VG's on a 172

[[email protected]]

Anyone have experience with installing VG's on a 172 (preferably an
"M")?

If you've done it or flown one with VG's, would you recommend it as a
positive enhancement?

Problems or concerns?

Thanks,

Don

[Paul kgyy]

The situation isn't the same, but I just read an article in the ABS
magazine about a Baron with VGs that became virtually uncontrollable
when the door popped open.

I assume that the Cessna door location under the wing would not cause a
similar problem, but the point of the article is that VGs are not
tested in all flight conditions (maybe couldn't be).

[Chuck]

On 10 Jun 2005 06:26:24 -0700, "Paul kgyy" >
wrote:

>The situation isn't the same, but I just read an article in the ABS
>magazine about a Baron with VGs that became virtually uncontrollable
>when the door popped open.
>
>I assume that the Cessna door location under the wing would not cause a
>similar problem, but the point of the article is that VGs are not
>tested in all flight conditions (maybe couldn't be).

Door popped open?!?!?!?!

The one time I've taken off and forgotten to latch the top latch on my
Cherokee door -- we get it to latch. There was a hurricane coming in
the crack at the top of the door pressurizing the cabin and keeping
the door from closing all the way.

The guy in the right seat tried and tried to push it open to slam it
and latch it. But he couldn't push it open no matter what he tried.
I slowed to full-flap slow flight and with help from the guy in back,
he was able to get it open a couple inches and slam it.

With that in mind -- I have no idea how a Baron's door could "pop
open". It took two adult men to push the door open a few inches AND
only after I'd slowed to just above 50kt.



OK, for those wondering the rest of the story. We didn't get the door
latched at top. Someone later suggested I slip sideways to put
pressure on the door. But that didn't occur to us at the time. So,
we spent a nice 40 minute flight with a hellacious wind coming in the
top of the door. It was hitting me right in the head and my wife
behind me. Boy -- talk about some noise in the mics...



Chuck
PA28-180

[[email protected]]

Chuck wrote:
>
> With that in mind -- I have no idea how a Baron's door could "pop
> open". It took two adult men to push the door open a few inches AND
> only after I'd slowed to just above 50kt.

The same as in your Cherokee. It'll pop out a few inches into the
breeze. We had an accident many years back on a holiday weekend
(Memorial or Labor day). A gal in a Bo departed PHX and her door
popped open. She got so involved with trying to close it that she did
a short dive into someone's backyard barbeque. Gotta remember to fly
the plane!
>
>
>
> OK, for those wondering the rest of the story. We didn't get the door
> latched at top. Someone later suggested I slip sideways to put
> pressure on the door. But that didn't occur to us at the time. So,
> we spent a nice 40 minute flight with a hellacious wind coming in the
> top of the door. It was hitting me right in the head and my wife
> behind me. Boy -- talk about some noise in the mics...

I've closed the door in flight several times on my Cherokee 180. The
slip method works, but it shouldn't be necessary. After slowing the
plane to about 60 mph (flaps down), you slam the door to close the
bottom latch. Then, get a grip on the well around the top latch and
pull the top of the door inward. You should be able to pull it about
1/2", then latch the door. It's best to have your passenger do this as
it's difficult to fly the plane with no hands. One warning though,
make sure the passnger does not try to force the latch. Last time
this happened to me, the passenger didn't pull hard enough to engage
the latch, but he kept twisting the latch until it broke off in his
hand (but it did latch!). It cost me $100 bucks (with labor) to
replace the latch handle, plus I had to exit the plane through the
baggage door when we got to our destination. Quite embarassing if
anyone is watching :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

>
>
>
> Chuck
> PA28-180

[Robert M. Gary]

I usually leave the door open on the Cessna when we fly. I live near
Sacramento so it get pretty hot. Keeping the door open provides more
air. You can't do that on the Piper because the shape of the door pulls
it open in flight. The Cessna door tries to close itself, you have to
push on it to get your fresh air.

[[email protected]]

I have to ask...

WHY would you want to put vortex generators on a C172?

We fly the C172 in the mountains of Colorado, yes, to Leadville at 9927 MSL,
and density altitude over 12,000 is not uncommon. We do short and
soft field operations.

I just don't see what vg(s) would do for fun, or to help you or the
airplane to fly! AND... have you also found out that adding vg(s)
LOWERS Va (yes, it does!!! Think about the definition of Va).

Why are you considering vg(s)... I don't even have them on my Cessna-206.

Yes, I fly Bonanzas and Barons and Maule(s) with vg(s)... and they
should have them!

> wrote:
> Anyone have experience with installing VG's on a 172 (preferably an
> "M")?

> If you've done it or flown one with VG's, would you recommend it as a
> positive enhancement?

> Problems or concerns?

> Thanks,

> Don



Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

[Dale]

In article >, wrote:

> I have to ask...
>
> WHY would you want to put vortex generators on a C172?
>
> We fly the C172 in the mountains of Colorado, yes, to Leadville at 9927 MSL,
> and density altitude over 12,000 is not uncommon. We do short and
> soft field operations.
>
> I just don't see what vg(s) would do for fun, or to help you or the
> airplane to fly! AND... have you also found out that adding vg(s)
> LOWERS Va (yes, it does!!! Think about the definition of Va).
>
> Why are you considering vg(s)... I don't even have them on my Cessna-206.

