I've been observing the list for awhile now and have gained alot of useful knowledge with respect to the 170(thanks). However I'm a relative "newby" in regards to postings. Anyway I'm looking for input on STOL conversions for the 170.
I've been eyeing the SPORTSMAN kit and the numbers advertised look good. Anybody out there with advice who has the modification in terms of performance and installation. It would be for a '54 170B.
Sportsman STOL kit
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
I have the Sportsman kit installed on my '54 (was there when I
bought it). The plus: The airplane flies at 35mph indicated. That's
not to say I routinely fly it at that airspeed, but it's nice to know that
"cushion" is there.
The one minus I can think of: I've been told the Sportsman kit
weighs 18 pounds complete (for both wings). There are folks out
there that will argue that vortex generators will give you similar
benefits without the added weight. I can't opine whether that's true or
not (having never flown a B model with a stock wing & vortex generators).
For what it's worth, I'm kinda glad the airplane I bought is equipped
with a Sportsman kit, but I'm not sure I would spring for the purchase
price of the kit if it wasn't on there..... It doesn't seem to cost any penalty in cruise speed (not-withstanding the 18lb additional weight) but
it certainly makes for a semi-STOL capable airplane. Mine also has
aileron gap seals, which are said to add to the effectiveness
of aileron control at slow speeds.
Real world metrics:
I can cob the throttle, "jack the flaps" to 20 degrees or more and be
off in about 200-300 feet. I routinely shoot approaches to landing (in calm winds) at 55mph. This slow approach speed makes for nice short landings (by the time you're in a 3-point attitude and waiting
for the ground to rise up and smite thee, you're doing perhaps
30-40mph). The resultant ground roll is (understandably) short
with that slow an approach speed.....
If you were close-by (?) I'd invite you into the left seat of my '54
(with the Sportsman kit) to take a ride and experinece it for
yourself to see if it would be worth the investment.
Since I'm writing, I will mention that I flew a '53 for awhile
that had a stock wing. and it would fly/approach almost nearly
as slow as my '54 with the Sportsman kit. The key being, if
the winds are calm, you can get a stock B model 170 quite slow during
the final phases of the approach. If the winds are blowing/gusty,
in my opinion, no leading edge kit (or other STOL device) will make any difference, and you will be working "hard" to get the thing on the ground and sorted out. As a matter of fact, when the winds are gusty/blowing, I have to take steps to "kill the lift" (dump flaps to zero asap) otherwise my
airplane will continue to fly and make lift during the rollout down to
25-35mph.
As for a final piece of advice, I've heard more than one guy say
a 170 with a STOL kit is more of a "handfull" than a stock 170, in
that you've got more lift on tap at relatively slower airspeeds....
From a pratical point of view, this is no problem if you "kill the lift"
as soon as the mains touch the runway in windy/gusty conditions
(i.e., dump flaps to zilch as soon as the mains touch the runway).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
bought it). The plus: The airplane flies at 35mph indicated. That's
not to say I routinely fly it at that airspeed, but it's nice to know that
"cushion" is there.
The one minus I can think of: I've been told the Sportsman kit
weighs 18 pounds complete (for both wings). There are folks out
there that will argue that vortex generators will give you similar
benefits without the added weight. I can't opine whether that's true or
not (having never flown a B model with a stock wing & vortex generators).
For what it's worth, I'm kinda glad the airplane I bought is equipped
with a Sportsman kit, but I'm not sure I would spring for the purchase
price of the kit if it wasn't on there..... It doesn't seem to cost any penalty in cruise speed (not-withstanding the 18lb additional weight) but
it certainly makes for a semi-STOL capable airplane. Mine also has
aileron gap seals, which are said to add to the effectiveness
of aileron control at slow speeds.
Real world metrics:
I can cob the throttle, "jack the flaps" to 20 degrees or more and be
off in about 200-300 feet. I routinely shoot approaches to landing (in calm winds) at 55mph. This slow approach speed makes for nice short landings (by the time you're in a 3-point attitude and waiting
for the ground to rise up and smite thee, you're doing perhaps
30-40mph). The resultant ground roll is (understandably) short
with that slow an approach speed.....
If you were close-by (?) I'd invite you into the left seat of my '54
(with the Sportsman kit) to take a ride and experinece it for
yourself to see if it would be worth the investment.
Since I'm writing, I will mention that I flew a '53 for awhile
that had a stock wing. and it would fly/approach almost nearly
as slow as my '54 with the Sportsman kit. The key being, if
the winds are calm, you can get a stock B model 170 quite slow during
the final phases of the approach. If the winds are blowing/gusty,
in my opinion, no leading edge kit (or other STOL device) will make any difference, and you will be working "hard" to get the thing on the ground and sorted out. As a matter of fact, when the winds are gusty/blowing, I have to take steps to "kill the lift" (dump flaps to zero asap) otherwise my
airplane will continue to fly and make lift during the rollout down to
25-35mph.
