For those of you who have flown or better yet, installed VGs on different aircraft, are the VGs from the same manufacturer all the same? Are there different sizes or shapes? I haven't gotten close enough to any to really notice any subtle differences.

I contacted Microair about getting the 190/195 added to their STC, and of course it's a long drawn out process. And as far as a donor airplane it's probably better suited to one of my friends in the PNW or someone with a spare.

So I'm thinking it may be easier to do a one time STC for my aircraft using existing VGs or just machine my own. If each pair is a slightly different shape or size (and it really matters) then it probably isn't worth the effort.

I've installed quite a few sets of Micro aeros and one set of BLRs. Of all the micros I've installed, they have 2 different sizes on the wings, depending on the aircraft type. They have one size for under the horizontal and one size for the sides of the vertical on the cessna. The ones on th wing have a curve to them.
The BLRs went on a supercub and they were about the same size as the micros that went on a husky. Didn't put them side by side though.
Hopefully that's a bit useful for you.

David

David is right. The Micro VGs for the Super Cub are quite a bit smaller than the Micro VGs for the Cessnas, Husky, and others, and as he said, the tail VGS are small as well.

MTV

Keep in mind, VG"s do not improve performance on all airplanes. VG's offer big improvements on some and negligible to no improvement on others. I don't think they would improve performance much on a 195. Probably a waste of time and money in my opinion.

Kurt

G44 wrote:Keep in mind, VG"s do not improve performance on all airplanes. VG's offer big improvements on some and negligible to no improvement on others. I don't think they would improve performance much on a 195. Probably a waste of time and money in my opinion.

Kurt

This is a good point. I've often suggested when asked that the pilot put the money toward some training and practice, rather than trying to band aid the airplane into doing something that it can already do, but for the pilot lacking the skill. The pilot who habitually flies down final at 1.4 or 1.5 Vso won't be benefited by installing VGs that allow him to fly down final at 1.3 Vso--something he could and should have been doing all along.

I have nothing against VGs, and I have no idea whether a 195 would see any benefit, but for some pilots, it's a whole lot like succumbing to those ads in the back of Boys Life when I was a kid that touted the ability to run faster, if only I would buy such and such shoes. First, I'd have to be able to run fast.

Cary

There are a whole lot of opinions about VG's. Personally, I look at them as the "Dietary Supplement" of aviation. Lots of claims, but what is missing is actual performance graphs. Now real, not saying they are not real, but professionally done STOL enhancements tend to come with performance charts that reflect the changes in actual performance. When these are absent, I get suspicious. If your enhancement does all these great things, you think they would be tempted to give you charts reflecting all this great stuff, it would tend to back the marketing claims.

Now what does it hurt to put them on? Well they are drag, in fact lots of drag. So I take them off any aircraft I get that has them. That's just me. Gas is expensive, so making it harder to push your plane through the air costs money, perhaps not much. Either way, if you want better STOL performance, get something that has the charts to back up the claims. Now I have to go drink my quart of muscle milk, I am looking so much like a totally buff pear.

I got the advice lots of times, first learn to fly the airplane then add improvements.

I did not listened,I had no instructor for the backcountry and I needed all the help I could get, so I started to put the STOL kit, the VGs, and the AoA indicator, then the MT prop .
First day with the Sportsman I was doing approaches at 10mph slower than with the Horton I just removed.
It gave me confidence and motivation to keep learning and attempt shorter strips.

VGs if you dont fly slow enough are a waste of money, you wont feel them.

If you fly it real slow they even make a sound when they are working (you hear them from the outside, that is what I have seen in some of my videos.) they do work, gives you more control authority at least in my 182 it does, flying at 50mph or even slower and its still very responsive.

VGs if you dont fly slow enough are a waste of money, you wont feel them

True story. I have them on a M7 235 Maule and a 59 182B. The Maule is one aircraft that sees a definite benefit from VGs. The 182 you will notice the difference when you are real slow, it makes the aircraft more stable and helps with aileron control.

Delete

akflyr182b wrote:

VGs if you dont fly slow enough are a waste of money, you wont feel them/quote]

True story. I have them on a M7 235 Maule and a 59 182B. The Maule is one aircraft that sees a definite benefit from VGs. The 182 you will notice the difference when you are real slow, it makes the aircraft more stable and helps with aileron control.

They made a big difference in the feel of the ailerons at slow speeds, not so sloppy on a ‘61 185. They are effective but you have to be sloooooow. Below are a few videos on VGs, the strings don’t lie.

motoadve wrote:VGs if you dont fly slow enough are a waste of money, you wont feel them.

Could not agree more. In my experience, the fellas who have negative things to say about VGs just are not flying the wing to the full potential and are fast. VGs dont really shine until the zone where most pilots get scared.

I'm from the wrong era to know anything about vortex generators. The young pilots who come fly with me have them but they are doing most of the flying. I haven't noticed a difference.

The strings on the modern airplane showed the outboard section of the wing not stalled when the inboard section was stalled. They didn't give any credit to the wash in. The outboard section is at less incidence. It is flying at less angle of attack.

