The Harrier droops the ailerons with flaps and nozzles, it works as advertised, but there is 22,200# thrust available dry.
Something to consider is the drag produced versus the power available. I would say that with the case of a 180/182, the effects of aileron droop on the Lift/Drag curve is a good thing, allowing a slightly higher power setting for better response, parasitic drag increase helping to stay slow in a decent, while increasing aileron effectiveness and lowering the stall speed.
I would assume from experience in a 180/182 with full flaps at approach speed, the power available can maintain CLmax with a slightly better climb rate, so the parasitic drag is not a huge factor with the aileron droop.
Might be something fun to investigate for your application.

There is something to be said for keeping it simple. Drooping ailerons (linked to flaps or independent), "crow" aileron/flap relationship, etc all add complexity & more stuff to do, as well as more chance for something to go wrong IMHO.
I don't know about the DeHavilands. but FWIW I believe the Robertson STOL kits drooped the ailerons with the flaps, but as the flaps went all the way down the ailerons undrooped at least to some extent. Otherwise there wouldn't be very much down aileron left which could be a bad thing when you needed some low & slow bank correction, when the ailerons are already pretty mushy.

hotrod150 wrote: Otherwise there wouldn't be very much down aileron left which could be a bad thing when you needed some low & slow bank correction, when the ailerons are already pretty mushy.

I believe that is part of why the crow config. was developed. Sharp powerful aileron control all the way to stall and then some.

Keeping it simple or not?

Otherwise there wouldn't be very much down aileron left which could be a bad thing when you needed some low & slow bank correction, when the ailerons are already pretty mushy.

In most anything I have flown,(dropped or not) when you are in this condition, you should be using your RUDDER to control your wings, as if you use your ailerons you will be upside down if you are far enough from the ground or you will be digging a wing in.
When you are slow and using your aileron you are asking for a accelerated stall on 1 wing or the other.

Get some altitude, slow way down, pull all your flaps, add a bunch of power, keep your rudder centered, and when 1 wing drops try to raise it with your aileron??
Will open your eyes wide on what happens next if you have never been there. Might be good to have an aerobatic instructor with you the first time!!
If you are not real quick you will have your first look at an entry into an inverted spin!!
I think this is 1/2 of the Moose hunter stalls that happen.
IMHO!
Loving the discussion, so many ideas develop and are discussed, Just what I was hoping for, KEEP EM COMING
GT

Personally, I've got around 2,000 hours in Twin Otters and DHC-5E Buffaloes both with drooping ailerons, and the buff sporting ground actuated spoilers and nose wheel brakes. The deHavilland system for drooping ailerons uses multi-part ailerons with dual slots. They don't stall first and stay effective while your falling out of the sky. I've put a buff into a 400' strip, using only 360' of it and offloaded two unimogs in Southern Sudan at over 110° 90% humidity into baby poo mud. I've also put a Twin Otter into a dirt road in Alaska with 30 kts of crosswind across the Yukon river from Emmonak, loaded. Nothing, flat out nothing, beats their STOL performance day in day out safely.

BTW, Robertson STOL only droops the ailerons for the first few notches on the 185 and brings it back up a tad on full flaps.

So you cannot make blanket statements about aileron and flap performance without evaluating the complete system. There are a zillion ways to skin a cat, only a few don't make a bloody mess.

Dogpilot, your name doesn't happen to be Tom does it?
About 20 years ago I rode into Tanunik from Tooksok Bay and landed in the most sideways landing I have ever been on!!!!BAR NONE!!
It was the first day of flying after about a 3 day storm, I had fell and screwed up my back 3 days before and had been down since, only had to have it fused in 2 places when it was all over and done with, so was happy for the ride.
Glare Ice and I was about 1/2 way back in the seats and looking straight down the runway right down the wing, most impressive job of flying I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. Only had about 50 knots 89.6 degrees to the runway.
At the time I was wishing I was on the ground watching, instead of in the aircraft. Scared the crap out of me!!!
I hurt to much to worry about it much, just glad I was going somewhere else than where I was!
GT

No, first name James. It was when I flew with NOAA doing bird surveys out of St. Mary's 85-88. We used a Twin Otter. We also got roped into a bunch of fish squeezer projects at the same time dropping off crews with nets to count fish and...squeeze roe out of them. Now the landing sounded impressive, but the subsequent take off was more of a thrill ride than I cared for. The wind lifted one wing, got me in bicycle mode, on a road. So I had to do a full forward then back to bounce the gear into the air or I was going off the road into the marsh (Bicycle Mode is nose wheel & one main, The other stupid and nearly fatal STOL take-off screw up is to get into wheelbarrow mode on the nose wheel only). The Twin Otter will happily fly below VMC. So there I was in the air, flying, but more or less sideways. You actually get a bit of paddle wheel effect at really low speed in ground effect. So we drifted from over the road to over the marsh, where we started to mow a bit of marsh grass.

As you can see we flew out of it, or I'd not be writing this. No, impressive pilot I'm not, technically skilled, yes. Always learned, but needed a few hammer blows to make it sink in.

The absolute worst (or most interesting) take off was in Cold Bay. Wind went up to 85 during the time we fueled. So we needed to bug out. Couldn't make the 90° turn to the runway. So I let the wind blow me back to the end of the ramp, added power and we just lifted off straight up elevator style. By the time I was downwind the wind hit 105 Kts according to the tower (which got damaged that night). We had a groundspeed of 310 Kts going down the Cook Inlet to ANC. Which if you know how abysmally slow Twin Otters are, is really impressive.

