VG's on Warrior?

[Dave]

OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
Vortex Generators on our Warrior..

Anybody out there with expirence with these?

Dave

[zatatime]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:05:50 -0400, Dave
> wrote:

>OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
>Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
>
>Anybody out there with expirence with these?
>
> Dave


Why did you decide you wanted to do this?

z

[Ben Hallert]

>>OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
>>Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
>>Anybody out there with expirence with these?

>Why did you decide you wanted to do this?

I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
benefits from pipermods.com:
" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
# IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
# IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
# IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
# IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
# INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"

If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.

Thanks!

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[[email protected]]

Dave > wrote:
: OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
: Vortex Generators on our Warrior..

: Anybody out there with expirence with these?

I'm only familiar with them on 160/180 hp hershey-winged cherokees. In those
planes, I can attest to the following (having done before/after)

- At medium load (full fuel, 2 people), full flaps slow-flight power-on stall at 60
mph IAS without. WITH the VGs, it's 60mph *flaps up*, and you can hang it on the prop
at 45-50mph.

- Significantly reduced sink rate at approach airspeeds. You really do have to
re-learn how to land it.

- Slightly increased climb rate... maybe 100 fpm... less sink = more climb.

- Negligible noticable impact on top and cruise speed.

- Gotta watch out on reduced control effectiveness at the lower airspeeds they allow
you to fly at. In particular, deeper stalls (makes wing-drop more likely), and
crosswind landings. STOL mods like that are almost a liability in strong crosswinds.
That said, I've landed my 180 with them at 25G35 cross.

Bottom line: They work great. Just gotta remember not to step on them when
you get in the plane... especially passengers.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

Ben Hallert wrote:


>
> I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
> benefits from pipermods.com:
> " # LOWER STALL 5 mph
> # IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
> # IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
> # IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
> # IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
> # INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"
>
> If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
> (considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
> why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
> respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
> without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
> myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.

You cannot lower stall and increase cruise with one mod, pure hype.
VG's do lower stall. I had them on my 182 and have them now on my
Bonanza. They lower the stall about 3-5 mph on my Bo. You will lose a
little cruise speed and top speed, aprrox 3-5 mph. If they didn't lower
cruise what they're really saying is that they don't add any drag. If
they didn't add drag you wouldn't have to glue them on, they'd just sit
there. As for the low speed handling and gross weight performance that
is subjective. I have 1000 hours in 182's and could never tell any
difference in flying qualities. One thing you will notice is that if
you were to go to altitude and get into a power off 45 degree bank, full
back stick turn. When the airplane stalls if you do not have VG's the
plane will always roll to the high wing side. With VG's the plane does
not roll at all but simply descends at approx 1500 fpm. Having said all
that there's no reason to put them on a Warrior. The Warrior has no
performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
yourself down.

[xyzzy]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Ben Hallert wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
>> benefits from pipermods.com:
>> " # LOWER STALL 5 mph
>> # IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
>> # IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
>> # IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
>> # IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
>> # INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"
>>
>> If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
>> (considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
>> why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
>> respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
>> without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
>> myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.
>
>
> You cannot lower stall and increase cruise with one mod, pure hype. VG's
> do lower stall. I had them on my 182 and have them now on my Bonanza.
> They lower the stall about 3-5 mph on my Bo. You will lose a little
> cruise speed and top speed, aprrox 3-5 mph. If they didn't lower cruise
> what they're really saying is that they don't add any drag. If they
> didn't add drag you wouldn't have to glue them on, they'd just sit
> there. As for the low speed handling and gross weight performance that
> is subjective. I have 1000 hours in 182's and could never tell any
> difference in flying qualities. One thing you will notice is that if
> you were to go to altitude and get into a power off 45 degree bank, full
> back stick turn. When the airplane stalls if you do not have VG's the
> plane will always roll to the high wing side. With VG's the plane does
> not roll at all but simply descends at approx 1500 fpm. Having said all
> that there's no reason to put them on a Warrior. The Warrior has no
> performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
> yourself down.
>

If VG's are really only to improve stall characteristics, they don't
seem worth it in this case because Warriors already have pretty benign
stall characteristics.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:
: performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
: yourself down.

You may want to keep an open mind on this. There are experimentally
documented cases where VGs not only decrease stall speeds, but also increase cruise
speed. Doesn't seem intuitive to go faster by adding draggy looking things, but it
turns out the more laminar airflow they provide decreases drag by more than what they
add.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Masino]

wrote:
> You may want to keep an open mind on this. There are experimentally
> documented cases where VGs not only decrease stall speeds, but also increase cruise
> speed. Doesn't seem intuitive to go faster by adding draggy looking things, but it
> turns out the more laminar airflow they provide decreases drag by more than what they
> add.

