Everything is a a give and take. I've spent many hours racking my brain over the "perfect" plane. One that will take off at 25mph in 50 feet, cruise at 200mph, haul a 2000 lb payload and only cost about 60-70k. to me it's also a little like looking for the one perfect rifle.

I haven't found one yet..
So over the years my favorite to do it all as close to possible as that, without building one (because that would be a joke) is the 180.
Before my ill attempt at writing once again I'll preface this by saying I'm no expert. Just love to fly as much as anybody here. I do know my birds limits pretty well. Or am getting there with this one.
Even if you have thousands of hours in a particular type I still personally feel it takes some hours to get welded to an individual plane. Consistent hours.

Here's the scoop.
I had a 56 model I was absolutely in love with. Light and sportsman is enough mods to cover this area.
I wrecked her 2.5 yrs ago.
October 12 I got a 55 model. I only flew her maybe 20 hours and then she was down till just about 2-3 months ago. Since then I've put about 80 hrs in. Feeling pretty "welded".
She's not quite as light,,yet but I'd say within 100 lbs. easy. She has the sportsman, vg's and wingx extensions.
I never flew one with them before but bought one that way mainly to have the gross weight increase and figured it couldn't hurt my STOL characteristics, which is what I'm mainly after.
My absolute immediate thoughts and concerns where of the loss of rapid aileron control or roll rate. Sacrifice tho right..
My next feelings where on the good side. Man is it stable at slow speeds. Really slow.
Lately, due to the serious winds we have here, I am feeling my loss of control surfaces more. Mostly in moderate to high x wind scenarios.. I definetly can not handle the same x winds I could before in my sportsman only bird. Not enough aileron or rudder. I can't slip as hard either.
Before you aerodynamic gurus go bashing me I just wanna say I don't claim to be that bright but do realize longer wings could have these affects. I'm just sharing what I'm seeing "personally".
It would be so cool if 180's had a way to increase the control surfaces to offset some of the characteristics.
Overall. If I didn't care anything about the gross weight increase I would probably lean more towards a sportsman only. That is the most bang for the buck mod on a 180 I period in my mind.
Would it be as slow?.. Probably not. But really close.
Also if your more comfortable with mostly down the pipe wind and a little more conservative flying, then I'd say a no problem at all with wingx.
Im definetly finding myself using more full stop control inputs more often. And finding myself saying "is that it?" while doing it.
All in all I'm still happy with it. Still learning it.
Just find myself missing my snappy rolls and saying "that's not as bad a xwind as I thought".
Good thing about is I guess if I get to down on it I can always take em off.
This report is also to say if anyone knows of anything I can change to make this better please let me know. Or if someone has a similar setup and finds me way off please let me know.
If things or opinions change over the next couple hundred hours I'll report back.
I'm not trying to encourage or discourage anyone on this. Everyone's mission is different. I think these things are great for many applications!
Thanks.

What prop and engine are you running? Roll rate is slowed a bit but, we're not needing to roll the plane much when were down to 40 dragging it in. I could not be happier with my wing. Coming from a Horton and VG's that I loved. Snappy etc., but not near a slow.

Not to promote the MT here but the world changed when it went on. Again, had the 2 blade 88" prop then the 3 blade 86" Mac ...both made for a nose heavy aircraft, not near as slow, trim aft and less control at high AOA. The MT changed that.

AKT

Thanks for the report. I own a '58 182A that I have been considering adding the wingx to as well. I fly the thing pretty much at gross 80% of the time so sporty handling is rarely a likelyhood. What I am interested in is the short field landings and takeoffs. I recently had to abort a takeoff due to high DA's, plane being at gross, soft runway and uphill (but into a 15 knot wind). It sounds like I'll be able to get the plane into ground effect a fair bit quicker so I am very interested in this modification. What do you figure the take off roll was shortened by approximately? I realize it is a different plane, but is it night and day difference, or just a little better? When I get the P.Ponk next year I'm sure that'll help a bit too!

Thanks!

Paul Ricklefs

Do you have aileron gap seals? That makes a notable difference in role rate. The best way to do that is stick sail tape between the wing and aileron on the bottom side of the hinges. You have to disconnect the aileron control rod to get enough room to do it.........

