That's what I was looking for! Thanks for the information guys. I knew the Horton kit was close to the later wing cuff/roberston wing, but I didn't realize how much the Sportsman added beyond that. I'll go out and do some tests like Rob did and see what the difference is. Maybe this is in my future, along with bushwheels, MT prop, new paint, new interior...

I did kept my Horton wingtips they have bigger area than the ones Stene offered at the time , and they recommended me to do that.

Have not seen the new tips in their website.

Franklin powered 220HP 1967 172H
Has anyone noticed a decrease in performance on climb to cruse performance with the Sportsman STOL? My cruse performance is the same, my VX is horrifically better, low speed handling is dramatically better, but the one thing that seems to suffer a bit was my climb to cruse performance. My norm was 100mph and 950-1000 ftpm now after the Sportsman its closer to 850-950, am I the only one?

motoadve wrote:I did kept my Horton wingtips they have bigger area than the ones Stene offered at the time , and they recommended me to do that.

Have not seen the new tips in their website.

I just put a kit on my plane.
This link has pictures of the work along with pics of the wingtips.
Hasn't been painted yet.

http://photocast.me.com/mfraser/100282/rss

172heavy wrote:.... My norm was 100mph and 950-1000 ftpm now after the Sportsman its closer to 850-950, am I the only one?

If Vx is drastically changes, maybe Vy is also. I'd check climb rates at different airspeeds until I found the sweet spot.

I noticed my plane wanted to climb a lot more FPM at 65mph then at the old VY. I'd try different airspeeds as hotrod150 suggested.

Flap gap seals - off. Improved performance - yes. Thanks for the input.

akgreg wrote:Flap gap seals - off. Improved performance - yes. Thanks for the input.

Pretty cool to get a free performance boost huh? That doesn't happen very often.

robw56 wrote:Stene Aviation just came out with a new wingtip design also which adds even more wing area than before (which I have on my plane). According to them, the cuff and wing tips add nearly 9sq.ft. to the 170 wing.

Can anybody elaborate about this new wingtip design?
Thanks

DP,
The newer style tips are much wider on the trailing edge and have a slight droop. I think I measured 13'' wide at the trailing edge. I'll try to remember to take a picture later while I'm at the hangar.

Thanks. I suppose I could call Stene but it's a weekend.

new "hot" leading edge Zane...

akgreg wrote:Flap gap seals - off. Improved performance - yes. Thanks for the input.

Can someone elaborate on this? Ive never flown my plane without the b&m flap and aileron seals so I'm curious about the performance gains. Thank you

Jeredp wrote:

akgreg wrote:Flap gap seals - off. Improved performance - yes. Thanks for the input.

Can someone elaborate on this? Ive never flown my plane without the b&m flap and aileron seals so I'm curious about the performance gains. Thank you

Flap gap seals are designed to increase cruise speed. They do that, at least on Cessnas with para lift flaps, by preventing the flow of air from the underside of the wing flowing to the upper side of the wing through the gaps between the wing and flap. . That occurs PRIMARILY at flaps zero in cruise, but those flap gap seals also reduce the flow of air from bottom to top with flaps deployed, thus reducing the effectiveness of those big flaps. Semi Fowler flaps rely at least partially on the flow from bottom to top of the flaps to keep the airflow attached to the top of the wing at high AOA.

In short, partially blocking those Fowler gaps defeats the effectiveness of the flaps. Not bad on a 210, but a uniquely bad idea on any backcountry plane.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Jeredp wrote:

akgreg wrote:Flap gap seals - off. Improved performance - yes. Thanks for the input.

Can someone elaborate on this? Ive never flown my plane without the b&m flap and aileron seals so I'm curious about the performance gains. Thank you

Flap gap seals are designed to increase cruise speed. They do that, at least on Cessnas with para lift flaps, by preventing the flow of air from the underside of the wing flowing to the upper side of the wing through the gaps between the wing and flap. . That occurs PRIMARILY at flaps zero in cruise, but those flap gap seals also reduce the flow of air from bottom to top with flaps deployed, thus reducing the effectiveness of those big flaps. Semi Fowler flaps rely at least partially on the flow from bottom to top of the flaps to keep the airflow attached to the top of the wing at high AOA.

In short, partially blocking those Fowler gaps defeats the effectiveness of the flaps. Not bad on a 210, but a uniquely bad idea on any backcountry plane.

MTV

I wonder if it would be possible to design a flap gap seal that would automatically retract when the flaps were deployed so that the Fowler flaps could do their job. Maybe that someone could call it EZAUTOGAP!

Fisherman wrote:I wonder if it would be possible to design a flap gap seal that would automatically retract when the flaps were deployed so that the Fowler flaps could do their job. Maybe that someone could call it EZAUTOGAP!

Sorry, he's on restriction at home until he finishes the 172 tailwheel STC.

FWIW, the flap gap seals on my P172D don't seem to interfere all that much with the 40 degree flaps. They definitely added to the cruise speed--5-6 knots, depending on loading. I don't doubt that there might be some technical aerodynamic issues, but not in any practical sense for my purposes. I can land at pretty low airspeeds, and I have good roll control clear down to the stall, probably due to some degree to the super droopy Madras wingtips. Actually, I think the extra drag of those wingtips is cancelled out for practical purposes by having the flap gap seals.

Cary

Cary does your 172 has a STOL kit?
Maybe is more noticeable at slower speeds with a STOL kit.
It made a difference in my 182 when I removed the flap gap seals

I'm not sure you could really tell the difference unless you flew the same plane with and without the gap seals.

Aileron gap seals, at least in my experience, are generally a good thing.

MTV

The only "STOL kit" my airplane has is the droopy tips. While they make slow speed aileron control materially better than without them, based on my having flown a lot of other small older Cessnas with standard tips, I doubt that they lower stall speed noticeably. I owned her for maybe 3 years before having the flap gap seals installed, roughly 200 hours, so I was pretty familiar with the performance without them. I don't doubt that with some airplanes, flap gap seals might adversely affect performance in some fashion, but in my airplane's case, I didn't notice any adverse changes, only the positive change of increased cruise speed. My airplane is hard to stall power off with or without flaps--tends to mush more than a traditional stall--and power on stalls are incredibly benign, regardless of flap position. It was that way before the flap gap seals were installed, and that didn't change that I can tell.

Cary