing area thing). I'm excited to see what the progression is (and then see what the pponk does to the curve when I mount it- takeoff performance wise). I got a 10 mph increase in TAS from the 88" Seaplane prop (2A34C50) to the 2 blade MT, but a 6 degree favorable increase in temp, makes me a little suspect. I'm going to redo that test at the same temps.

thanks,
Gunny

Gunny wrote:All Ya'll-

I've got a 180A with a Sportsman Cuff. My Daughter had (until today) a 182A with WingX. I'm in the process of testing performance and would appreciate some assistance. I would like Stall series numbers from an early model stock wing 180/182 to add to the database for my Sportsman and the WingX. I'll be adding WingX to my 180/Sportsman and then Vg's. I'll post it all when I'm done, a little premature right now. I also intend to do tuft tests;) Now that is fun.

The stall series I would like to see is solo, about 2300lb, about 3,000MSL, temps about 30-ishC. Stall speed Clean Wing (and reaction: mush, break, hard break, etc), 10 flap, 20 flap, 30 flap and 40 flap. It would be nice to have an actual flight tested performance database to go along with the anecdotal stuff that is out there. But I have no access to a plain stock wing. Disclaimer, I'm also not concerned with a manageable margin of error, gotta make do with what I have/can afford.

By the way of a teaser, the Sportsman is a little better than the WingX (and I suspect a lot better than stock) in the stall regime. But the WingX is better for takeoff performance (that whole more lift from bigger wing area thing). I'm excited to see what the progression is (and then see what the pponk does to the curve when I mount it- takeoff performance wise). I got a 10 mph increase in TAS from the 88" Seaplane prop (2A34C50) to the 2 blade MT, but a 6 degree favorable increase in temp, makes me a little suspect. I'm going to redo that test at the same temps.

thanks,
Gunny

I'd help you out, just need to dig out a 2300ft deep hole large enough to fly around in.

On a serious note, that 10mph increase in TAS is interesting.. keep us updated on forthcoming tests.

-Asa

I believe my P172D's wing is the same wing, also. But I have the deep droopy tips, which make a difference on controlability at slow airspeeds--I don't think that they reduce the stall speed at all, but since it does tend to mush in power off stalls rather than really break, maybe they do have some effect on the stall. However, like ASA, I'd have to dig a big hole. If you want the stalls at a higher altitude, such as 6500' MSL, I'd be glad to see what I can do. That's also close to gross for me (mine's derated from 2500# to 2350# due to the Avcon conversion), but I suspect I can stuff some bodies in there who don't mind a stall series. My airplane goes in for its annual next week, so it would be awhile before I could do it.

Cary

Gunny , I did made all those tests and wrote down the data somewhere , but couldnt find it in my PC.
Here is my data I have from memory ,wide body Cessna 182 P model, Sportsman, VGs and MT prop, Horton wing tips, CG aft , 2,300 pounds, stalls at 40mph IAS with full flaps.
About 48mph IAS with no flaps.

It breaks straight, a bit a hard (probably because the CG is aft).

Hope this helps.

Gunny - if all goes well I should shortly have a 1955 180 with a clean unmodified wing and would be happy to work on this with you. Assuming the purchase completes, I also hope to add the WingX and Sportsman cuffs at some point in the future, so I'd be curious in these tests as well. That said, I'd be in the same boat as the previous posters - I'd have to find a pretty big hole to fly in for those altitudes!

Skiermanmike-

It is possible to normalize the altitude difference, but takes a bit of math to do it. I'm old and not inclined to do so;) If you can do it with the stock wing great! No big hurry.

Motodave-

Ah, I think my wing is a little better than yours... full flap stall at 30 mph;)

I don't want anyone to dig holes... somehow we'll get those numbers.

Thanks,
gunny

The 2A34C50 is an older blade design replaced by the C66 and then the C203/204 so a few or more than a few knots increase in performance as well as better take off and climb is to be expected. Plus a comparison of a new prop to one that has been overhauled or had the blade nicks field dressed is really not an accurate comparison.

Tim

bat443 wrote:The 2A34C50 is an older blade design replaced by the C66 and then the C203/204 so a few or more than a few knots increase in performance as well as better take off and climb is to be expected. Plus a comparison of a new prop to one that has been overhauled or had the blade nicks field dressed is really not an accurate comparison.

Tim

So, your point is? I'm testing what I have, in a disciplined manner. I'm not going into error reduction, nor am I trying satisfy your idea of a fair comparison. For me its fair, its what I have and what I bought, on my airplane. Full disclosure- I'm not selling anything, except my overhauled 2A34C50;) Feel free to execute a fair test of your own.

Thanks for looking.

gunny

Sorry gunny, my point is that this site seems to worship the MT prop and your statement that you gained 10 mph with a prop change feeds into that. Again sorry.

Tim

Here's a previous post with that data from my C180B:

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/cessna-180b-vortex-generator-pirep-19873?p=277461&hilit=c180b#p277461

bat443 wrote:Sorry gunny, my point is that this site seems to worship the MT prop and your statement that you gained 10 mph with a prop change feeds into that. Again sorry.

