captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
 |
|
It seems to me that the V.G. discussion is the longest discussion we have here. 
I can convey my view from GenAv flying. Just about all of the large piston twins that I have flown had them installed. I have flown the large piston twins with and without them. Without question a C-400 series airplane or the slightly smaller C-300 series aircraft land and take off much better with them, not to mention one engine inop' and near stall behavior. They have no discernible negative performance impact during cruise, so with regard to that I can't see where a much slower Kolb would either. I only have a few thousand hours on those twins so take it for what its worth.
On the other hand I am not sure in general why I would need them on my Kolb, however on the few occasions I may want to fly out of say a river bed I probably would like to have them.
Ron (at) KLSB
---- lucien <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
=============
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 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.
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
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 50754#250754
--
kugelair.com
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