As for a final piece of advice, I've heard more than one guy say
a 170 with a STOL kit is more of a "handfull" than a stock 170, in
that you've got more lift on tap at relatively slower airspeeds....
From a pratical point of view, this is no problem if you "kill the lift"
as soon as the mains touch the runway in windy/gusty conditions
(i.e., dump flaps to zilch as soon as the mains touch the runway).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
I have vortex generators on a B model wing. No aileron gap seals. I can match the numbers Bela gave you. I'd look real close at VGs. Easier to install, and remove if you or some future owner wants. No weight penalty. Only 3 draw backs I can think of.
1. If you wash and or wax your airplane a lot they can be a pain.
2. If you need to deice/snow your wing they can get in the way and you have to be careful.
3. The price which is $1500 which seems rediculious for the material your buying. I'll bet the Sportsman Stall kit costs about the same so this may not be an issue.
I can'ts say enough about the quality and completeness of the Micro vortex generator kit.
If you or anyone is near eastern PA look me up and I'll give you a ride ad you can see how they work for yourself.
1. If you wash and or wax your airplane a lot they can be a pain.
2. If you need to deice/snow your wing they can get in the way and you have to be careful.
3. The price which is $1500 which seems rediculious for the material your buying. I'll bet the Sportsman Stall kit costs about the same so this may not be an issue.
I can'ts say enough about the quality and completeness of the Micro vortex generator kit.
If you or anyone is near eastern PA look me up and I'll give you a ride ad you can see how they work for yourself.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
-
funseventy
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:46 pm
I have a pretty strong opinion here, so I hope I don't offend any one.
I feel that VG's and STOL kits do something to help the airplane, but the huge change happens in the pilot. More times than not the person overstates the change they see because the STOL kit gave them the confidence to slow down to a speed that the airplane could already perform at.
I think you can be picky and choosy about immenities and take weight off the airplane and increase the performance with a given load. My airplane is a stock 1954 170B and I'd put it up against anyones with a STOL kit or VG's. Where are you flying that you need this? I fly into way under 1000' strips in the mountains above 3500' at gross weight. That's pretty respectable for a 170. The price of a STOL kit is a lot of Gas Money to get proficient and have fun doing it. I too will offer my left seat to you.
Kelly
I feel that VG's and STOL kits do something to help the airplane, but the huge change happens in the pilot. More times than not the person overstates the change they see because the STOL kit gave them the confidence to slow down to a speed that the airplane could already perform at.
I think you can be picky and choosy about immenities and take weight off the airplane and increase the performance with a given load. My airplane is a stock 1954 170B and I'd put it up against anyones with a STOL kit or VG's. Where are you flying that you need this? I fly into way under 1000' strips in the mountains above 3500' at gross weight. That's pretty respectable for a 170. The price of a STOL kit is a lot of Gas Money to get proficient and have fun doing it. I too will offer my left seat to you.
Kelly
I agree the B model really doesn't need any kind of STOL
kit (the stock airplane with those big barn-door flaps does
just fine....).
My buddies and I have been joking/thinking the reason they
put the Sportsman kit on my '54 was to hide all the dents in
the leading edges of the wings <grins>.
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
kit (the stock airplane with those big barn-door flaps does
just fine....).
My buddies and I have been joking/thinking the reason they
put the Sportsman kit on my '54 was to hide all the dents in
the leading edges of the wings <grins>.
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
What kind of price tag does the Sportsman STOL kit come with,as opposed to the VG's? I believe Micro VG's are STC'd for 170 A&B,is that right? How about BLR VG's?
I would venture to guess that installation of a STOL leading edge cuff would be more involved,and therefore more expensive,than the VG's. You'd also have to paint the cuff to match the rest of the wing.
Eric
I would venture to guess that installation of a STOL leading edge cuff would be more involved,and therefore more expensive,than the VG's. You'd also have to paint the cuff to match the rest of the wing.
Eric
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
The shop rate at our local maintenance operation is about $50 an hour-- that's $2k. I know an A&P or two who do side jobs,I think they charge $30 or $35--that'd be $1200 or $1400.
So we're looking at at least $2400,plus the cost for painting. That's a lot of gas money!
What kind of installation time os quoted for the VG's?
Eric
So we're looking at at least $2400,plus the cost for painting. That's a lot of gas money!
What kind of installation time os quoted for the VG's?
Eric
I would say, if I might, that practice and pilot skills will be far more important than fancy parts. Use that money to buy gas, find a nice grass strip with little traffic and do about 1000 landings. When you can make that plane land where, when and how you want every time you will be far better off. Most folks log fewer that 50 hours a year and the truth be known probably get fewer that 100 landings a year. Thats not enough to be really good. Practice, Practice, Practice. Wheel, three point, one wheel, no flap, full flap, tail low, tail high, short field, soft field, slips to final, slips on final, power on, power off etc.
Thanks for listening
Bill
Thanks for listening
Bill
Listening? Somebody's got audio? 
