 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Bickham
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 170
Location: St. Francisville, LA
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
 |
|
As much as I chance to add fuel to this fire....
The light finally came on for me regarding the countless threads and strong differences re VG's. I think I'm starting to grasp the different points of view on this subject and the reasons for them.
To me, VG's have a place and advantages in light to no wind flying with not a lot of crosswind component. I think it is accurate to say that most of the strongest VG proponents have stated they are light wind condition flyers, for the most part. In smooth conditions, real slow is good.
The other side, tends to fly long XC's in strong winds at times.
I used to be a light wind flyer and enjoyed it. The experiences of the MV-Oregon flight really challenged me. One of the problems I had was getting the plane to quite flying in gusting conditions while trying to land. The "four landings" at Vernon, TX got my attention. I got exactly sync'd with the gust and touchdown four times ie four bounces. The fellow in the FBO comment was, " I thought you were going to land in the next county!". I couldn't get the plane to quite flying. VG's probably would have made the problem worse in those conditions. In my plane and my with my experience, strong crosswinds challenge rudder authority first as I slow to land. VG's could slow you down even more and challenge that rudder authority even more.
So now I have a better understanding of the strong differences in opinions regarding VG's and there applications. I also have a new respect for the folks with strong opinions and their differences based on the type of flying they prefer.
For me, I'm an aspiring XC flyer. I enjoy the long flights and especially the company of fellow Kolb flyers. Seeing this great country from 1000 AGL and below is a goal that I have set for myself. You have to be ready for strong wind conditions to do that or you will be sitting at an FBO more than you are flying. Or worse, you could find the end of a long leg with higher than forecasted wind conditions. For that reason, VG's might not be the best option for me and the type of flying that I want to do.
So now I agree with both sides. It is just that we might be talking about two different approaches to flying conditions and the requirements that those conditions require. Maybe as I age and slow down, I might be satisfied laps around the patch or just local flights. Then I might decide to check the VG's out.
My little humble opinion.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that I have the greatest respect for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lucien
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
|
|
I've never actually weighed in on the VG debate, mostly because I've never tried them so can't talk about them from an experienced viewpoint.
But I'll toss a couple thoughts out for grins. I am not of the opinion that flying preferences or lack of bravery about approaching the edge of the flight envelope is a valid reason for permitting unknown alterations to the plane in one case and not the other.
In fact, I tend to mildly be on the non-VG side myself, if for no other reason than the planes I've flown were all test flown and developed without them and so all the known territory on their flight characteristics is without them too. This holds no matter what type of conditions you like to fly in or what your level of bravery is.
When you alter the performance envelope of the main wing, it changes a whole bunch of other stuff that the rest of the plane experiences. I.e. plane stalls at an increased AoA means the tail is a different attitude with respect to the relative wind, etc.
Not saying this is bad, but it is a different situation than the rest of the plane was designed (or at least tested) to deal with. This puts you in unknown territory, which is usually not a good place to be with an airplane.
Being able to stop the wing from flying during landing is a legitimate concern, especially out here in the mountains. In my FSII, once the tail came down, I wanted that main wing to be flying as little as possible so that gusts had as little chance to pick the plane back up as possible.
In my current plane, landings with less than about 20 degs of flaps can be dicey as-is with the wing as-is. With no flaps, that sucker is still fully flying even if I touch the tailwheel down. You just can't get the AoA of the wing high enough in ground effect without assistance (i.e. flaps) to stop it from flying. In fact, the only time I encountered conditions where full flaps wasn't a good idea was a landing I made in NE in 25G40 winds about 30 degs off the right side of the runway. Otherwise, I need all the help I can get in terms of increased AoA in the flare and touchdown.
I can see how VG's would change this whole equation and could even introduce some hazard on both of those planes.
So even us low-wind/low-convective activity/low-dust-devil fliers benefit from flying planes not altered from the configs in which they were designed and tested. Or at least, we who don't like to be test-pilots most of the time  .
JMO,
LS
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
LS
Titan II SS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason Omelchuck
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 120
Location: Portland Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
|
|
| John Bickham wrote: | As much as I chance to add fuel to this fire....
The light finally came on for me regarding the countless threads and strong differences re VG's. I think I'm starting to grasp the different points of view on this subject and the reasons for them.
To me, VG's have a place and advantages in light to no wind flying with not a lot of crosswind component. I think it is accurate to say that most of the strongest VG proponents have stated they are light wind condition flyers, for the most part. In smooth conditions, real slow is good.
The other side, tends to fly long XC's in strong winds at times.
I used to be a light wind flyer and enjoyed it. The experiences of the MV-Oregon flight really challenged me. One of the problems I had was getting the plane to quite flying in gusting conditions while trying to land. The "four landings" at Vernon, TX got my attention. I got exactly sync'd with the gust and touchdown four times ie four bounces. The fellow in the FBO comment was, " I thought you were going to land in the next county!". I couldn't get the plane to quite flying. VG's probably would have made the problem worse in those conditions. In my plane and my with my experience, strong crosswinds challenge rudder authority first as I slow to land. VG's could slow you down even more and challenge that rudder authority even more.
So now I have a better understanding of the strong differences in opinions regarding VG's and there applications. I also have a new respect for the folks with strong opinions and their differences based on the type of flying they prefer.
For me, I'm an aspiring XC flyer. I enjoy the long flights and especially the company of fellow Kolb flyers. Seeing this great country from 1000 AGL and below is a goal that I have set for myself. You have to be ready for strong wind conditions to do that or you will be sitting at an FBO more than you are flying. Or worse, you could find the end of a long leg with higher than forecasted wind conditions. For that reason, VG's might not be the best option for me and the type of flying that I want to do.