Ak-- I'm running a 470 w a 88" 203 Mac. Aoa is awesome. No complaints there. Hard not to hit tail first on 29's.
Your right. Don't need a quick roll rate so much at slow speeds. Still hard to say I don't miss it for fun sometimes. Kinda like I miss driving a corvette sometimes but woildnt trade a 4x4 for one. Biggest thing is the x wind and slip type inputs. Just not there. Not mandatory... Just can't do as much there. Really do miss that. Even feels like I have less rudder. Find myself on the stops constantly wishing there was more. Or rolling hard and waiting for it to "catch up". I do really like it for lots of my flying which is mostly solo and light and its really nice for when I do want to haul out a load.

Paul-- definetly a good option for what you describe. Hard for me to give you a fair gross comparison yet. That's one thing I haven't done much of yet. But it will definetly help there alot. I'm off consistently in a 150ft no problem light. I haven't used more than 300 yet even loaded prob Around old gross. Skydiver guy close by loves em so much he can't stand it on his 59 182. Shorter roll and cut off around 10 min to altitude. Nooo draw backs to haulin. Unless your hanger is only 39ft

One day soon skalywag and I are going to spend the day running some comparisons.
He's carrying a Horton stol and on 29's as well. He's curious as well if a sportsman makes a difference.
I still stand by sportsman being the most bang for buck on an older 180/182 period. Absolutely love em.
Wingx.. It's a love hate type relationship for me. Not so heavy on the hate but you know what i mean. There are SOME downsides to it. But the goods definetly weigh heavy.

For comparison, I met up with 55' in Telluride, CO last October when he was bringing his bird down from Idaho. When he headed back south we took off together and flew down to the CO border before I headed back, him at near gross weight and me at maybe 600 pound load. My dad was watching and said we both got off right about the same distance. The field elevation is 9070' or somethin like that and the DA was 11,000K+/- This was when we both had 470-L motors and 82" props, the differences where that I had a Horton and 29's and he had Sportsman, WingX, VG's and wheels panties.

After getting off the ground bout the same in the 600-700' range we both stayed in ground effect building speed the length of the runway until the cliff at the end and started to climb. Thats where the big difference was, I could barely climb 400'-500' a minute and 55' seemed to be doubling that. It was night and day on the climbout, and he was much heavier.

The other difference was that he was way faster with the wheel panties vs. the 29's. I assume that the WingX creates some extra drag, but it was nothing near the drag that bushwheels give so I'd say very minor. Once he got on bushwheels, and we had similar motors for a couple months (his with bigger prop), I was faster by 3-4mph. Point is it doesn't seem like the WingX has much drag in cruise. Oh yeah I forgot that he also had the snyder speed kit on the 55', which I think has been partially removed???

The other week I ran down there and flew in the 55', the stall characteristics of that wing set-up is amazing! The Horton does the Job, and there is not huge differences when lightly loaded, but the Sportsman/WingX combo really shows its merits at heavier weights, and very slow speeds.

There is one huge downside to WingX besides the $$$...it wont fit in my hangar

There are things you can try to fix the roll rate. One is legal and costs nothing, the others may or may not be legal.

The legal improvement is to augment the roll input with rudder use. There is usually a fairly strong coupling between yaw and roll on most "normal" certified airplanes. So adding a quick boot full of rudder should make the airplane roll faster. However, you MUST practice this and learn the behavior of your specific WingX aircraft at altitude before you put this into practice low to the ground. I have no idea exactly how rudder input and/or movement around the yaw axis will affect tip stall, aileron effectiveness, pitch, etc. etc. in your situation. In general, if you are yawing and rolling in the same direction, the "inside" aileron is deflected upward, which in general does not support a tip stall. But too much rudder at slow speeds can always cause an incipient spin regardless of where the ailerons are... so please try this at a safe altitude. If this suggestion works, or especially if it does not work safely, please let everyone here know. Anyone on this forum with a degree in aerodynamics or stability & control is invited to agree or disagree with this suggestion.