OK so I am going to extend the m4 wing to the same length as an M6, that adds 18" to the wing tip, I. Have looked at the wingX and the flint tip tanks, does not look like this is rocket science to extend the wing!
I flew a Pacerfrom CO. to AK last year that had the Charlie Center wing ex. Added about3 ' to the wing.
Made a helluva difference in the Pacer!
Looks like to me I could extend the spars, add 2 ribs and a new wing tip and I would have the added length!
Anyone out there have a good reason not to do this??
Thanks in advance
GT

M6RV6 wrote:Anyone out there have a good reason not to do this??
Thanks in advance
GT

It will slow your cruise speed down May as well go for the 35s while your at it

Yep, and the tall gear also!
GT

I'm not a structural engineer, but I would expect that adding span to the wing will increase the loads on the wing attach points that result from gusts. More area equals more lift equals higher loads when encountering up/down drafts. I was going to buy a Cessna T210 years ago that had the Flint tip tanks, until I read the supplement to the POH that cam with the tanks. I don't recall the details but it was a complicated formula for how much fuel was required to remain in the tanks based on aircraft weight at any given time. I assume the extra fuel weight was to offset the extra lift. I passed on the airplane because that kind of "razor's edge" engineering is just a bit discomforting to me. Subsequently, there have been a couple wing failures in Cessna 337s that have extended tip tanks similar to those on the 210. The FAA is investigating and may or may not have issued an AD, I haven't followed the issue.

Best,
O-2

OD
Never have been a fan of the tanks WAY OUT THERE ON THE END OF THE WING.
Though there are many that have them there.
The Glastar has them right in the end of the wing??
I had a set of flint tanks on the 182Amphib I had , but they were for wing extension only on it, pre WingX
I think most of the failures are to do with way over the g loads??
I think my new Broussard is the only bird I have seen with more rivets in the wing than a 337!!
Thanks for your thoughts
GT

I think the airfoil nature of the Flint tanks is the culprit. I once owned a Beech Debonaire with tip tanks - the torpedo shaped type. It did not have any similar restrictions. The Cessna 310's tip tanks are considered the main tanks. On later models they redesigned the 310 tanks to essentially carry their own weight, but they did not really serve as wing extensions. I'm not sure how this applies across the board however since I used to fly a 206 with the Flint tanks and I don't recall any restrictions. Maybe it's type specific.

The 337 is a pretty stout airplane. The wing failures are surprising. There does not seem to be a similar history of failures in Flint equipped C210s. Perhaps the military history of the 337/O-2 encourages some pilots to yank and bank a bit more. One wing failure occurred during a high speed pass.

Best,
O-2

Yep, you go fast enough and pull hard enough the airplane is going to break, especially after repeated times as in the 337 pull u[p, pull apart!
GT

M6RV6 wrote:......Looks like to me I could extend the spars, add 2 ribs and a new wing tip and I would have the added length!
Anyone out there have a good reason not to do this??........

The wing length / strut attach point were no doubt engineered by Maule. Just adding more wing out at the tip may work, & has been done on lots of Pacers, but is probably not ideal. You might think about checking the strut attach location on a longer-winged Maule & matching it. And/or maybe investigate the old V6 STOL mods & the BUshmaster/Producer mods & see what's recommended there when you extend the Pacer wing.

HR
Struts are the same on M4-5-6. Attach points are identical on all 3 wings.
GT

The 337's wing failures actually where not total failures, but close. We helped write that AD and if anybody still wants to see the wings, we still have them in storage. The tip mod was from Bell aviation, a shop in Tennessee. They have a boatload of 337 modifications that make the aircraft end up looking like the Batmobile. What they did on their mod was drill and tap the spar, really stupid. We had sections of the spar failing at the holes and skin deformation on the outer third of the wing. The last two bays of the 337 do not hook up the same as closer to the root, so they do not have much strength. The mod should have been carried to the stronger portion of the wing, but this would have meant de-skinning a lot of wing.

Needless to say, we ended up replacing the original wings. Cessna's engineers wouldn't even give us a criterion to repair them, so they are scrap. Had a hell of a time finding replacements, as it was a model of the 337 that only a handful where made. All in all, the aircraft sat in the corner for almost a year and is now an ongoing lawsuit. BTW, it is likely the most over-equipped 337 floating above the planet, the owner has put every conceivable gizmo, from Garmin 600 to spare Aspen Pro's along with multiple electronic engine suites replacing the 337's original steam gauges. Why, I have no idea. However, physically, the owner is a rather large guy and the P337 is kind of a step into aircraft and it is apparently the only one he can get into with ease.

Has anyone got an paperwork (pictures/drawings/ figures ) of the robertson or cub crafters drooped ailerons , or any body elses??
Sure would appreciate something. Dooped up??
Thanks
GT

Frankenmaule

http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthrea ... nken+maule

Our experimental M4 has wing spar/tip extensions on the original M4 wings. I did not do the work myself but want to pull the tip off and have a look around with a mirror to see how it was done. No issues yet with the extensions though.

We stuck with the original flap mechanism and i am not real happy with it. Seems to be to light duty with lots of flexing in the bell cranks when under load, long cable route, weak handle ..... guess this may not be an issue for you as i am sure it would all change with what is all being discussed with the aileron connections.

Keep a close eye on the weight and balance especially with adding weight to the nose of an M4. Ours was originally a 220 and now has a 250hp lyc O-540 with an MT Prop. The weight difference between the original Franklin/Mac Prop and the Lyc/MT Prop is just about a wash from what i can find out on the net however we are looking at options to move the cg back a long long way and at the moment i don't have a good reason why its that way.

Im in south central Saskatchewan Canada and if your interested PM my your phone number and we can chat about the M4's.