RVBottomly
PATRON
Mike,That kit was developed by Boundary Layer Air, which later sold the STC to Cub Crafters. The “strake” forward of the horizontal stab. helps keep the airflow “organized” across the underside of the stabilizer AND elevator, while the VGs mounted under the tail only affect flow over the elevators.
MTV
,Hi MTV. I just can't let your comment go unanswered. The BLR kit was developed primarily to attempt to cure the moose stall, which was the rage of the day. BLR couldn't limit the elevator travel as it is a primary control with limits found in the TC. The next easiest would be to add to the surface area of the stabilizer, to simply overpower the elevator. It works. However if you have a heavy engine / prop the last thing you need are a pair of fins holding the tail up on landing. You suggest that the strakes keeps the airflow organized over the bottom of the stabilizer and elevator. Do you have data showing the bottom of the stabilizer completely stalled with or without the strakes? I have video of the same in a fully developed spin and the air flow over the stabilizer bottom is quite normal. Because of this continuity of airflow the vg's along the stabilizer trailing edge are doing their job along the entire span of the tail. Not just 2 or 3 feet in the center. I might add that during testing the number of vg's under the stabilizer were reduced from the original array, as they were not needed to do the job. Less vg's less maintenance. I don't mind you hyping your favorite brand, just don't diss the rest with unsubstantiated claims. Show me the data. Jerry
That looks to be a highly modified 12. Cub gear/tail, flaps, left side door, bushwheel/garr arrow tailwheel, suspect bigger engine. DENNY
, I’d suggest you visit with Penney Nixon, who did some pretty extensive flight test on various mods on the Super Cub,
MTV
View attachment 53636This is the best I can do with windows 10. MTV, You were a lot braver than I in trying to spell Bob's name. I am the last person they would be willing to share info with. Take Care. Jerry
I had an early Micro VG kit for my cub, did not have VG's under tail on mine on that kit, and on wings did not go inboard of fuel tanks back then. Micro sent me later version when we recovered the wings and now have them all the way inboard, and under the tail too.Hi stewartb. I have the first Micro STC for the Piper Cub. It is dated Jan 4 1993. Obviously our testing was complete at that time. Early Micro's did address the tail because the stock tail would not stall the improved wing. You are correct BLR didn't come in until a couple of years later. Later changes to Micro were primarily influenced by marketing. Jerry
I had an early Micro VG kit for my cub, did not have VG's under tail on mine on that kit, and on wings did not go inboard of fuel tanks back then. Micro sent me later version when we recovered the wings and now have them all the way inboard, and under the tail too.
John
When I talked to Charly about -12 mods he had a relationship with Micro and used slightly larger than normal Micro VGs. I don't recall anything about a strake. He does have the STC for the beefed-up tail yoke and recommends that for high power -12s. That adds a lower strut to the stabilizer, not a strake.
Stewartb: that’s what I remember. Wasn’t there a airplane magazine with his green and white 12 on the cover with a photo of the tail showing the strake and the mini-struts to the front of the horizontal? So was that was a combination of Charlie’s struts and VG’s strakes?