So now I agree with both sides. It is just that we might be talking about two different approaches to flying conditions and the requirements that those conditions require. Maybe as I age and slow down, I might be satisfied laps around the patch or just local flights. Then I might decide to check the VG's out.
My little humble opinion. |
I am a low time pilot and I can get my MKIII to bounce in no wind conditions  When I was getting my license in a cub, I was taught to change my landing style and use the equipment in the aircraft to deal with various conditions. For example, in a strong crosswind, wheel land it and stick it to the ground by keeping the tail up then use brakes to slow and throttle if needed to keep enough rudder authority to keep it on the runway. When well below flying speed, get the tail down so can then use the tail wheel to keep me on track.
I believe that saying having a lower stall speed will hinder your ability to land in strong winds is sort of like saying we need a stronger landing gear because of our airplanes problem called "Kolb quit". As John H likes to say, there is no Kolb quit but it will stall and if stalled 5 feet above the ground, you will hit hard.
I do not have VG's and I can keep my MKIII on the ground at 50mph and above if I keep the tail up. I would be inclined to think that I could also keep my MKIII on the ground at 50 mph with VG's if I kept the tail up. As I said above, I have had a few bouncy landings in my MKIII but I do not attribute them to what speed my plane stalls at, I attribute them to my inability ( on that paticular landing) to keep up with what the airplane was doing and/or not adjusting my technique for the conditions.
My $.02 worth
Jason
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Bickham
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 170
Location: St. Francisville, LA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
|
|
Jason,
Agree with the "stick it with a wheel landing" technique. Prior to the trip out west, I was a 99% three pointer. I was forced to develop a much better "wheel landing technique" rather quickly to survive.
Was faced with every wind variation on both take-offs and landings you can imagine during the trip. Even got to "sucking the seat up my (at)#%#" on a take-off from Grant-Milan, NM. Wind changed from strong crosswind to strong tailwind mid runway. Think it was a dust devil off to the right. That in combination with a DA of 9100 ft and I was concentrating real hard on just flying.
Every plane is different as they are built and modified differently. My plane with the larger tires and longer gear legs has a higher AOA in the three point stance. If tail lowers with just a little too much speed, she is back in the air. Just had to adjust. Still get caught every now and then. Homer's original design (shorter ALUM landing gear) had a flatter AOA on purpose. To keep the lower HP two strokes from flying too soon with out enough speed.
Still learning everytime I fire her up!
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that I have the greatest respect for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JetPilot
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
|
|
You bring up some very good points John B. about VG's and their possible disadvantages in high wind landings. What you say makes perfect sense, I tend to agree. I could not say for sure, because I am one of those light wind flyers you were talking about. I think the only way we would ever know would be for me to give John Hauk the keys to my Kolb on a windy day and see if he could land it
I sure would like to hear more about the weather conditions you encountered and how you adapted to them, I have been meaning to PM you and ask you about it. I would like to work my up to be able to fly in more weather conditions eventually. Its been quite a while since I have seen you post here on the list, its good to see you back.
Mike
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robcannon
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 39
Location: British Columbia
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
|
|
It would be interesting to know what the difference in sink rate is (at stall) with and without vg's. In a previous post I stated that my stall went down from 38 ish to 26 ish. When I say "stall", I am referring to the break, but even though it is controllable right down to very low airspeeds now, I think the sink rate is much higher at 26 with vg's than at 38 with now vg's.
IF I am correct in this assumption, then landing with vg's at a lower airspeed would not increase the risk of bounce? hmmmmmmmm.....
What vg's definatly do, is keep the aircraft controllable at a lower airspeed, or, give you a larger safety margin at higher airspeeds ( I choose somewhere in between) The chance of a stall spin turning downwind is reduced, as is the chance of a wing dropping on final.
Gotta love those VG's !!
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lucien
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
|
|
| robcannon wrote: | It would be interesting to know what the difference in sink rate is (at stall) with and without vg's. In a previous post I stated that my stall went down from 38 ish to 26 ish. When I say "stall", I am referring to the break, but even though it is controllable right down to very low airspeeds now, I think the sink rate is much higher at 26 with vg's than at 38 with now vg's.
IF I am correct in this assumption, then landing with vg's at a lower airspeed would not increase the risk of bounce? hmmmmmmmm.....
What vg's definatly do, is keep the aircraft controllable at a lower airspeed, or, give you a larger safety margin at higher airspeeds ( I choose somewhere in between) The chance of a stall spin turning downwind is reduced, as is the chance of a wing dropping on final.
Gotta love those VG's !! |
Well remember - we only talk about stall _speeds_ under certain circumstances (i.e. steady-state conditions like straight-level flight). What VG's alter is the _angle of attack_ at which the wing stalls (airspeed does not determine stall, only AoA does), the change in stall speeds is a secondary effect of that.
This change is the unknown element in this case. I.e. how does the kolb react now when allowed to fly at higher _AoA's_ without stalling? I.e. does the current tail design, boom tube length, etc., behave in a different way now or ?
I remember with my FSII, 3-pointing it on landing was already quite a challenge without VG's due to the tail becoming quite ineffective at around the stall. The wing would generally stall before I could touch the tailwheel down first. I have no idea how a higher AoA capability of the main wing would affect this. Could have been great, could have been dangerous. Point being, I didn't know and I'd have had to do some flight testing to determine that....
And as I hate being a test pilot...... and the plane flew and landed fabulously already and...... you get my drift ......
LS
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
LS
Titan II SS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xauxi99
Joined: 30 Aug 2009
Posts: 1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