I've had AMR&D's VGs on my Cherokee for about 8 years. I spoke at length
with Art Mattson when I first got them. Here's the theory... The
inboard section of a Cherokee is not very aerodynamic. In fact, on the
slower Cherokees, it's almost always riding just above a stall. The air
is fairly turbulent going over that section of the wing. The VGs create
small sideways vortexes that enhance the laminar flow of that section of
the wing. As a result, there's less turbulence and drag in that area of
the wing during cruise. Art fully admits that the theory isn't as valid
on Cherokees that are already faster.

Anyway, I installed a lot of different speed mods on my 140 at the same
general time, so it's hard to say what did what (nor do I care). My 140
does tend to be about 15-20 mph faster than the average 140, plus it
handles really well at low speeds.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Newps]

wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
> : performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
> : yourself down.
>
> You may want to keep an open mind on this. There are experimentally
> documented cases where VGs not only decrease stall speeds, but also increase cruise
> speed. Doesn't seem intuitive to go faster by adding draggy looking things, but it
> turns out the more laminar airflow they provide decreases drag by more than what they
> add.

Might be a jet thing. It isn't with your typical spamcan.

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/vortex/Vgs_cruise_wide.pdf

[Paul kgyy]

15-20 mph faster? Have you checked your airspeed indicator?

[zatatime]

On 6 Nov 2005 21:07:02 -0800, "Ben Hallert" >
wrote:

>>>OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
>>>Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
>>>Anybody out there with expirence with these?
>
>>Why did you decide you wanted to do this?
>
>I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
>benefits from pipermods.com:
>" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
> # IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
> # IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
> # IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
> # IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
> # INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"
>
>If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
>(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
>why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
>respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
>without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
>myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ben Hallert
>PP-ASEL


Sorry you felt I was being a jerk. On the contrary I was looking to
learn something. I definitely have my opinions on VGs but have never
heard of anyone putting them on a Cherokee. With a big, fat, short
wing I was interested to see what it would do for the airfoil from
personal experience of others. Luckily others responded in a way that
provided me greater knowledge (thanks).

In case you missed the posts, it looks like for a Warrior II they
won't help much because Piper had already "fixed" the wing to some
degree so they might not benefit you. In my opinion, flap gap and
aileron seals would be where'd I'd put my money first. They should
lower the stall speed, increase low speed handling, and provide a
slightly higher cruise (2-3 kts); and I wouldn't have funny looking
things stuck all over my wings that would fall off over time.

Having said that, I'm also familiar with the wing root problems on
older Cherokees (which is what I own). It sounds like VGs could help
that somewhat so some additional investigation may be warranted.

Is it possible to put like 4 or 5 on each side, just to compensate for
the turbulent air at the wing root?

Thanks to those contributing to this thread.
z

[Dave]

Hi Z!

To clarify.

There are only 4 per side, between the fuel tank and the fuselage,
maybe one more.. (from the pictures)

Piper fixed the outer (tapered) portion of the wing, but the inner
portion is "plain old Cherokee" (on a Warrior)

Dave


On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:07:18 -0500, zatatime > wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2005 21:07:02 -0800, "Ben Hallert" >
>wrote:
>
>>>>OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
>>>>Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
>>>>Anybody out there with expirence with these?
>>
>>>Why did you decide you wanted to do this?
>>
>>I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
>>benefits from pipermods.com:
>>" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
>> # IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
>> # IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
>> # IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
>> # IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
>> # INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"
>>
>>If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
>>(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
>>why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
>>respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
>>without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
>>myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Ben Hallert
>>PP-ASEL
>
>
>Sorry you felt I was being a jerk. On the contrary I was looking to
>learn something. I definitely have my opinions on VGs but have never
>heard of anyone putting them on a Cherokee. With a big, fat, short
>wing I was interested to see what it would do for the airfoil from
>personal experience of others. Luckily others responded in a way that
>provided me greater knowledge (thanks).
>
>In case you missed the posts, it looks like for a Warrior II they
>won't help much because Piper had already "fixed" the wing to some
>degree so they might not benefit you. In my opinion, flap gap and
>aileron seals would be where'd I'd put my money first. They should
>lower the stall speed, increase low speed handling, and provide a
>slightly higher cruise (2-3 kts); and I wouldn't have funny looking
>things stuck all over my wings that would fall off over time.
>
>Having said that, I'm also familiar with the wing root problems on
>older Cherokees (which is what I own). It sounds like VGs could help
>that somewhat so some additional investigation may be warranted.
>
>Is it possible to put like 4 or 5 on each side, just to compensate for
>the turbulent air at the wing root?
>
>Thanks to those contributing to this thread.
>z

[Dave]

Why VG's?

Well..

Lets call it "Margin"..

It appears from all reports, I "might" go a little faster (2 Knts),
"will" stall slower (5 knts) - (I will settle for a couple.)
decreased sink/increased climb, (150 fpm, I will be happy with 75.)

Shorter landing roll, shorter takeoff run and climb to alt over
obsts.

They are CHEAP!

