having had 182's both ways, i really prefer
vg's and flapgap seals...much lower stall speed and slowflight much easier to handle...

Wing placement of Halls Bros. VG's.


Under Horizontal Stabilizer placement of Halls Bros. VG's.



Front view, showing VG's on leading edge of the wing and a new Prince P-Tip prop

First question; Is there ANYONE who does not like VG's?

Second Question; how do you like the Prince prop? that has vortex reducing tips, right?

Dan

dplunkt wrote:First question; Is there ANYONE who does not like VG's?

Second Question; how do you like the Prince prop? that has vortex reducing tips, right?

Dan

I am not aware of anyone who has VG's not liking VGs, though I think some may have a particular brand preference, or they may be limited to a certain type depending on the aircraft type.

Yes, the Prince P-Tip has anti-vortices, swept back tips. I put the Prince P-Tip on today and only did a static run up with it to see what kind or engine rpms I could get with it. It's very smooth, and has a different sound than other props. During the run-up to full power, bystanders can actually hear the sound of the air change as the pitch of the prop changes according to the load on it. Each Prince prop is custom made for an individual engine hp/gear ratio/ intended cruise speed and other parameters a prospective customer provides Prince Aircraft prior to manufacture. Actual flight tests will happen soon. I've got some other things to do to the plane before I take it up, but I may do some crow hops.

dplunkt wrote: First question; Is there ANYONE who does not like VG's?
...

I put a set of Micro's on my C150XP (150 hp & tailwheel) and was under-impressed. There is a subtle improvement in stall speed (maybe 2 mph) a bit more aileron, & a bit more rudder, but if I could do it all over again .... I wouldn't. The kit for the 150 puts them on the wing & on the vertical-- nothing on the horizontal, guess they figgered it had enough elevator (which it does).
Owners of most models all rave about VG's-- Cessna owners are about fifty-fifty on VG's so I knew I was taking a gamble. Next time, with a Cessna anyway, I think I'll pass.

Sry to hear this! We had great results on our experimentals.

go to you tube, type in jdslowlo look for v g test 1 & 2 in a 172a 160 v g wings,vert, under horz.

dplunkt wrote:First question; Is there ANYONE who does not like VG's?

Second Question; how do you like the Prince prop? that has vortex reducing tips, right?

Dan

I put them on my Cessna 170 and would never do so again, nor would I recommend them on THIS WING.

MTV

Like other pilots have stated, the benefits of vortex generators depends on the aircraft. I recently put VGs on my M7 235 Maule and it made a whole new airplane out of it. I have all the before and after data if anyone is interested. This data is only good for this particular wing/tail combination. I have flown VGs on several different Cessnas,Pipers- (before and after) and some were beneficial, some I did not like. I fly professionally and some of the jets have VGs all over the wings and some don't have any. My point is - it depends on the wing/aircraft

Kinda pricey experiment, if it doesn't work.

Cary

I just took some off my 185 (Camber lift wing) to put on a Sportsman Kit (Not that I needed it, but something to spend $$ on)(Winter project, Cargo Pod was last years project).
I will inadvertently forget to put them back on as I don't think you need them with the new leading edge.
From what I understand, they don't do much with the kit installed, other than being a pain it the ass (the kit comes with Aileron Gap Seals which somewhat offsets the VG's effect).
Fueling the plane will be less hazardous for sure!
Cleaning the bugs/polishing will be easier!
It'll be easier on tarps/wing covers!
And, at risk of starting debate, I'll gain some speed!

Mark
'80 A185F

Not sure just what causes the difference is, but there is a huge difference slow flying my stock '58 C-182 vs. my '56 C-180 w/Sportsman kit and VG's.
Gary

I've done a fair bit of work with vortex generators in some R & D aerodynamics work so I'll throw my $1.00 in. All vg kits and vortex generators are not created equal. Just like props, tires, etc...

In general the more blunt (larger leading edge radius) the airfoil leading edge is, the better the vgs work. Also, the more thick an airfoil is, combined with a large leading edge radius will be more beneficially influenced by vortex generators. This is why the vortex generators in combination with the drooped leading edges (on the Cessnas) is the combination with the most stall speed reduction. The baseline Cessna wing, before the cuff was added, does not see as much benefit but there is still a benefit . As many here have noted, there should be a small stall speed reduction and increased aileron effectiveness. Also, the altitude loss during stall is much less on vg equipped airplanes.