I liked the Cub Crafters presentation better. If they can land that much slower, that is good. I wish they wouldn't make those aggressive climb takeoffs. Slow on landing, good. Slow on takeoff, bad. The Cub ribs are, at least were, the same all the way out to where it starts rounding. Strips on the Cub wing would show how much the vgs improve aileron authority.

And young guys, this is an old guy preaching a bit: rudder is what will bring the down wing up smartly when slow. Aileron authority, not me. I will use the rudder first and foremost to get the down wing up smartly. Dutch Rolls to 45 degrees will make you believe in rudder authority. If you don't lead rudder bringing the wing up, it will be dragged back by adverse yaw and the nose will come off target. Vgs will not replace the need for aggressive rudder.

If Vgs get pilots to land slower, I am for them. If they get pilots to emphasize aileron over rudder and takeoff at scary pitch attitude, I am against them.

So, are they effective on the Pacer? Does it really benefit from the generators?
Does MicroVG use the small or the large generators on the wing and tail?
Is the placement the same as on the Cessna 172?

buck_justice wrote:So, are they effective on the Pacer? Does it really benefit from the generators?
Does MicroVG use the small or the large generators on the wing and tail?
Is the placement the same as on the Cessna 172?

I was first introduced to VGs 31 years ago when an AD came out for Aerostars. In certain flight configurations the wing would not stall but the rudder and elevators would. Pipers fix was the water rudder(abomination to that airplane) and Machen's is VGs on the vertical stabilizer and under the horizontal stabilizer. The Aerostar that we acquired at the time had the water rudder . We did not have it 90 days and it was removed for the Machen solution. Did we gain more authority in the rudder and elevator compaired to pre AD? Yes we did. So far i have given two examples of two completely different mission airplanes . Will you feel them take effect 10 miles over the stall speed, not at all. For GA purposes they are an enhancement to the characteristics of slow flight close to stall.

Your pacer has a different wing than the 172 which would probably require a different placement.

And young guys, this is an old guy preaching a bit: rudder is what will bring the down wing up smartly when slow. Aileron authority, not me. I will use the rudder first and foremost to get the down wing up smartly. Dutch Rolls to 45 degrees will make you believe in rudder authority. If you don't lead rudder bringing the wing up, it will be dragged back by adverse yaw and the nose will come off target. Vgs will not replace the need for aggressive rudder.

If Vgs get pilots to land slower, I am for them. If they get pilots to emphasize aileron over rudder and takeoff at scary pitch attitude, I am against them.

Agreed, I am not saying not use to use the rudder and especially at low speeds.

buck_justice wrote:So, are they effective on the Pacer? Does it really benefit from the generators?
Does MicroVG use the small or the large generators on the wing and tail?
Is the placement the same as on the Cessna 172?

Yes we have found the VGs to affect cub/husky/champ wings a lot. In a good way. They do help on the cessna wing as well, but I haven't found them as effective on them.
Placement is close, but I hink they are a bit further aft then the cessna wing. I believe they are the small ones. The BLR is big ones on the piper wing.

I hope A1SKINNER gets a chance to put vgs on the Ercoupe some day. All these wing engineering efforts to mitigate adverse yaw when Fred Weick solved the problem in 1939. It can already land very slow with full aft yoke and power. A little slower and it could win at Valdez.

contactflying wrote:I hope A1SKINNER gets a chance to put vgs on the Ercoupe some day. All these wing engineering efforts to mitigate adverse yaw when Fred Weick solved the problem in 1939. It can already land very slow with full aft yoke and power. A little slower and it could win at Valdez.

Maybe one day! We'll be seeing you soon and flying in my non VG equipped 172. I'll take you down one o my favorite rivers when you're up in Grande Prairie.

I look forward to it.

If they do help on the 190/195 wing, I wonder at the benefit? Already a blind beast to land three point.. Those engineers were pretty sharp at calculating stall speed vs landing gear length. VG's with further complicate that issue.
My Super Cub wing was stock when i acquired it. 26" goodyears, nose heavy with stock starter and generator. Full aft stick could not get the tail on the ground before the mains. Added Micro Aero VGs and the tail would touch WAY before the mains. 31" BushWheel tires balanced it out perfectly!
31's on a 195 would look awesome!!!
Tom

flynbeekeeper wrote:If they do help on the 190/195 wing, I wonder at the benefit? Already a blind beast to land three point.. Those engineers were pretty sharp at calculating stall speed vs landing gear length. VG's with further complicate that issue.
My Super Cub wing was stock when i acquired it. 26" goodyears, nose heavy with stock starter and generator. Full aft stick could not get the tail on the ground before the mains. Added Micro Aero VGs and the tail would touch WAY before the mains. 31" BushWheel tires balanced it out perfectly!
31's on a 195 would look awesome!!!
Tom

31's on a lot of airplanes look great but 31's on a 195 would look stupid.

Its a cruiser, not a rough field bush machine.

Kurt