• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Vgs vs sportsman

3 notches is probably the best short field setting for takeoff. 4 notches works, too, but it requires pretty strong forward yoke pressure to maintain airspeed. Experiment with three notch takeoffs and where your trim needs to be to ease yoke pressure. It’s a good tool. Not wise in a cross wind takeoff, though.
 
Tom,

For takeoff I set/use the flaps on the 185 just like I do on the SQ-2. Before I start my roll the flaps are set to the first notch for no other reason then the ease of reaching the Johnson bar. When I think the plane is ready to fly (generally that's 3-4 seconds on the 185, 2 seconds on the SQ-2 - unless I'm heavy or high DA in which case it takes a bit longer) I reach down and depress the button on the Johnson bar and keeping it depressed I pull the bar up and "pop" the plane off the ground. Then with my hand still on the Johnson bar and its button depressed I "milk" the bar down as quickly as needed/possible to keep the nose from pitching up dramatically and get the plane cleaned up, and of course depending on what I want from the climb profile, ie. do I need to keep the flaps down for best climb over an obstacle or with a high DA. When I "pop" the flaps I'm going to the third notch or a little bit further on both planes. Using this technique everything is happening quickly and fluidly so in reality the nose never really has a time to pitch up very much and the forward yoke pressure isn't excessive, and I never feel like I'm behind the plane.

If I wasn't comfortable with this technique on the 185 I'd probably set the flaps on the second notch, add some nose forward trim a little beyond neutral, and once rolling and near what I felt was flying speed I'd pull the flap handle to the third notch. Then I'd be bringing the flaps up one notch at a time on climb out. But for me I don't like this technique because it's too easy for me to get behind the plane, meaning in the 185 because I didn't get the flaps up quickly enough I'm fighting excessive yoke pressure, and in the SQ-2 I'm over-stressing the flaps because I'm over-speeding the flap setting.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Too many moving parts. Set flaps to 30*, roll the trim forward a couple of strokes to ease the yoke pressure, and take off. Reduce flaps as you normally do. For me that's the first thing I do once airborne. Prop and power adjustments come after. Easy peasy.

Do you prefer to lift the tail prior to rotating and breaking ground? The tail will come up easier with more flaps. That's handy when operating on soft ground.
 
Last edited:
...Do you prefer to lift the tail prior to rotating and breaking ground? The tail will come up easier with more flaps. That's handy when operating on soft ground.
The SQ-2 has so much lift and so much horsepower and such a high angle of attack with its 6" extended gear and 35's that the shortest takeoff is just to fly it off the ground without lifting the tail and rotating. I learned skis are different cause I don't have a tail ski so I need to lift the tail as I start to move to get the shortest takeoff (mvivion pointed that out to me in one of my first ski videos).

I never operated the 185 out of really soft stuff (or near gross weight) so just pushing the yoke forward was enough to lighten then tail and generally I just flew it off in near three-point attitude as well. I suppose the exception to this was in high DA conditions (like the Idaho backcountry) where the takeoff roll was a lot longer and those are certainly less exciting with the tail up so the plane is near level.

And you are absolutely right, keeping the flaps down definitely helps lift the tail, or keep it up while coming to a stop.
 
Thank you all again for the input. I will try it as soon as I get back to my grass strip in a couple of weeks,
I never thought of using the third notch and don't really need it most of the time but at the grass strip in the Spring it a bit soft so it should help.
 
The SQ-2 has so much lift and so much horsepower and such a high angle of attack with its 6" extended gear and 35's that the shortest takeoff is just to fly it off the ground without lifting the tail and rotating. I learned skis are different cause I don't have a tail ski so I need to lift the tail as I start to move to get the shortest takeoff (mvivion pointed that out to me in one of my first ski videos).

I never operated the 185 out of really soft stuff (or near gross weight) so just pushing the yoke forward was enough to lighten then tail and generally I just flew it off in near three-point attitude as well. I suppose the exception to this was in high DA conditions (like the Idaho backcountry) where the takeoff roll was a lot longer and those are certainly less exciting with the tail up so the plane is near level.

And you are absolutely right, keeping the flaps down definitely helps lift the tail, or keep it up while coming to a stop.
Watch Jon's use of flaps. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WMrV3OZ6tjM
 
Yea and Bobby Breeden did the same kind of takeoffs with Glacier Cub, and certainly can't argue with his success. I'll be honest and say I've never poured the coals to it without the airplane rolling at the same time for fear of picking up debris and dinging the prop.
 
