born2flyak wrote:.....
As for some early model Cessnas, like the 172/180/182... The stock handles almost require some gymnastic flexibility to yank in 40 degrees. ....

Never noticed this problem myself, esp if slowed down. The flaps-up position might be hard to reach, but that keeps the handles out of the way when flap-less. Ditto for Pacer. That isn't a problem- it's a feature.

nmflyguy wrote:Has anyone here had any experience with the vortex generators sold on http://www.pipermods.com? These seem to be diferent from other versions of vortex generators sold for Cherokees in that they only go on the inboard sections of the hershey-bar wing....

This doesn't sound too good if the VG's are intended to keep the airflow attached to the wing. The idea behind washout is to have the inboard end of the wing stall first, so that you keep some aileron effectiveness into the stall. Some airplanes such as the Yankee add "stall strips" to accomplish this. If the airflow stays attached to the inboard end slower than intended, the whole wing might stall all at once or in an extreme case the outboard end stalls first. Bad.
Pipermods.com is the AMR&D (Art Matson) website. He also advertises a tip mod for the Sensenich 74DM6 prop as used on a Cherokee. Basically he sez the mod allows it to turn up (and climb) like it has 2" less pitch, without giving up cruise speed. I bought a new prop from him with his tip mod-- I don't think it really does much but I'm not too bummed out about it. His price for new props is such that you are pretty much getting the tip mod thrown in for free-- if it works as advertised it's just a bonus.

Eric

hotrod150 wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:Has anyone here had any experience with the vortex generators sold on http://www.pipermods.com? These seem to be diferent from other versions of vortex generators sold for Cherokees in that they only go on the inboard sections of the hershey-bar wing....

This doesn't sound too good if the VG's are intended to keep the airflow attached to the wing. The idea behind washout is to have the inboard end of the wing stall first, so that you keep some aileron effectiveness into the stall. Some airplanes such as the Yankee add "stall strips" to accomplish this. If the airflow stays attached to the inboard end slower than intended, the whole wing might stall all at once or in an extreme case the outboard end stalls first. Bad.
Pipermods.com is the AMR&D (Art Matson) website. He also advertises a tip mod for the Sensenich 74DM6 prop as used on a Cherokee. Basically he sez the mod allows it to turn up (and climb) like it has 2" less pitch, without giving up cruise speed. I bought a new prop from him with his tip mod-- I don't think it really does much but I'm not too bummed out about it. His price for new props is such that you are pretty much getting the tip mod thrown in for free-- if it works as advertised it's just a bonus.

Eric

Hotrod - you bring up a good point. If the inboard stalls first, then the ailerons maintain control well into the stall, meaning less likely to drop a wing on stall. The hershey bar wing doesn't really have any washout, as the wing is a constant shape, width, camber, etc. across its entire length to the tips (other than the short taper section at the wingroot). It sounds like Matson suggests the inboard section stalls first because of turbulence coming off the prop, nose and fuselage/cabin. Of course, his website suggests big improvements overall. I'm just wondering if anybody here has experience with it.

born2flyak wrote:
Well, I've never used the EZ flap handle in any aircraft yet, but if it's easy to reach the flap handle to pull in the first 10 or 20 degrees of flaps, what next? The EZ flap handle is now at the OEM handle's 40 degree angle, it looks as though you need a flight engineer in the backseat to pull in the last 2 notches...and I really am ignorant, never used it, and don't make landings without full flaps, unless flying bored and empty on long runways...

Because of the Cessna flap system's long lever and long 80 degree throw, there is no one place where you could grab the flap handle and use it comfortably in all four positions. Whether you grab it using the stock handle, or grab it by an extension device, one or the other grip is either too far forward or too far back. It's like the steering wheel in your car. Ford and Chevy decided to design your car so you just can't really do it without switching your hand grip three or four times to get the entire steering travel out of it.

Fortunately on the flap handle extension, you only need to switch grip once.

On a Cessna, you use the extension to grab the flaps at the zero position, easily while you're sitting upright. When you get to 20 degrees, the stock Cessna flap handle is now (finally) in the right position for you to grab it... so you use the Cessna handle to get into the 30 and 40 degree positions. At those positions, the extension swings back out of the way under your elbow. NO, it does not hit the seat, NO it does not hit the pilot. (On a Piper, which uses a much shorter throw and a shorter flap lever, you don't switch grips)

The next question most people have is... "...but it looks like it will be kind of clumsy and time consuming to "dump" the flaps off on a STOL landing in my 180...?" I've timed it with a stopwatch. It takes exactly HALF a second to dump off the first 20 degrees of flap, switch your grip back to the EZ Flap handle, and dump off the last 20 degrees. In return for that half-second of time, you get to sit upright, watch where you're going, not accidentally lean on the right rudder pedal, and keep 100% situational awareness of your LZ.

You're not ignorant at all, you're just coming up with the same questions and the same concerns that the FAA had a year ago. These are the same "problems" that (first) I had to make sure did not actually exist, and (second) had to convince the feds that the problems didn't exist, and (third) that I now have to convince the pilots that these problems don't exist. Normally I'd say "Trust me, I solved all those problems" but nobody wants to trust a guy from Hollywood To prevent this reply from becoming commercial, see the link below for info on who stands behind what and how.

EZFlap wrote: ...It's like the steering wheel in your car. Ford and Chevy decided to design your car so you just can't really do it without switching your hand grip three or four times to get the entire steering travel out of it.........

