The wonderful world of mods ....

There are only three certainties here.

1) you are never going to get your money back out of it, so you'd better do it because you like it! But if you don't... lie...

2) no mod comes without a trade off, and most people who spend enough cash on a mod will 'ignore' a trade off to justify the mod in the first place

3) mods do not understand mathematics... as an example; if WingX drops your stall speed by 5 mph, Sportsman by another 5, and vg's by 2, adding all 3 will not yield a 12 mph stall reduction.... it just doesn't work that way....

I am with you on the quest tho...

'55
I really, reallly , appreciate the candid report.... No product bashing, no product hype..... just a plain english 'here's what it did for me' 99.999% of the time, after spending all that coin people are just simply going to love all that a mod did for them... best thing since sliced beer.... or was that canned bread?

Take care, Rob

I wanted the X wing for my 182 which already has the Sportsman STOL, MT prop and VGs, and somewhere I read the same about loosing aileron authority for crosswinds, that was a no go for me, 4 months of the year we have lots of nasty challenging winds.
I love this kind of honest reports.

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

There are a few reasons it doesn't.

Engineering Analysis:
Flutter calculations
Bending moment and torsional moment calculations

Flight Test:
Flutter (dive) testing
Stability and control testing

Paperwork:
Additional STC certification complexity due to above

Real-World Handling:
Adverse yaw and/or other undesirable handling effects
Tip Stall (downward deflected aileron tip)

On "normal" airplanes, in general, at low speeds, adding area and aspect ratio will improve several areas of performance. So the WingX makes perfect sense for that. as long as they (obviously) proved out that the additional bending moment (leverage) would not harm the structure. But I suspect that it took more than enough work for that alone, and that adding ailerons to it would have opened up a huge can of worms.

The asymmetrical spoilers I mentioned before would be much easier to certify. But hey, I'm just a decrepit old broken down glider pilot so I'm overly biased.

The older cub guys will remember when long winged cubs were all the rage... Everyone was ditching the bows, splicing spars and blowing the tips out. And it worked....

It worked, but everyone who flew enough to appreciate flight characteristics, knew that good ole cub 'feel' was gone... Perhaps you had to have 'Jedi' status to understand the 'feel' thing, but I digress....

Most of the long wing cub STC's add less than WingX, but then again, cubs are lighter... So then the good ones came up with ways to get the aileron back out on the end of the wing... Sullivan (When Wayne Makey was there) made the ailerons 9" or so longer. It is a super easy STC because you keep everything in the stock location. It gets the roll back to stock, or even a tad better... but alas.. with a 9' aileron on the end of a giant wing, it still makes for a 'heavy feel'... Then there was the Charley center one... it was a ton of work, because it took a stock flap, and pushed it out to the tip, then stretched the original flap to give you giant flaps This makes jumbo flaps, and a false spar (the cove between the control surface and the wing) all the same. The new 'aileron' becomes smaller than stock, but works wayyy better being out there on the tip where it belongs...

FFWD a couple decades or so, and people are coming full circle.... Yeah long wings still work, but with todays engine tricks, and a weight conscientious airplane, a person can run the beautiful stock bows and still get in and out of everywhere their heart desires... they climb like homesick angels, and haul the mail just fine ... In fact today I'd say the vast majority or rebuilds on cubs sees a person removing the extensions and returning it to stock wing configuration... Will 'wagons follow the same course? time will tell

BTW, My cub is long winged, but because a cub fuse is narrower it still fits in a hangar, which is a prerequisite for me... I have rebuilt it a couple times, and always kept the long wings... Modified them a couple times to get a better wing, but for me the long wings work. If the 'wagon had a better executed STC, and would still fit in the hangar there is no doubt I'd stretch them out too

'55, ever fly an eagle? (not the little acro plane, the ag one) with those immense wings they could get an 80+ foot swath !!! and they had roll spoilers... that would be the ticket, but since WingX doesn't add all that much, it seems to me that pushing the flaps out until the ailerons were back out at the tips would work just fine. Too bad in today's FAA no body's likely to pursue such a monumental task...