Last edited:
... What concerned me was the location of the VGs. They are much further back on the wing than other manufactures. Initially I thought it was due to the fact that the Sportsman cuff was installed after the VGs. I called BAS and they confirmed they are mounted based on a measurement from a point aft on the wing so adding a new longer cuff would not effect their location. ....

Who's BAS?
 
They're the folks with the seatbelts, tailpull handles, and foldaway jumpseat products I assume ;)
 
OK so the bottom line is that Cub Crafters now has THE STC that a person would want with a RSTOL 180 for VGs? I know they have an STC, but not sure I kept up throughout this thread. I'd much rather have a delta wing, or strake for the tail than actual VGs all over the tail if one of those kits is still available today (assuming they work as good as VGs all over the tail) I think I'd like to get VGs on the plane, but definitely want to get the best kit for what I have.
 
I have an early modle RSTOL 180, and it is on wheels to boot....so not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but I have flown it extensively both with and without vg's. IMHO on that wing they do not add quite as much as they do on a cub, but they certainly help.
It seems to me, that you gotta be pretty slow for them to shine, is it common to slow it down that steep on floats?
As a side, 'shortfielder' also has an early RSTOL 180, and has also flown his with and without vg's. But due to light hail damage on his wings he added the sportsman. He has had several 180's, with and without sportsman, and as I recall, he really liked that mod, but didn't feel it brought as much to the table on the RSTOL plane as it did on others. Which makes sense of course. You might try sending him a PM for more specifics.
Take care, Rob
 
I have a 1962 182, I put the sportsman kit on and the stall speed dropped to about 44mph. Then I added the micro vg’s. Now it mushes at 40 but it doesn’t really stall, just mushes
 
We've had both VG kits and played with VGs a lot on the experimental. We've found placement makes a big difference. In my opinion, the BLR VG's are placed too far aft of the leading edge to be very effective. Micro's are the way to go in the certified world where you are bound to the template.

With that in mind, had I the choice, I would install the Sportsman cuff and leave the VG's for the cubs.
 
Another thought. What a guy is after should play into what he chooses. I never wanted my 180 to fly like a Cub. I wanted my wing to be more responsive when taking off in gusty winds with limited space. It wasn’t about taking off shorter and slower, it was about aileron effectiveness and a better safety margin. VGs accomplished that and also reduced my landing distances without changing my customary AOA sight picture. I’ve never flown a Cessna before and after a cuff mod. Would I have the same observations from a cuff install as with my Micro VG install? Would my ailerons work better when fighting the wind rolling over the trees?
 
Another thought. What a guy is after should play into what he chooses. I never wanted my 180 to fly like a Cub. I wanted my wing to be more responsive when taking off in gusty winds with limited space. It wasn’t about taking off shorter and slower, it was about aileron effectiveness and a better safety margin. VGs accomplished that and also reduced my landing distances without changing my customary AOA sight picture. I’ve never flown a Cessna before and after a cuff mod. Would I have the same observations from a cuff install as with my Micro VG install? Would my ailerons work better when fighting the wind rolling over the trees?

In my experience, a resounding Yes!

MTV
 
But you've said VGs don't do anything for a Cessna. I couldn't disagree more!

On the topic, in a private conversation I asked Jerry Burr about VGs with wing slats and whether VGs provide a benefit. His answer surprised me. He said the VGs don't assist the slats, the slats energize the VGs. I think about that a lot when in discussions about cuffs.
 
Last edited:
We had a stock wing 185 in the line up. It was new enough to have the factory cuff. First we put on the BLR kit with the Delta wings. It helped roll authority some. Then a Horton got added on, the BLRs were far enough back that the Horton kit didn't require them to be removed so they stayed. The Delta wings might have had to have been removed and replaced, I don't remember. The cuff made it much better in terms of short field performance. Can't say for sure how it would have done without the VGs and just the Horton.

We put Micros on the Sportsman - cuffed 180. Some roll authority improvement, lost some speed. Probably pass on that combination the next time for what we did with it.

These always get passionate and end up with a lot of posts. All good reading.
 
But you've said VGs don't do anything for a Cessna. I couldn't disagree more!

On the topic, in a private conversation I asked Jerry Burr about VGs with wing slats and whether VGs provide a benefit. His answer surprised me. He said the VGs don't assist the slats, the slats energize the VGs. I think about that a lot when in discussions about cuffs.

Stewart,

Apparently, you didn't read my earlier comment about VGs on a Cessna wing very carefully. In that comment, I noted that my experience with VGs on a Cessna wing was with a Cessna 170, that had no other modifications to the wings.....no cuff, no RSTOL, just a basic 1952 Cessna airfoil. And, by the way, that airplane weighed 1360 or so, a LOT lighter than any 180 or 185 I've ever met.