On the "dark side", aileron gap seals will definitely help to one degree or another. So will aileron "spades" but you'd get a visit from Big Brother pretty quick. There is a trick that one of the better sailplane manufacturers uses, where upward deflection of the main aileron also pushes a small spoiler (or aileron extension) upward at the very tip of the wing, but the downward aileorn on the other wing does not push the coorresponding extension downward. This creates "proverse" yaw and roll. Depending on the shape of the WingX wingtips, it may be possible to do this, however you will need to make sure that this extension is mass balanced, because a 180 can go fast enough to flutter something like this very easily. And you're still on the dark side even if you did it safely.

And while we're on the dark side, the most effective way to get back all of your lost roll rate,a nd then improve it significantly from there, would be a roll spoiler system that was controlled by the existing aileron bellcrank. But not even Obi-Wan could save your soul at that point

Red.
I do have the gap seals. Thanks

Skaly
Don't forget I got 6" bubbles to. that and the 88" is prob the 3-4mph.
Ya that day at telluride I had to throttle way back to keep from leaving you behind in the climb. That was def a testament to the wingx.

Ez
I'm plenty comfortable with any and all kinds of inputs. I know what ya mean but that isn't gonna get it back
Definitely not interested in any kind of spade stuff.
Only thing I can envision making a difference without negative aspects would be longer ailerons. That would be an awesome mod. Or more aileron deflection. And a bigger rudder or more rudder travel.
The pursuit continues.

Something to consider.
When you are going slower (thanks to sportsman's and WingX) there is less air going over the flight controls, so it stands to reason (to me) that the flight controls are going to be 'less responsive'.
VGs might help the air stay attached to the control surfaces at a slower speeds, and assist some with their effectiveness? The VGs on the Cessnas I believe include tail feather VGs to assist with keeping the air attached so it is more effective....
I do know that with the stock cub wing at very slow speeds the roll rate would lag the controls, and I went to the stops a lot before the VGs were put on. With the VGs, the ailerons are a LOT more effective, even down to the slightly slower speeds.

Just a thought...
lc

Lc
I've got the vg's.
and its less responsive at all speeds. I'm not talking about just at the bottom 5mph. There not enough there to counter the xwinds. To much wing for the control surface. In my opinion. Thanks for the thought tho.

I'm wondering about your angle of incidence.
I slip almost every landing with loads of control. Just a thought.

Just to clarify here for the people who don't know. The Sportsman STOL kit does come with aileron gap seals.

Man AK, I sure hope I meet up with ya sometime somewhere. Id love for us to ride in each others planes and see a comparison of virtually same set up. Really like to check out that prop too.

55,

I would think the bigger wing without bigger ailerons is where your difference is. I don't have Wing X but I am flying a heavier bird, and one with factory seaplane kit which in my plane means rudder centering springs and aileron rudder interconnect. I hate the effort it takes to move the rudder, especially quickly. Hopefully removing those springs will help. I'm hugely spoiled with the Stearmans rudder, both in ease of movement and amount of deflection. We've even checked to ensure I'm getting max rudder deflection, and I am.

Back to roll rate and xwind capabilities, a friend of mine who flew Stearmans for Red Baron Pizza, and who crop dusts below the border now, who I consider to be the best pilot I've ever seen, told me that a 450 Stearman, with four ailerons and disc brakes, can handle any crosswind. My 450 does have disc brakes, but only two ailerons, and I run out of aileron on heavy crosswinds. I could see that if the upper wing had ailerons my roll rate would increase dramatically and with both wings working against the wind I could handle much stronger xwinds. My friends point was that four ailerons, plus brakes you could trust, plus loads of extra horsepower, makes tackling xwinds much more prone to success. It stands to reason that increasing wing surface area without increasing aileron surface area, will have an affect on roll rate - at least in my uneducated mind.

Back to the 185, the other day I flew into San Marcos and it was rudder authority that I ran out of. Wishing there was an STC or something to allow greater deflection. Perhaps VGs on the rudder would help, I've already started looking into that.

Love the new avatar(that's what the little pics alled right?) Phil!
I agree. More aileron would be awesome! More rudder, more everything!

I see a Super Cyclone in your future, the options would be endless...Hopefully one in mine too

55, This might be worth researching further:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/AILERON.pdf

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/Aileron.php

Please... no negative talk about the WingX (at least until I have had a chance to install and fly)

Can you imagine how amazing the WingX would be if it extended the ailerons as well? Skalywag there's your experimental category project.