And there is a significant performance increase with them from what
I have investigated, if I get 30% of what some tell me they are
getting, I happy..

So... margin. - a little faster when needed, a little slower when
needed, a little shorter when needed, a little higher when needed, a
little farther when needed, a little better when loaded.

Maybe a little bit more of what I need when I need it really badly..

Worth the investment when needed.

And If I can duplicate a take off I have seen on video of a VG
equipped Cherokee,- he was over a 50 ft obst. while I would be
struggling for daylight.... Our warrior is no superstar, but it
"meets the numbers"

Seems like a lot for a few hundred bucks...maybe worth taking a chance
on...

Thanks to all for the thread of info...

Dave


On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:56:16 -0500, zatatime > wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:05:50 -0400, Dave
> wrote:
>
>>OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
>>Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
>>
>>Anybody out there with expirence with these?
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>Why did you decide you wanted to do this?
>
>z

[[email protected]]

: Seems like a lot for a few hundred bucks...maybe worth taking a chance
: on...

: Thanks to all for the thread of info...

: Dave

As I said, my personal experience on three different 160 or 180 hp's
stubby-winged Cherokees is consistent... they help a lot more than one would think at
the low end. Nothing substantial at the high speed end.

One other detail. I believe that AM said that they are NOT approved for stock
wintips. He said some aftermarked tips were necessary... whether it be hoerner style
or droop-tip... doesn't matter. They do the same (although the droop-tips on my bird
look a bit silly. Make it look like the "bat-plane"). Stock tips on the Hershey-bar
cherokees are awful from what he said.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Honeck]

> As I said, my personal experience on three different 160 or 180 hp's
> stubby-winged Cherokees is consistent... they help a lot more than one
> would think at
> the low end. Nothing substantial at the high speed end.

One thing no one has mentioned: Art Mattson's VGs are bigger than most.

Although there are fewer of them than on most applications I've seen, they
look wickedly dangerous to me. (As in sharp.) Cleaning around them has got
to be a real pain, especially if you slip and slice your wrist on one of
them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave]

Hi Cory!

I called Art today for just that clarification..(the clearest
and fastest water is usually at the head of the stream) :)

Better wingtips are needed on the straight wing, NOT needed on
the Warrior (tapered ) wing...

Aileron gap seals are recommended....

With the straight wing, the improvement in the flying quality
of the root sections carries some risk as the tips don't do so well
by comparison.

With the taper aka Warrior wing, Piper "fixed" the outer wing
panels, and they do just fine with the VG's installed..

Gap seals are to increase the roll authority at the lower
speeds capable with the VG's.

The guy makes sence to me... answered all my questions well
and to my satisfaction.Explained why he did the mods the way he did ,
did NOT make any outlandish claims, and outlined the possible
negative issues.

Looks like gap seals for ailerons and stab trim, and the VG's
for us..

New paint and interior 1st. :)

Dave


On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:28:43 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>: Seems like a lot for a few hundred bucks...maybe worth taking a chance
>: on...
>
>: Thanks to all for the thread of info...
>
>: Dave
>
> As I said, my personal experience on three different 160 or 180 hp's
>stubby-winged Cherokees is consistent... they help a lot more than one would think at
>the low end. Nothing substantial at the high speed end.
>
> One other detail. I believe that AM said that they are NOT approved for stock
>wintips. He said some aftermarked tips were necessary... whether it be hoerner style
>or droop-tip... doesn't matter. They do the same (although the droop-tips on my bird
>look a bit silly. Make it look like the "bat-plane"). Stock tips on the Hershey-bar
>cherokees are awful from what he said.
>
>-Cory
>
> --
>
>************************************************** ***********************
>* Cory Papenfuss *
>* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
>* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
>************************************************** ***********************

[Mike Spera]

Dave,

I e-mailed you some interior refurb pictures. Did you get them. If not,
please e-mail me with your correct e-mail address.

Mike

[zatatime]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:04:05 -0400, Dave
> wrote:

>Piper fixed the outer (tapered) portion of the wing, but the inner
>portion is "plain old Cherokee" (on a Warrior)
>
> Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the response. I'll have to look at a few this weekend, but
thought I remebered the Archer II I flew had a different root
attachment. Kind of like adding another piece of aluminum at a 45
degree angle to cure some of the induced drag issues.

It's late so I may be wrong....as I said I'll have to check.

It is good to hear opinions about VGs and Cherokees though.

z

[Dave]

Hi Mike!

Nope, no get.. :)

Remove the "nuke this" from our header addy, and note that what
appears to be a space before "nuke" is an underscore, hidden by the
underline of the entire address..

That should do it!

Thanks for the send, would love to see the pixs!

An sending you the complete address back channel..

Cheers!

Dave
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 02:05:13 GMT, Mike Spera >
wrote:

>Dave,
>
>I e-mailed you some interior refurb pictures. Did you get them. If not,
>please e-mail me with your correct e-mail address.
>
>Mike