Good evening, BCP, I hope you all had a great holiday,

Did some simulated engine outs last week with my CFI, found out my new-to-me 206 glides like a sack of potatoes. The Robertson provides amazing performance with flaps deployed, but I'd like to get better performance with the flaps up. This initiative is as much a safety concern as much as it is a functional concern.

The Sportsman cuff is a no-brainer based on what I've been reading the last few days on this forum and others. Will help with glide performance, and with aileron authority at low speeds coupled with the Robertson.

That said, I've been considering the idea of adding Flints or Wing X at the same time, but my question is, which do you prefer or recommend and why? This is a TU206G on wheels, 70% asphalt and 30% backcountry strips, zero off-airport. I fly a fair bit of XC time at 12-14k feet, and spend a lot of time family plane camping in the summer time. Our family plus camping gear and fuel gets us right to the 3600lb gross on takeoff.

In my application, these are the facts I'm considering:

1. The flints are over double the weight of wing-x, 16lb vs 38lbs
2. The flints offer a 200lb gross weight increase to 3800lbs, the wing-x does not. The extra gross wouldn’t be used often but it would probably encourage me to put more crap in the plane. I think this is the only upgross option besides floats or a 550?
3. The flints offer 30 gallons of extra fuel, the wing-x does not. Extra fuel would be nice but I’d like it better if it wasn’t at the cost of additional moment on the wing structure, even if it is beefed up in the process.
4. Hangar door no factor
5. Function trumps cost
6. Assuming both provide the same aerodynamic benefits.

Thanks!

Probably most of the reason the extra weight on the flints is because of the tanks. I’ve never flown the flint tips so I don’t know about their performance at all but I have flint tip tanks and wing x.

I’m a huge advocate of extra fuel. Loading up 104 gallons on a x country. For me, that’s double the useable fuel of an early model 180 and one less 45 min+ fuel stop when I’m trying to make it somewhere. A funny way to look at it but when you factor in the fuel stop, you can also look at it as a speed mod! Fuel gives you options too.. with weather, alternates, getting to remote areas, whatever it is. I love mine.

I have 80 gallon tank on my 206. Been throwing around the idea of getting two 10 gallon gas tanks ( the flat ones you see off-road rigs carrying) and securing them in the pod when I think I may want them , Still need to stop to put that gas in the wing but being able to end up somewhere knowing you have over an hr of gas in the belly would be nice on occasion. Depends on the mission I guess

I like extra fuel. I haven't found that glide is greatly improved by modifying wings. Slow speed operations definitely improve, and landings and takeoffs, but glide doesn't seem to change in a meaningful way. Granted, my experience is with the 185, which is a bit different.

But as a practitioner of risk management, knowing your airplane capabilities is often more important than what those capabilities are. A steep downhill glide managed safely with touchdown at minimum controllable airspeed and minimum descent rate is more valuable than improved glide performance that still doesn't get you where you are trying to talk yourself into gliding to if the mental calculus leads to stall out trying to stretch the glide.

Modify for function. Train for safety.

My two cents.

Thanks guys, looks like the Flints get the nod.

That said, are other forms of additional fuel more desirable? I realize I'm thrashing this topic but it's a pretty important decision for me.

By that I mean, a plumbed removable ferry tank in the belly pod, or the gravity-fed tanks that can be installed inboard next to the existing fuel tanks? Would one of those solutions coupled with Wing X instead of the flints be any more functional or safe?

Have you guys ever seen this?

https://www.aeroacoustics.com/files/206apexl.htm

Did I read that right ? They are claiming a 300 nm increase in range ?!

Yeah, based on the assumption that you can fill empty space in your fuel tanks with that 200lbs of extra UL

This device actually gives you a better UL than flints. Seems interesting. I sent them an email.

Seems like 3800gw is just a pencil exercise anyways.

I just got a response from Aero Acoustics, apparently Flint tanks are a prereq for the STC. So, essentially, the APE XL in and of itself is not a GW increase in lieu of tip tanks.

@CParker surprised no one has brought this up yet but putting any type of extended wing tip on your plane effectively moves your ailerons inboard, reducing their effectiveness to a certain degree. If you fly in and out of crosswind runways that might be a concern, especially with RSTOL. Something to consider perhaps.

