So what's the placard for? To cover up otherwise empty space?

mtv wrote:The reason that later Cessnas with the big flaps went to a max deflection of 30 degrees is cause an inordinate number of pilots numb from the waist up crashed trying to do go arounds with full flaps on the 40 degree flap airplanes.
MTV

You sure? Whats you reference on that? Is that why some of the 180 hp conversions on 170's limit flap travel, reduced performance on a go-around?

Frankly, with full flaps and a REASONABLE approach speed, as hotrod note, a slip is sorta irrelevant. A Cessna with full 40 flaps and 60 to 65 mph will come down like a brick. I can't imagine why you'd want to come down much more precipitously myself.

40 degree flaps and run it up to almost the top of the white arc and it'll drop like a triple brick pull back on the yoke and it'll slow down quick. No need to slip if you do this right.

a64,

That was the reason given by Cessna when they took that action.

Take a look at the STC's to add floats to the Cessna 206 at high gross weights--same thing-even on the earlier airplanes which were approved for forty flaps. I flew a 1976 206 with a big engine IO 550, on Wip floats, approved at 3800 pounds. Flaps on wheels=40. Flaps on floats=30.

Pilots have littered the accident record with Cessna aircraft that they've gotten way too slow with full flaps, or failed to remove carb heat on carbureted engines, or.....just screwed up.

I've flown Cessna 150's out of a full flap go around on a hot day, right at gross, and its not a big deal, but a lot of pilots have piled them up, so Cessna reduced their liability.....

MTV

mtv wrote:
Denalipilot:

The 180 engine makes the C 170 a whole different airplane, no doubt.
MTV

MTV:

I think he was asking if in your opinion adding a cuff kit to his 145hp airplane would be worth it, in contrast to your 180hp one.

Also, if you thought that wing covers sewn for a standard 170 wing would still fit once the cuffs were installed.

Kind of curious about that myself

Maybe we should start a new thread, but sometimes flap limitations, especially if a bigger engine, more thrust is added come from aerodynamic reasons. More thrust for example can change the airflow over the tail. I know of at least one aircraft that when a turbine conversion is done, te flaps are limited in travel, and it's because on sudden acceleration, like in a go-around, the additional thrust causes problems with airflow over the tail, problems that don't exist with lower horsepower.
Sometime what appears to be a simple thing actually has complicated roots.

a64,

Note that none of the Cessna aircraft changed horsepower when the flaps were restricted to 30 degrees (when done by Cessna). I don't believe that any of the current model Cessna aircraft (172, 182, 206) can extend flaps beyond 30 degrees, yet each of those (with the exception of the optional S model 172) still has the same rated horsepower they've had for years. I don't know about turbine conversions, but the subject was Cessna aircraft, not tubines and not ag airplanes, which are all restricted category in any case, thus meet different certification criteria.

once and futr,

If your wing covers fit well (and they should) they will not fit after installation of the Sportsman leading edge cuff. That cuff adds quite a bit of wing actually.

As to whether adding the Sportsman to a stock 170 is worthwhile or not, that's up to the buyer. The Sportsman leading edge definitely changes the character of the airplane, very much for the better. Power has nothing to do with it. But, it's not an inexpensive modification, either.

MTV

MTV,
The horsepower comment was made as as to maybe why the 170 with a bigger engine has restricted flap travel. Certification Basis doesn't change as far as flight charestics go for a restricted category airplane. FAR 23 is FAR 23 or CAM 8 etc., there are some significant differences like you only have to meet stall speed with an empty hopper as a hopper load may be jettisioned, but the stability etc. still has to be there.
If you look at the certification basis of any small airplane, you may be surprised how many parts of a particular FAR are not met, exceptions are granted, even Cessna's.

The real point I'm trying to make here is if you operate your aircraft in such a manner that it is placarded against, bad things may happen, that is the only significant thing I'm trying to get across. Manufacturers put placards on airplanes for a reason.

a64,

Please re-read my posts. There is NO restriction on flap deflection on the Cessna 170, with stock engine, with a 180 hp engine, with a 220 Franklin engine. None, zip, nada.....nowhere.

There are no requirements for a PLACARD recommending against slips with flaps deployed on those aircraft either, or on many of the early Cessna aircraft. Take a look at the earlier Cessna Type Certificates. No placard.