I fly VG equipped 206s and there is no change in Va.

If they are good for a Bonanza or Maule why wouldn't they be good for a
206 or 172?

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[[email protected]]

Dale > wrote:
> I fly VG equipped 206s and there is no change in Va.

Oh, contraire!

Va is a mathematical number, based on Vs0... stall speed (Va = Vs0 *
1.9?). When flying at Va (or below), at max gross weight, the
aircraft WILL stall before it bends. When flying above Va, at max
gross weight, it is possible to bend an aircraft before it stalls.
So, with VG on the aircraft, Vs0 is reduced. Hence, Va is reduced.

Note: Va goes down as weight goes down. (See any POH, especially the
Cessna POHs).

> If they are good for a Bonanza or Maule why wouldn't they be good for a
> 206 or 172?

Because Bonanza and (tricycle gear) Maule stall at too high an
airspeed to be use in the short/soft runway environment. VG moves Vs0
down sufficiently to give controlability at a lower airspeed. Hence
you can operate off shorter airstrips.

Note: the taildragger Maule is fine all by itself and does not need
VG.

A C206 and a C172 and a C182... and MANY others fly slowly enough
that they do not need VG to operate with full utility. Hence,
--> I <-- am not willing to give up ANY Va speed for a slower Vs0.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

[Newps]

wrote:


>
>>If they are good for a Bonanza or Maule why wouldn't they be good for a
>>206 or 172?
>
>
> Because Bonanza and (tricycle gear) Maule stall at too high an
> airspeed to be use in the short/soft runway environment. VG moves Vs0
> down sufficiently to give controlability at a lower airspeed. Hence
> you can operate off shorter airstrips.

And that is not of value in a 172?


>
> Note: the taildragger Maule is fine all by itself and does not need
> VG.

That's a matter of opinion. Your perfectly fine is my ground lover.
Same applies to the Maule as to a 172. You can fly slower therefore
takeoff and land shorter.

>
> A C206 and a C172 and a C182... and MANY others fly slowly enough
> that they do not need VG to operate with full utility.

See above. I now get more utility out of my 182 because I can fly slower.

[Dale]

In article >, wrote:

> Dale > wrote:
> > I fly VG equipped 206s and there is no change in Va.
>
> Oh, contraire!
>
> Va is a mathematical number, based on Vs0... stall speed (Va = Vs0 *
> 1.9?). When flying at Va (or below), at max gross weight, the
> aircraft WILL stall before it bends. When flying above Va, at max
> gross weight, it is possible to bend an aircraft before it stalls.
> So, with VG on the aircraft, Vs0 is reduced. Hence, Va is reduced.


I agree with your math.

I fly a couple of P206s that have a STOL kit (leading edge), wing
extensions and VG's. Each of the mods reduce stall speed to some
extent. The only "mandated" airspeed change was a reduction in Vne from
210mph to 189mph after the wing extensions were installed. Placard
required to that effect. I found it odd that Va wasn't noted also.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message ...
> Dale > wrote:
>> I fly VG equipped 206s and there is no change in Va.
>
> Oh, contraire!
>
> Va is a mathematical number, based on Vs0... stall speed (Va = Vs0 *
> 1.9?). When flying at Va (or below), at max gross weight, the
> aircraft WILL stall before it bends.

Just a minor nit. The wing will stall at the same time it reaches the load
limit IF the wing is evenly loaded (ailerons neutral). If ailerons are not
neutral, the wing with the down aileron will be under a higher load and will
exceed the load limit before stalling. This is probably how the
fighter-pilot-for-a-day schools manage to break the T34s.

As the pilots flying the Airbus where the tail came off learned, there a lot
of qualifiers to the protection offered by Va.

At Va it is still possible to exceed the load limit if a strong enought gust
is encountered primarily because the gust increases IAS. There have been
gusts in excess of 80fps experienced in thunderstorms and also in mountain
wave rotors under exceptional circumstances.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

Mike is ABSOLUTELY correct.

Jer/

Mike Rapoport > wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > Dale > wrote:
> >> I fly VG equipped 206s and there is no change in Va.
> >
> > Oh, contraire!
> >
> > Va is a mathematical number, based on Vs0... stall speed (Va = Vs0 *
> > 1.9?). When flying at Va (or below), at max gross weight, the
> > aircraft WILL stall before it bends.

> Just a minor nit. The wing will stall at the same time it reaches the load
> limit IF the wing is evenly loaded (ailerons neutral). If ailerons are not
> neutral, the wing with the down aileron will be under a higher load and will
> exceed the load limit before stalling. This is probably how the
> fighter-pilot-for-a-day schools manage to break the T34s.

> As the pilots flying the Airbus where the tail came off learned, there a lot
> of qualifiers to the protection offered by Va.

> At Va it is still possible to exceed the load limit if a strong enought gust
> is encountered primarily because the gust increases IAS. There have been
> gusts in excess of 80fps experienced in thunderstorms and also in mountain
> wave rotors under exceptional circumstances.

> Mike
> MU-2