I've got the Wing-X on my 185, and I've put it on both the planes I've had. I've got no experience with the Flints. They are a great addition for a float plane but FWIW, for the money, they'd be the last mod I'd do on a wheel plane unless you're regularly running heavy and high DA. Lots of fuel is nice, but in a wheel plane in the lower 48 is it necessary? I mean, I usually want a stop before I've run through a whole fuel fill, even when I just had 65 gals in my 180.

Barnstormer wrote:@CParker surprised no one has brought this up yet but putting any type of extended wing tip on your plane effectively moves your ailerons inboard, reducing their effectiveness to a certain degree. If you fly in and out of crosswind runways that might be a concern, especially with RSTOL. Something to consider perhaps.

All I have to say is where in the F have you been?

When people raise concern over a 1 series Cessna that has RSTOL, Wing X, and Sportsman VS a crosswind, I always wonder why? At that point the thing is a GIANT cub... land it IN to the wind and move on... you won't notice roll control loss because you won't need much roll...


Take care,
Rob

Rob,

How have you been my friend? Always good to hear from you. I took a long hiatus.

You are of course absolutely correct.

Next trip your way I’ll make it a point to stop by.

Phil

Based on wisdom here and further contemplation, I'm going to hold off on any sort of extension for the time being. I will consider either VGs or Sportsman, or both, and go from there.

I've been playing with the idea of modeling a Cessna wing with VGs in simulation software at different positions relative to the leading edge. I saw a guy do that for a Kitfox wing on YouTube and it was really interesting how much of a difference the exact position relative to the leading edge made.

Seem VGs are a divisive topic, but a little bit more aileron and rudder authority during the landing phase would be nice.

CParker wrote:.........I've been playing with the idea of modeling a Cessna wing with VGs in simulation software at different positions relative to the leading edge. I saw a guy do that for a Kitfox wing on YouTube and it was really interesting how much of a difference the exact position relative to the leading edge made. .....

Like a lot of aviation stuff, aerodynamics seem to be as much a black art as they are a science.
Computer modeling is great, if you're into that kind of thing,
but IMHO don't expect that real life results will necessarily be the same.

hotrod180 wrote:Like a lot of aviation stuff, aerodynamics seem to be as much a black art as they are a science.
Computer modeling is great, if you're into that kind of thing,
but IMHO don't expect that real life results will necessarily be the same.

You’ve got to be kidding

I currently have 2 206s with Sportsman, Wing-X and My Red One is Sportsman with Flint tip tanks, It needs the GW and Fuel.

If you dont need the GW or fuel increase do the Wing-x. Have them installed by someone who has done a couple. It seems your eye can see a 1/4 Lt Rt miss match on the install. How much wash out? You get to decide. Another aero discussion. Sportsman extension kit goes right on. You can even get the lighted tips. Blinky Blinky!

Flints, Quite a bit of work to install. How to add the sportsman to the fiberglass tank extension? There is a good argument that a sharp termination of the Sportsman before the extension creates a vortice across the aileron that improves slow speed roll. Just looks odd to me.

Adding the sportsman will give you a big improvement in performance.
Adding the extension will give you a big improvement in performance.

Having both does not give you double the performance increase.

Soft and short go with the Sportsman first.

The extension really kicks in at 70mph when added to a stock wing. Probably improves glide the best but the lowest crashing speed would come from the sportsman.

No VG experience. I feel adding the VGs to my already modified wings would give diminishing returns, Plus Im dragging jet fuel hoses across my wing all the time.

The cheapest performance is having the plane light and balanced at the aft limit. Once the wings are modified to fly slow it becomes even more important to balance a 206 so the tail can share the load and point the nose where you need it. When at the Fwd CG I dont over trim the elevator for landing. On the ground, put the yoke in your lap, look back at the elevator and trim tab position, A lot of Nose up trim makes a piece of the elevator go away. I set the trim to fair with the elevator, note the indicator position, and muscle the flare to get the most out of the elevator. I dont run out of rudder. I did all the PT6 prototype flight testing with the standard rudder. Make sure your bungee is in good working order and muscle up on those legs. Once the airplane is flying slower these proficiencies become more important.

Rudder trim steering Bungee. They can become sticky and limited travel from old grease 40-50 years old? An easily neglected maint item because its a pain to remove/rerig, not squawked because of slowly over time it gets worse and worse without the pilot noticing.