The latest model Cessna aircraft have a restriction on flap travel. I already stated that Cessna, in its own literature, gave the reason for that restriction. That was well discussed in the aviation media at the time. That was a liability issue, but had nothing to do with slips, but rather go-arounds.

Many of the later model Cessna aircraft DO have a placard which says "Avoid slips with flaps extended." That is taken right from the C-172 TCDS. Here's the required placard IF SKIS ARE INSTALLED in the Cessna 180: “Avoid slips with flaps extended while on skis.” emphasis added.

Now, here's the placard for Cessna skiplanes regarding cycling skis on the ground: “Do not extend or retract skis at speeds above 125 knots.”
“Do not extend or retract skis while in motion on the ground.” and the placard required in the C-180, equipped with floats or skis:
“IN FLOATPLANE, AMPHIBIAN, AND SKIPLANE
RETRACT FLAPS TO 20° IMMEDIATELY AFTER APPLYING
POWER FOR BALKED LANDING GO AROUND.”

Now, on the Cessna 185, here is the only reference to slips with flaps extended (and note that the 185 has 300 T/O hp, vs the 180 with only 230):

On Models 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, and A185E (cont'd):
(2) The following additional placard must be displayed in full view of the pilot when floats are installed:
(a) "Maximum design weight - 3190 lb. (amphibian 3100 lb.)" (See Note 3)
(b) "Maximum altitude loss in stall recovery - 130 ft."
(c) "Avoid sideslips with flaps extended

Notice the difference in the verbiage between the slips with flaps extended and the other placards. The slips with flaps extended is purely advisory--"Avoid slips with flaps extended" Note also that the Cessna 180, and 185, all the way to the end of production, are only required to have such a placard if floats or skis are installed. Compare that to a regulatory placard such as this one from the 185: "No acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, approved"

My point is that there is a very real difference between an ADVISORY placard and a required compliance placard.

Anyway, I think the more salient point is that if you are in a position where you MUST use a slip AND full flaps in a Cessna to get down, you've either mismanaged the approach badly, or you need some dual instruction, or both. Those big flaps and a proper approach speed will definitely give you a remarkable descent rate, even without a slip.

Flying at significantly higher airspeed, in a slip to lose altitude makes no sense to me. Slow it down to a reasonable approach speed and the airplane will settle enthusiastically.

I routinely see students crossing the threshold at 75 knots in airplanes with a stall speed of 44 knots. What's wrong with that picture? 1.3 Vso for that airplane would be 57 knots, and that's what's recommended by the FAA for APPROACH, not over the numbers. If that's your style, stay away from short runways and/or high density altitudes.

MTV

Double post

mtv wrote:.......The Sportsman leading edge definitely changes the character of the airplane, very much for the better. Power has nothing to do with it. But, it's not an inexpensive modification, either. ....

I checked Steene's website not too long ago, the Sportsman cuff kit was about $2K.

Mine was about $3000 all said and done. I have the C-145 engine, and I would do it again in an instant. It makes the 170B much comfortable operating in the short field environment.

Scolopax, where did you get the Sportsman installed?

I'd consider doing it, but I've figured it would cost around $7,000 given the install time projections from Steen, paint, etc.

Scolopax wrote:Does anybody have a Cessna 170B, 172, 175, 180, 182, or 185 with the Sportsman STOL and Micro VGs installed? I have a 170B with the Sportsman STOL. I was thinking about installing VGs and was wondering if anyone has used this combination?

I have about 700 hours in a C-145-powered '54 170B with the Sportsman
kit (including aileron gap seals) and 100 or so hours in a '53 170B that was
bone stock.

How much are the VGs? My '54 170B came with the Sportsman kit, but
I'm not so sure I would have sprung for the $2K - $3K to have it installed
if it wasn't already on there when I bought it....

I think you're already "95% there" with the Sportsman kit, and based
upon the cost of the VGs and the pain in the rear they can be (when
washing the airplane, messing with wing covers, etc.), I'd personally
opt to leave the VGs off....

Since I'm typing, the '54 170B with the Sportsman kit on it was, in
ways, a delight to fly (I could land it virtually *anywhere* I wanted
to, but with the C-145 up front, I couldn't necessarily get the danged
thing back out!). In calm conditions, I could approach at 35-40mph.
With the stock wing (in the '53 170B), the slowest approach speed I
was comfortable with was 40-45mph (again, in calm conditions).

