I was never an Ag pilot or CFI, but on a busy work day up north I might make 25 take-off and landings with an at gross ( ) airplane. I couldn't imagine flying out of trim. The throttle was my elevator for approaches and landing, but that trim wheel was in constant motion, and those forces as neutral as I could make them.

Gump

As usual I find myself odd man out... 99.9% of the time I can find no good reason to fly an airplane out of trim.

Prevents enemy from properly leading the aircraft with ground fire. This might be that .1 percent.

My old ragwing C170 needed full nose-up trim to fly final hands-off with full flaps. When I needed to do a go-around, I just shoved in the throttle about halfway while strong-arming the yoke, dropped half the flaps & retrimmed, then full throttle and flew a normal climb-out. Never a problem. Like Rob said,add much throttle and you're back in business- so unless someone was shooting at me from the ground my technique should be OK for most situations. If you're going into an obviously tricky situation, then you'd adjust your normal technique accordingly- that goes without saying.

GumpAir wrote:I was never an Ag pilot or CFI, but on a busy work day up north I might make 25 take-off and landings with an at gross ( ) airplane. I couldn't imagine flying out of trim. The throttle was my elevator for approaches and landing, but that trim wheel was in constant motion, and those forces as neutral as I could make them.

Gump

Well,

Gump has if right and I could never question his experience in the "airplanes and environment" in which he was operating. That being said....
...my Maule M-5-210-C requires full up trim while on approach to landing. The trim is inadequate and still requires some " elevator up" forces for the approach. Yes....the forces are tremedous if one makes a full power go around, which I have done several times. But...I muscle it big time and trim like crazy. All seems to work out. Maybe it is a design fault of my airplane. Never flew any other airplane, including 170. 180, 206, etc. that needed or would tolerate full up trim on approach. Hell..my Pitts S-1-C didn't even have elevator trim. Different airplanes...different technique. That is just how it is.

Gump is also right that the "throttle was my elevator" for approaches and landings. That is the only precise way to put the airplane exactly where you want it...on speed and on the spot. The technique is important when landing in short fields and when flying heavy aircraft. I had to break the habit of power off approaches, in light airplanes, when I bought my Pitts in 1984. I'd been taught the "old way" back in the 60s....power off, glide, spot landings.....just in case the engine quits. That won't work on a Pitts if you want spot landings and it won't work well during landings on short, rough, bush strips either.

Flying is fun isn't it? Fun to do it our way. Took my Lab puppy(12 weeks old) for a ride in the Maule yesterday. She was O.K. but the noise seemed to scare her a bit. She climbed into my seat and put her head down on my lap for the short flight.

Headed out to Charlotte N.C. on Thursday. Will camp in Lonesome Pine,Va. enroute. Not that I need too...it is less than a 5 hour flight.....but because I want to sleep under the wing every chance that I get.

Bob

p.s. Who ever recommened Great Basin Natl. Park to me....thanks a million! My wife and I loved all three days there. We hiked and camped amid the Aspen Groves, which were a brilliant yellow. Camped at the upper campgrounds at 9,800 ft. No problem towing a 2,700lb camper up there with a Jeep Liberty. We drove 4,441 miles, camped/hiked 14 nights throughout Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Arizona. Also loved the steam train ride at Ely, Nev. Rode in the Locomotive for $100.00 each. My wife and I loved it. Try the Northern Nevada RR. They have a great web site. You can rent the Locomotive for about $750.00. Then you get to operate it, as the engineer, for about 1 1/2 hours. Quite a thrill.

mtv wrote:..... I pretty much hate the VGs on my 170, for several reasons, and I'd never put them on a Cessna wing unless I was really convinced that they were going to do something really good for flight characteristics. ............

Would you care to elaborate-- what do you hate about them? Most folks can't find enough good things to say about them, Cessna drivers included-- but then again there is a natural reluctance to admit (even to yourself, let alone anyone else) that the expensive "improvement" you made to your airplane didn't do squat.
I've been considering getting some for my C150/150TD, but have held back because 1) I'm cheap, and 2) I can forsee them being a PITA when self-fueling out of cans. Results for a mod like this are hard to quantify, but most people talk about how much more "solid" the airplane feels at low speeds -- more low-speed aileron effectiveness and esp more low-speed rudder effectiveness (the kit for my C150D includes VG's on the vert stab just ahead of the rudder), that'd be nice . And while I'm not counting on it, any possible reduction in stall speed (yeah, yeah, I know....) would be an added benefit.
BTW if you hate the VG's so much, why not remove them? An hour or two on a ladder with some rubbing alcohol, and a little logbook work, and you'd be VG-free.

hotrod150 wrote:

mtv wrote:..... I pretty much hate the VGs on my 170, for several reasons...........

Would you care to elaborate-- what do you hate about them?....

Broke the 200 landing mark this am.

I love the VG's on this plane. Did not have them on the 182 but did have the Horton kit. The 180 has the horton with the VG's. Feels like it wants to jump over the moon.