Tim

Tim-

No worries. As I said my numbers are from my airplane. The thing that would drive you crazy is that the first time I ran the test the difference was just over 20 mph. I figured that HAD to be wrong. And it was, I discovered a leak in my pitot static and with that fixed the number came down to just over 10 mph. For me that is good stuff and a good result. Other good stuff is that it is much quieter and that pleases my neighbors, The nickel leading edge is a boon as well. Plus I just like the shape of the prop;) Win, win so far. Now if I could just sell the other prop;)

gunny

jrc111 wrote:Here's a previous post with that data from my C180B:

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/cessna-180b-vortex-generator-pirep-19873?p=277461&hilit=c180b#p277461

jrc111-

Thanks for the reference, in fact your post is what inspired me to to document actual numbers for my mods. Really good stuff.

gunny

I guess my real point is that a new C203 or I think C237 would also be faster than your original used C50 for the stated reasons.

Tim

bat443 wrote:I guess my real point is that a new C203 or I think C237 would also be faster than your original used C50 for the stated reasons.

Tim

Interesting hypothesis. Only requires the actual datapoint to be logged. Maybe if someone had those props, and the 2 Blade MT we could get the comparison. Or could bring it to North Texas. I only have the C50... hopefully not for long;)

gunny

I salute your scientific approach to evaluating modifications.
I tried to do that when I installed VG's on the C150/150TD.
Stall speed went down, from a whisker over 40 to a whisker under-- maybe the 5% Micro claims.
I didn't know how to test / quantify any change in low-speed control effectiveness, but there didn't seem to be much if any.

I did the same when I removed the flap gap seals from my otherwise stock-winged C180.
No change in stall speed, cruise speed, or control feel at either high or low speed.

My takeoff performance is all over the place, depending on ambient temp, wind speed & direction, and how I'm feeling that day.
So I didn't make too much attempt to quantify the changes when I installed an 88" C201 prop in place of the 82" (actually 80-1/2") C203.
It didn't seem to make much difference in cruise speed.
I saw some improvement in takeoff performance, but I'm not sure if it was worth the $4200 or so net cost of the upgrade.
It definitely makes more noise though.

hotrod180 wrote:<snip>
It definitely makes more noise though.

Noise = more power in the mind (my rationale for removing totally satisfactory stock mufflers and replacing them with straight-through glass packs back in the day, which made my 53 Ford Flathead V8 "go mo' bettah").

Cary

Ok, now I've got WingX installed, I've had a few flights with it to get the feel and I've done a little testing. Here is what I've found so far.

1. It does roll a little slower. I made the mistake of taking off in a VERY BRISK crosswind for first flight. I soon was cursing my rush!!! In later flights I practiced booting a lot of rudder at slow speeds and roll control isn't so bad after all.

2. Cruise. It cost me 1-2 mph in cruise. Similar weights/ temps/ altitudes and power settings.

3. Take off and land performance was improved right off the bat by an average of 90' each (test result today 336' and 301'). Take off speeds of 47 mph and land speeds of 46. Of course the land distance is very much affected by the stick actuator.

3. The REALLY interesting thing is stall testing. In no flap configuration did I actually get a stall break (not at all true with the stock/WingX wing or the Sportsman Cuff wing alone). The airplane would enter a mush and a pitch fugoid. The speeds were very close across all flap settings and on average 2-5 mph greater than the Sportsman Cuff wing.

I'll do some more testing to confirm the numbers before the Vg's go on. And then with the new engine. We shall see. Still am planning a tuff test as well. Stay tuned.

gunny

Gunny,

Interesting information. Please keep it coming. One data point you haven’t mentioned (Moto did in his test data) is C of G for the testing.

Aft CG will/should provide the best performance, but of course it’s not real world to assume all ops are at aft limit.

But, you can try to control CG such that each test is done at about the same loaded CG. Maybe you are, and just didn’t note it.

But in any case, CG has a pretty significant effect on the performance parameters you’re looking at.

MTV

CG has been right around 38.8 for the solo, light weight test flights (2100-2200 lb). I'm not really interested in exploring/validating the STC envelope. In a rough way I think establishing the baseline at these weights will predict performance at heavier weights. When I'm all done upgrading I'll redo it fully loaded so I know just what my performance is.

gunny

Gunny,

I have a very similar config on my 63 182F. Sportsman, Wing-X with an MT spun by a PPonk. Same stall (or lack thereof) characteristics. She just sort of mushes down. I've never had the presence of mind to check the speed at the point of stall so I'm grateful for you posting your data. I'm coming over the fence at around 65mph just because I'm too new (and chicken) to try slower.

I'll be curious to hear how you like the handling after the VGs. When I was dropping my engine off at PPonk I looked at Steve Knopp's plane. Very similar to mine except his engine is bigger, a 550 if I recall correctly. His wing is the same as mine and he strongly advised me against attaching VGs. He says he's seen it several times and handling gets worse.

I don't want to re-open the VG debate, just stating I'm looking forward to your report.