I'm with you on the pursuit though!

Take care, Rob

Im with you on all that Rob. Been guilty myself of putting something on and justifying it. But eventually I get sick of lying to myself and rip it off. After the monetary pain is gone of course..
I was thinking the same thing about extending the flaps and pushing ailerons out. That would seem ideal. And a flap like a 206 on a 180.. dam
Thanks guys. I did start this just for a; how I see it and feel it perspective. I do think its a great product. But I do honestly feel like I cant ride the edge so much in certain categories.
Would I put them on if I didnt have them? Torn... I love the old wagon feel. And in some instances it feels more like a 185 now(key word, some). Some know what I mean. Nothing wrong with that,, just a different feel.
If it did not have the gross weight increase I would really be having a tough time deciding. Then I get into the thought of if it feels more like a 185 then why not have one with an even more weight capability? But I highly doubt very many 185's can get in and out in the same distances. And Im mostly flying solo light... and i like the old wagon look. What a dilemna. back and forth back and forth. Its a disease.
Need a set of cyclone wings that are extended at the root. really curious how those are.
If I bought another plane wingx would not be at the top of my must have list. But Im not removing them yet either.
Must haves list. for me.
bushwheels, clevelands, sporstman, good prop(still hunting there as well), bas harness, firewall battery. thats about it. Everything else is give or take.
Unless there is something wrong with my plane, there is absolutely no way I can handle the xwinds I use to. Thats one downside to buying one done(which is only way I could pretend to afford it) versus doing it a piece at a time and flying lots in between. Its hard to say what does what exactly. Im comparing my old plane to my new which was mostlly done. I have no idea what the vgs are doing for it...
Rob. Looking forward to the robertson vs wingx shootout one day!

55,

Great report. I have a 55 with wing-x and Sportsman as well, no VG's though. I heard more comments on slit wrists than benefits for the VGs, so I haven't done that (so far). Would try VGs on tail only, if I could.

Two main reasons I put on the wing-x:
- I added aux fuel tanks, but wasn't smart enough to realize I needed gross weight to go with it till after. 400 lbs!
- Floats. Heard great things from seaplane pilots. More wing area, more real lift at flat angle of attack.

I did the wing-x shortly after the Sportsman, so don't really have a compare for just Sportsman. But the combo lets it land much slower. I do notice somewhat less aileron response. On cruise, strangely it feels like I lost 1-2 mph at low altitude but gained 1-2 at high altitude. Doesn't make sense to me, should scale the same?

Have not been able to try it on floats since, though. Landlocked now. But just bought a set of amphibs so I'll need all the lift and GW I can get. For me, overall benefits are pretty clear.

Thanks for the report 55. I too wondered about the roll response with wing extensions. it definitely slows it, but after being used to super cubs and beavers I found it a non event. They're a real blessing on a 206 floatplane. Regardless - the gross weight increase is worth it for a commercial 180. If you decide you want the stock feel back I'll take them off your hands.

skyjeep wrote:55,

Great report. I have a 55 with wing-x and Sportsman as well, no VG's though. I heard more comments on slit wrists than benefits for the VGs, so I haven't done that (so far). Would try VGs on tail only, if I could.

We screwed around with that on a 206, just put the VG's on the tail!!
Really don't know the reason why, but there was no lift when trying to gain altitude!! , TEST PILOTS!!!!!!!!! Maybe there is a reason nobody does this!!
Just about ripped them off! Then put the rest of them on and made a world of difference!
Great addition.
64 206 with Horton, wing-X, 520,extended elevators. Great machine!!

What are extended elevators?

motoadve wrote:What are extended elevators?

The early 206 had a smaller tail than the rest.
At one time you could get a FA to add about 2" to the trailing edge. That way you did not have to carry a case of oil in the rear to keep the nose from dropping when the tail quit keeping the nose up.

Early 172's and 175's have the same lack of elevator authority, especially when making into a tail dragger w/ full flap landings, later models(63+-)had higher aspect ratio elevator.

Yeah, my '63 P172D has a deeper chord and width to the tail and larger (deeper) elevators.

Cary