And, in fact, I did not say the VGs didn't do anything for that wing. In fact, what I said was that the VGs did mellow out the stall some, and lowered the stall speed a little bit.

There's a whole lot of difference between a 170 and a 180 or 185, while they have the same airfoil, weight is a LOT different, and that plays a significant role in stall speed. Hang a LOT more weight on the same wing, and it's a different game.

I never professed to be knowledgeable about VGs on a 180 or 185, since I've never flown either with VGs installed. I would not put them on a 170 again, for several reasons.....one of which is nearly slashing my wrist on one of the things while fueling from cans on floats......slippery hip boots.

But, if VGs make you happy on your 180, good for you.....that's your experience, not mine.....my experience was strictly with a 170.

When it comes to Sportsman kits, I have flown one Cessna 170 before and after a Sportsman kit was installed, one Cessna 180 before and after, and two Cessna 185s before and after, as well as at least three other 185s already equipped with Sportsman kits. Two of those 185s had the late camber lift wing, all the others had the standard early Cessna leading edge. Every one of those airplanes benefited greatly from the addition of the Sportsman kit. Stall speed was measurably and noticeably slower. My boss, a non pilot, flew with me to Fort Yukon for a meeting right after the kit was installed on our 1985 185 and he commented when we landed that it sure seemed like the plane landed slower......and he wasn't aware that we'd modified the wing. The difference was that noticeable.

And while the stall speed is significantly lowered by the Sportsman kit, the stall characteristics are significantly altered as well. The stall turned into a mushing descent, and performing a rudder stall became a non event....didn't even have to be that quick on the rudders. That 1985 airplane also had a RSTOL kit on it, and RSTOL airplanes can have somewhat "aggressive" stall breaks when you push them to very high alpha. The Sportsman kit changed that airplane's stall characteristics to very mellow. That alone would have made me happy, but that kit really improved the slow speed handling of that airplane in a bunch of ways.

And, fyi, I flew that 185 over 2000 hours before and 1000 to 1500 hours after the Sportsman kit was installed. Much of that was off airport work on wheels, floats and skis. The other airplanes I've flown with the Sportsman kit I didn't fly that much, but the results were consistent and very positive.

But, again, this is simply my experience. Take it for what it's worth.

MTV
 
Mike, Of those 180 and 185 which you've flown both before and after the wing modifications, what was the effect upon the cruise speed however slight? My limited experience with a leading edge modification was that the plane was noticeably slower than with an unmodified wing.
 
Mike, Of those 180 and 185 which you've flown both before and after the wing modifications, what was the effect upon the cruise speed however slight? My limited experience with a leading edge modification was that the plane was noticeably slower than with an unmodified wing.


Pete,

I was astounded by the minimal speed loss on those airplanes. Maybe four knots, which might be stretching it, and almost not noticeable except in really smooth air. Now, all these airplanes were
equipped for floats, skis, and big tires, so lots of tabs, steps, handles, etc. When I picked that 1985 airplane up, it didn't have any of that stuff, and over time, it lost a fair bit of speed due to addition of "stuff". But, the Sportsman kit really didn't add a lot of drag. I don't recall the weight gain.....something like 12 pounds???

If I ever own another Cessna, it'll have a Sportsman kit.

MTV
 
I have no where near the experience/hours flying Wagons that Mike has, but thought I'd share the experience I had with mine which was a '73 that already had ATS VG's and the Cessna cuff when I bought it. I cleaned the plane up a bit by removing the vertical cap with its rotating beacon and replacing it with a smooth cap. I also added strut cuffs on both ends. That combination gave me a couple of mph of speed.

Then I had Willie Stene install the Sportsman kit and his new WingX extensions that had the Sportsman cuff and his new wing tips that also had the Sportsman cuff, and smaller brighter wingtip lights. With that entire combination on a relatively clean plane I saw no reduction in cruise speed, and in fact at really high altitude (like 14,000+ feet) it actually flew about a mile per hour faster which I guessed might be related to the extra lift allowing the plane to fly a little flatter thereby less drag. But that is just a guess.

I totally agree with Mike that when I get my next 180/185 it will end up with the Sportsman kit. For me it's the wing Cessna should have built. Most likely WingX as well but since it will be a RSTOL I may decide to try it first with just the Sportsman. Man I'm getting excited for a new wagon just reading/talking about this stuff.
 
Back
Top