Got off a strip this am in just under 500' with 30g of fuel and just me (220). I am really loving this airplane. Started another thread with some of our Sierra LZ's.

Its really cool to see where this thread has gone over the past 2 weeks or so. I have spent a lot of $$ on gas since then as well....

Have been looking at this one for a few years...650' of useable...Elevation 5940'

200 landings?! Jesus tap dancing christmas. How many hours did that take you?

hotrod150 wrote:

hotrod150 wrote:

mtv wrote:..... I pretty much hate the VGs on my 170, for several reasons...........

Would you care to elaborate-- what do you hate about them?....

Flown several models of plane with and without VG's..I think they help the slow flight characterists on any of the models I've flown, but they help on some more than others. I also have noticed they are not placed in the same postion on the leading edge and on the bottom of the horizontal stab. On my plane (7GCGC) there is a map of how they are suppose to be placed as per the STC..very specific positioning. I can't help but wondering if they are not positioned properly on whatever aircraft if they have the same effectivness. I have seen them positioned quite differently on different aircraft ( Super Cub VS Citabria VS 180 etc.)
My 2 scents ( I hope this doesn't stink )

Going back to the log book, just over 40 hours...

Hotrod150,

Things I don't like about the VG's:

1) I have dang near slashed my wrists while fueling at LEAST a half dozen times. Frankly, and in all seriousness, this could be a real danger in a remote part of the world.

2) Before the VG's were installed, I knew PRECISELY where the airplane would stall, every time. On landings, I could work that airplane right on the edge (assuming the right conditions, of course) and put it right where I wanted it. After VG's, no such luxury. I have a PRETTY GOOD idea where the plane will turn loose, but it's a crap shoot, and as a result I have to carry some extra airspeed to safely land the plane now. That's right--I'm actually flying a little FASTER with the VGs on landing than without. Duh. Part of the problem is that the stall buffet changed significantly, and is MUCH more subtle now, if it buffets at all. I like a wing that talks to me and these don't any more.

3) Try taking off VGs that were properly installed sometime. I'll supply the "alcohol", which won't touch the stuff these things were put on with. And, good luck doing so without damage to the wing. Note that when installing these things, we were told to use about three times the recommended amount of bonding agent noted in the instructions.

4) Wing covers = Pain in the butt now. Not impossible, and not hugely ugly, but more of a pain in the butt.

All in all, the VGs did mellow out the stall on this airplane a little bit. I have not been able to discern any measurable or noticeable decrease in stall speed. So, the stall is a little more mellow, but there is very little stall buffet, or warning. Uh.....what's the point? This was a gentle stalling airplane from the beginning.

Note that I owned this airplane for a number of years and several hundred hours PRIOR to installing the VGs.

For those of you who talk about how great your VGs are, my first question to you is: How much did you fly the airplane BEFORE the VGs were installed? If you didn't, then how do you know the VGs did anything?

Note that I have said before that VGs work great on Cubs, Scouts and a few other airplanes I've flown. But, on this airplane, they are a waste of money, and frankly, I don't much like what they did to the stall characteristics.

Your mileage may vary.

MTV

I've read all of the comments about VG's with interest over the last year. I inherited a VG kit with my 65' 180 when i bought it a year ago. After speaking with several people and reading everything I could find about the subject, I decided to go ahead and install 'em. (It was a close call.) The plane already has a Horton kit on it and I'm setting it up for short mountain strips. I'll report in two months when I get it back from the engine shop.

steve

I would be willing to bet you dig em....

Love the ones I have. Sounds like the set up will be the same.

Good luck Jumpy! Thats what your plane is going to do with them...JUMP

aktahoe,

So, you make that statement based on what? Did you fly your airplane before the VGs were installed? How do you know that the performance you experience isn't a result of engine/prop/other STOL mods/light weight, etc?

How much experience in other airplanes of the same make and model do you have?

That's the trouble with VGs--unless you fly an airplane a LOT first, THEN install the VGs, you really have no idea what the things are doing. And there is so much variability in performance of that model of airplane, largely based on weight, that trying to compare one airplane to the other is tough as well.

There are also two different VG kits for Cessna airplanes: Micro Aerodynamics and BLR. I have not flown an airplane with a BLR kit, so I have no idea how that kit works-maybe it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Also, my airplane is a 170, not a 180, and while the wings are identical, the weights are quite different generally, as are the speeds. So, again not apples to apples.

I hope everyone who installs these things is happy with the results. I'm not, and I don't recommend these devices to people with Cessnas, but it's up to you, and good luck to you.

MTV

MTV-

Not as much experince as you however...2000 hours in a 182 without them.

The 180 I have with them seems to jump off the ground. The 180 low rider has is without them. Were going to today to see what we can do or not do. I beleive they are the same weight. His may be lighter by a bit.

This is the only plane I have flown with them but speaking to a number of folks that have flown with them in the172, 182, 180 and 185, they are doing what there supposed to do.

I know Joe Stancil is a 180/185 guru and swears by them. Has bought and sold around 500 or them. This was his plane I have now.