With my stock-winged '54 C-180, the slowest appoach speed I'm
comfortable with is 45-50mph, but you better have one hand on
the throttle, and the engine better keep running!

Anyway, doesn't the joke go the Sportsman kit is a cheap(er)
way of repairing wings that have banged up leading edges?
(that was probably the case on my '54 170B which came out
of Canada, eh?).

Oregon180,

A shop called "Eagle Wings" in Burns did the installation work and Williams Aircraft Painting at the same field did the paint work. I am very impressed with the work of both shops. If you are interested, I will PM the contact info. The installation was included with a bunch of other work that I had done a few years ago, including a whole fresh strip and paint. I think that he would do it for less than 7k.

Scolopax

Mine was $8K in Denver for Sportsman's stol kit, and micro vg's, installed and painted. And a very nice job, including 2 color paint match.

Gary

There is a LOT of labor involved in installing a Sportsman kit. I had it done to a work 185, and participated some in the install. You may be able to find a shop that'll let you participate and save some money that way.


MTV

Apparently, it's really fast, and so much fun that people should have to pay to do the installation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1tfjmTpU0g

shortfielder wrote:Mine was $8K in Denver for Sportsman's stol kit, and micro vg's, installed and painted. And a very nice job, including 2 color paint match.

Gary

I went to the factory to pick up my kit (When it was in California City-Before Steen Fiberglass ) with the FAA doing a Audit evaluation of the kit. I'd done several SPORTSMAN and Horton STOL kits before.Same amount of work for each brand -but dramatically different results. Kit says 40 hours but it's more like twice that amount of time for me. It's mark,drill,deburr ,prime, put back on and rivet for 350-400 holes. I used a hand held ,and power cherry max gun. Lots of work but flys great !

VG's can be put on by anyone who wants Cheap install -with 2 guys can be completed in a day or so .

Cheapest and quickest STOL I've done is use "Ace Deamers-Madras Tips"
On and off in under a half hour .Look ugly but work reasonably well.

For sale 2 pair of "Madras" Tips-one for cuffed leading edge (Cessna or ??? -not Sportsman) and one straight Cessna 150-thru early 210's - $300.00 a
pair +shipping.

Hmmmm.......I don't remember saying anything about "MUST" using slips, approaches at 75 kts or other egregious behavior as was noted subsequently. (reread my posts, the slips are initiated from a stabilized 60kt approach on final - WAY before the numbers)

MTV, I assume you teach power off landings as a technique to be regularly utilized at airports in developed areas, right? If you do, is slowing the bird to 1.1 to 1.2 Vso the method you teach to steepen the approach angle with the throttle back against the full idle stops from abeam the numbers all the way in?

Power on approaches are something I do regularly practice to get in short, but I don't view that as a good technique when the only option if the fan quits is becoming an uninvited guest in someone's living room. It seems better reserved for the practice strip/backcountry, etc. I'd rather use a technique that makes me feel confident I can make the runway no matter what happens. That's why I might be a little high, though.

If I am landing at home base with 5,000+ feet of asphalt in front of me, but yet I want to see if I can put the mains "right there". that's circumstances I have used the slip for. Nothing more, nothing less. I could certainly land another 3 - 400 feet down the runway since I got plenty, and if it is a known hazard in any way to slip it under these circumstances, that's the path I will take in the future. Just wanted to better understand what was being seen and how, if at all, the VG's on the vert stab mitigated it.

A64 - Based on your comments, what do you think is Cessna's suggestion for cross wind landings? Don't use flaps so a slip need not be AVOIDED? Crab it in, scrubbing the mains off? AVOID flying in crosswinds? Hell, I am talking about less slip than you would need to PROPERLY address an 10 knot direct crosswind - Not exactly a unusual operational circumstance. The bird has consistently behaved herself under those circumstances so far too.

Bottom line guys, I think you extended my post way beyond what was written or intended. I had asked for some feedback on a phenomenon that was described by Wannabe, and in the process divulged some techiques that not one, but two 10,000+ hr CFI's (And one was actually my DFE for the PPL) had schooled me on. I am not saying that it is necessarily the best technique, and I will start practicing the slower approach and see if I can stabilize it power off and get used to slowing to 50 kts all the way in if I am high. It just hasn't been as comfortable for me to this point as 60 kts where she is rock solid, then swinging the nose over a bit to get a little steeper and hit a particular spot.

Flynengr