Reminds me of the old "brody knob" that people used to put on their steering wheels 30 or 40 years ago-- useful for a few situations, but otherwise not. And sometimes a drawback-- ever had your knuckles cracked by one of these?

This thread is too far gone, but I'd like to see EZ Flap FAQ and banter go into a single thread, like this one:

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4221

...Which you can then direct users to who have questions or concerns, and answer them there. I'd rather not have every single modifications topics turn into a "pro/con/don't understand EZFlap discussion." Thanks.

1SeventyZ wrote: I'd rather not have every single modifications topics turn into a "pro/con/don't understand EZFlap discussion." Thanks.

Sorry... no offense intended.

EZFlap wrote:

1SeventyZ wrote: I'd rather not have every single modifications topics turn into a "pro/con/don't understand EZFlap discussion." Thanks.

Sorry... no offense intended.

No offense taken, and I don't expect you to stand idly by without defending your product. I'd just like to see it relegated to a single condensed topic that you can direct people to. Or start a fresh "EZ Flap FAQ" topic or something that doesn't have all the initial pushback. We'll all be better of for it in the end.

Put the test fuselage on the main gear to see what it looks like.

A Cherokee taildragger!! Is that the real deal, or photoshop?

That's totally f***ing cool !!! Saves weight, saves drag, makes it a better off-road vehicle.

Did you run numbers to see whether that thin little bulkhead will take the landing loads? Unfortunately, the Cherokee spar carry-thru runs way too far back to mount a tailwheel gear. On first look, it would SEEM to me that you might need a bunch of skin doublers and triplers to take those loads and spread them through the fuselage. That little mini-buulkhead and the lower skin stiffeners looks marginal for someone bouncing the airplane on a rough strip... but I am definitely not an engineer. Have you done the calcs on that?

Reality, Experimental, STC, Photoshop, or whatever...Totally !(#*%^ cool ! Steve is this an STC project or a one-off experimental tinkertoy?

hotrod.....

Well, its the real deal as far as testing the concept goes. What you see is our test fuselage for certification. We are going to set this thing up with the gear system. Load it up to the gross weight of the aircraft with the proper weights for the wings engine and other components. Then we have to go through a series of drop tests to see if the gear system will take the twisting moment and landing loads with out bending the airframe. After that and if we pass the test, we are going to set the system up on our 1963 Cherokee 180 for flight testing.

After all that, if everything goes to plan, we will have a full blown STC to convert the PA-28-180 and all the other PA-28 series aircraft that share the same airframe.

So, who knows, after over 6 years of screwing with ideas, drawings and spending all sorts of money. We might have a completed airplane in a year or so.

Wish us luck.....

Brian.

I've already told ya I think it's a great idea. I like those birds and to see one as a taildragger would be cool, I'd love to fly one someday!

You gotta be kiddin me.

EZ,

We hired a DER a long time ago and are going by the certification plan drafted by him and signed by the FAA. At the time, he figured the existing structure would be strong enough for that airframe. But, we will find out after the first drop test procedure at max gross weight.

born2flyak

Nope, cant kid a kidder....

Brian,

I can appreciate your thinking outside the box, but is there really a market for this?

What are the pros besides the weight savings and a few extra knots? It seems after the all the time and money spent you'd be approaching the cost of a C-180.

Just curious

EZ Flap, Powerflow Exhaust, Cherokee tailwheel conversion, etc. Whether you would buy it or not, it never hurts to have more options on the market in a regulatory climate that stifles this sort of development. I sleep better at night knowing that if I wanted a PA28 taildragger, I will soon be able to have one.

The guys at Steve's Aircraft are STC-generating machines! I know that this one is sort of a fun/hobby STC for them. So, why not? Tailwheel RV's are beloved, I'm sure there's a few Cherokee guys out there licking their chops over this. I just hope that rudder is authoritative enough.

Well, I think it's cool. But then again I fly a taildragger C150 so I obviously am a tailwheel nut plus don't have anything against conversions. But I bought mine pretty much as-in, instead of spending the time & money to convert one myself.
I do wonder how much demand there will be. Most Cherokee drivers I've talked to are not tailwheel guys, tailwheel oriented, or even "tailwheel-curious". But there are a lot of people who like Cherokees so maybe there is a market for PA-28TD's after all.
It'll be cool and interesting to see this one fly anyway. Even though I'm not much of a Cherokee fan myself, I have to give you an A+ for inovation & craftsmanship.

Eric

mountainmatt,

Is there a market? Probably next to none. But this day and age if you are going to go through the time and expence to develop a one off conversion, you might as well go for the full blown STC and make it available to anyone who may want to do it. As it is, we are not going to go through the PMA process for this conversion. Also, we have had some interest from Alaska operators so there may be a few flying around.

As far as pro's and con's go....there realy is not much of either...The weight of our gear and the original is almost the same, so that is pretty much a wash. And you might gain a small speed gain. This whole thing came about from a friend of ours that has been dreaming of doing his airplane for the past 20 years. In fact, the photoshop rendering I did is of his airplane. And when he saw the fuselage the other day, there was no way to wipe the smile off of his face. So, it is more of a "what the hell" thing more than any thing else.......

Here is the Photoshop image again...



Brian.

Well it will be very interesting to see how this pans out. I had the same questions as EZflap as I know how these things are built. I'd like to take it for a test drive!