I know you dont like them as you feel you loose aliron control and posibly get a false stol (is that correct?), but I really dont feel that. Feel like I am fly a ferrari with positive control. Have been doing a lot of slow flight and the thing stalls around 40 or so and the aliron control is superb, but again your correct, what do I know. I am not concerned with cutting my wrists when putting covers on.

I dont know. VG's are designed to do what they do. I know driving around lake hood looking at the planes at the commercial operators, (Rusts, Ketchum, Katmai Air, etc) Most have them. Some do not.

Talk to Paul Klaus (he comes through Cordova lmost every weekend) and he states the same as you. In my opinion hes one of the best. He states the Cessna wing comes down to the pilot. I agree to that as well. The stock Cessna wing is perfect. Why screw it up.

This plane came with them and again...It appears that they really work. But, I only have 40 hours or so in the beast. Your correct, I guess I really have nothing to compare it to. Will post with some video when Lowrider and I can go do some side by side take-offs. He's got about 3000 plus hours in the 180. I am anxious to see myself.

I guess I dont know if I like them or not?? The plane sure does fly good however...

I didn't mean to come across as a jerk in that last post, though I may have succeeded... No offense intended.

My point was that there is HUGE variability in these airplanes, and it goes well beyond weight.

My airplane has the wing eccentrics turned up to the limits to maximize wing angle of incidence. Where are YOUR wing eccentrics set? Where are the eccentrics set on the other guy's 180 you're comparing it to? Wing eccentrics will have a MAJOR effect on takeoff performance and stall characteristics, and I SUSPECT this may be why my airplane doesn't like the VGs. I dunno.

And, you may not put wing covers on, but I'm guessing you at least occasionally fuel your own airplane, and do so without a ladder. That is where I've dang near slashed my wrists. Do that in some stink hole swamp 100 miles from nowhere and you may bleed out before you get to help. If nothing else, you're gonna ruin that rich Corinthian leather you just installed .

If you like the VGs, good on ya. There is no question that they do some good things for some airplanes. I know just enough about aerodynamics to be dangerous, and i do understand what they do and how they do it.

But, in the case of my airplane, they take away the tool that I used to be able to use to fly that fine edge to a touchdown. Now, I have to fly a LITTLE faster in the flare to keep the airplane from flopping on. Did it make a huge difference? Nope, but it didn't improve anything.

Again, YMMV

MTV

Micro's before and after on a super cub. Like them. BLR before and after on a '57 180 with Sportsman. Could not tell much difference, was an excellent performing airplane to start with. Goofed around with eccentrics on that one, could make it get off faster by increasing AOI but really slowed it down in cruise. Went back to the way it was originally. BLR before and after on a very tired stock wing '75 185. Could not tell much difference. Put a Horton on the 185, big difference. Micro's on a portly '53 180 with Sportsman, before and after. Could not tell much difference, other than the left wing became heavy after the VG install. Micro's on a PA-11, on it from the start. Liked them.

Sorry, don't have any hard numbers for ya.

The 206 now has a Horton, bought it that way. It will not get a set of VG's. Still not convinced they're the way to go on the Cessna.

We were working them pretty good, trying to make a living. Sea level, all on tires. Short gravel bars and beaches...at or near gross, not too many empty trips...those kind didn't pay worth a damn.

gb

mtv wrote: Hotrod150,
Things I don't like about the VG's: ..............

MTV, thanks for the more detailed feedback. I hadn't ever heard anyone talk about the "crap shoot" stall point you refer to, interesting and a bit worrisome. I'm not so much interested in the (maybe/maybe not) reduced stall speed, but sure don't want the stall to be inconsistant. I'm actually more interested in the improved aileron and rudder control claimed (no VG's on the horiz for my 150), but I notice that you didn't address that. Do you feel there is no improvement in that area?
Different airfoils (Cessna vs Cub vs Taylorcraft) are naturally gonna respond differently to mods. But as you pointed out, there are differences even between similar wings due to different rigging, operating weight, speed, etc.

Improved aileron, rudder and elevator control are my primary objectives as well. I don't expect more than a few knots (if any) difference in stall speed. I'll be flying light with a Horton kit. The plane already flies slow enough. But when light, with the nose way up in the air, the controls get pretty mushy. Throw in a little wind and it gets interesting. Flying at gross weight, the stall/approach speeds are higher and the controls already have more effectiveness. So the VG's maybe not much help at higher weights? Also, on the sharp stall issue. I certainly don't want to be surprised by an unpredictable stall. I'm hoping that the stall fence on the Horton will prevent that from being a problem. Maybe one plus for the Horton over the Sportsman kit?

On another note. I talked with a guy that flew with a Sportsman on one wing and a Horton on the other. The Sportsman stalls a little slower.

Thanks to all who have given their input on this stuff.

Steve

aktahoe1 wrote:.......
Have been looking at this one for a few years...650' of useable...Elevation 5940'
............

I think I'd time my trip there & go in at low tide......