The Maule airfoil is pretty blunt on the leading edge and does respond pretty favorably to vgs.

The Micro and Aeronautical Testing Service (distributed by BLR and Cub Crafters) vortex generators were designed by the same person. Way back in the day both of those company's owners were partners. That design works much better better than the vg shapes offered by other vendors.

Placement is an issue as well. Micro has all their kits installed at 4% chord location. ATS/BLR kits are close to 10% chord.

There are also inappropriate uses of vgs. You can put vgs on a Mooney (Micro kit), but it will destroy the laminar flow on the wing and the airplane will really slow down. It may land slower but are you willing to trade significant top end speed? Most backcountry machines use airfoils that are turbulent flow so you do not typically see a drag rise with their use.

Also, all stall speeds that are listed in AFMs or owners manuals were calculated and recorded using FAA approved procedures and were not from reading the ASI. They are notoriously inaccurate in the low end. You can and will fly slower safely.

Just did my first flights this weekend w/ my new (Micro) VG's installed on my 1959 182B. Definitely noticed an increase in aileron control during slow speeds. Not a huge difference but definitely noticeable. They are matched up w/ a Horton STOL kit. I really don't know if that makes a difference in there performance or not. Lot's more testing to do before I finalize my opinion on there value. Thanks for all the info, this site has been a huge help.

I'm thinking about installing Micro VG's on my '64 Cessna 172. I understand the lower stall speed benefit for takeoff/landing into the wind. How do Cessna wings perform when operating with crosswinds? Any thoughts on that part of the flight envelope? Also, do you adjust your Va (downward) in rough air to compensate for your lower stall speed?

I love them. Lowered stall speed quite a bit!! Kept adding them, stall kept going down, I have two rows on the wing (staggered, not lined up with each other... long story, but it worked!). Put them under the stab, and also for the rudder. No ill effects, just lower stall, more authority on everything!

The increased elevator authority goes hand in hand with the better and slower low speed handling on my S-7S, when at that last possible high AOA just keeping it in the air speed, and they (Micro's) really help out in off airport type landings. I can however see that if someone just flew the plane like they always had, they might not think they work, or at least not notice much of a difference. In my case it wasn't until I started really pushing things that I noticed I could get now away with it.... Blunt LE, thick airfoil.

Keep in mind that your results are gonna vary depending on which wing you put VG's on.
A supercub wing will respond differently from a Cessna wing, which will respond differently from a Rans wing.
I was unimpressed with Micro VG's on an otherwise stock C150 wing,
but others report noticeable improvement-- esp when they're in addition to a STOL cuff.

Using VG's for improved aileron control versus stall delay at a higher AOA may be two different goals. And may end in different results depending on their physical height, placement along the wing's chord, and wing camber near the leading edge.

They need to be in the airflow for best results. The original Cessna 2412 airfoil's planform (look it up) is not very thick and somewhat pointed at the leading edge. Adding a cambered cuff increases the leading edge radius and some extend the wing's chord more than others. As noted adding VG's may be more effective with that mod to that airfoil.

I've flown stock Cessna wings, ones with Cessna's cuff, and one with a Sportsman kit. None with VG's. The Sportsman helped improve glide ratio, stall behavior and speed, and aileron control over all of the others I operated. It may fly slower with VG's but can you still see the landing zone over the nose when they're working? If so then they're a bonus.

I've flown Micro VG's on Cubs and my Taylorcraft before installation and after. The Cubs do well with or without. The Taylorcraft really benefits as it has an inherently brisk break at the stall (23012 airfoil...look it up) that forms a leading edge discontinuity and forward flow separation after about 12* AOA. The VG's seem to reduce that behavior and end in a tamer stall with better aileron control.

No expert here and your experience may not dupe mine.

Gary

So you guys that dont like vgs would you tell me how you figured out that you had them placed in the right spot fore or aft on the wing where they actually were in position to work??? Ive seen some 3 inches from the leading edge and some 13-14 inches back. Some that have them just a few inches from the leading edge, wheel land all the time, and in that regime i agree there not doing much. placement is really the key for each individual and airplane, there really not a one all fits all for placement.