I was tempted to chime in on this last night, but I'm glad I held off so I could join the crowd. This is going to "rile" somebody for sure, but don't take it personal. So many "devices" are produced out there and heavily "marketed" to the public, it's easy to get persuaded to add junk to an airplane hoping to make it a magic carpet. The cost/benefit ratio is so poor on such mods that the original mfr. never offered them and very few are sold aftermarket either, considering the total production run of the model. To this day, Cessna does not offer/sell/install STOL, aileron/flap-seal kits or VG kits on any of their airplanes. If there were a true advantage that was measureable in terms of cost vs benefit you can be sure their marketing division would be selling them.
VG's actually do a remarkable job of re-attaching a seperated boundary layer to an airfoil. This has been proven in Boeings and Lear Jets for decades. But those aircraft had their seperation problems at high-speed (aileron buffet) and very high angles of attack when leading edge devices were deployed. The all metal NACA 2412 doesn't suffer from either of these problems, and neither does the rag-wing. While the VG's can make a measured difference in a wind-tunnel test, they make very little difference in the real-world because the real-world has no such excruciating operating margins built into every landing field nor does it have pilots willing to take their airplanes into such marginal conditions more than once. Like Dick suggested, all these 170 models will already land in places (without VG's and trick-kits) it can never get out of with them. Look at the performance section of the AFM and the Owner's Manuals and compare the landing distances of stock airplanes with the STOL mfr's. claimed takeoff distances over 50'. Next, go out to your favorite obstacle-studded takeoff path, pace off that distance from your departure obstacle, and turn around and look at it. Do you really want to begin a takeoff roll towards that object from that distance?
Meanwhile, you've lightened your wallet, complicated your airplane, and reduced the size of the re-sale marketplace for it. Just my personal opinion.
I was tempted to chime in on this last night, but I'm glad I held off so I could join the crowd. This is going to "rile" somebody for sure, but don't take it personal. So many "devices" are produced out there and heavily "marketed" to the public, it's easy to get persuaded to add junk to an airplane hoping to make it a magic carpet. The cost/benefit ratio is so poor on such mods that the original mfr. never offered them and very few are sold aftermarket either, considering the total production run of the model. To this day, Cessna does not offer/sell/install STOL, aileron/flap-seal kits or VG kits on any of their airplanes. If there were a true advantage that was measureable in terms of cost vs benefit you can be sure their marketing division would be selling them.
VG's actually do a remarkable job of re-attaching a seperated boundary layer to an airfoil. This has been proven in Boeings and Lear Jets for decades. But those aircraft had their seperation problems at high-speed (aileron buffet) and very high angles of attack when leading edge devices were deployed. The all metal NACA 2412 doesn't suffer from either of these problems, and neither does the rag-wing. While the VG's can make a measured difference in a wind-tunnel test, they make very little difference in the real-world because the real-world has no such excruciating operating margins built into every landing field nor does it have pilots willing to take their airplanes into such marginal conditions more than once. Like Dick suggested, all these 170 models will already land in places (without VG's and trick-kits) it can never get out of with them. Look at the performance section of the AFM and the Owner's Manuals and compare the landing distances of stock airplanes with the STOL mfr's. claimed takeoff distances over 50'. Next, go out to your favorite obstacle-studded takeoff path, pace off that distance from your departure obstacle, and turn around and look at it. Do you really want to begin a takeoff roll towards that object from that distance?
Meanwhile, you've lightened your wallet, complicated your airplane, and reduced the size of the re-sale marketplace for it. Just my personal opinion.
Last edited by GAHorn on Thu May 01, 2003 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm a 250hr pilot with 140 hrs in a 170b - as a result I consider myself a rookie and usually don't chime in on topics where more experienced folks are clearly in a better position to comment. However, I think this is one where my relative inexperience could lend some credence to leaving a 170 stock.
After getting aquainted with my 170, I decided to go out and explore the slow flight and short field characteristics a little more. What I discovered is that the stock 170B is a remarkable short field plane as it is. In exploring slow flight I had 40 deg of flaps and the nose high enough that the airspeed dropped to zero and the plane just sat there. I could have gotten out and walked faster than this thing was moving! After that I tried some true short field landings and managed to put it down on the pavement and stop it in 300 feet - not too shabby for a 175-200 hour pilot (at the time). My airport has a 2200' grass strip that intersects the paved one at about the 1100' mark. I can routinely get down stopped and off the grass in less than 800' without really trying all that hard.
The 170 is a heck fo a plane and lots of fun to fly. I'd leave off the STOL kits and spend the money some other goody. Go out and really explore that slow flight/short field envelope and you'll see what this bird can really do!
My $.02
After getting aquainted with my 170, I decided to go out and explore the slow flight and short field characteristics a little more. What I discovered is that the stock 170B is a remarkable short field plane as it is. In exploring slow flight I had 40 deg of flaps and the nose high enough that the airspeed dropped to zero and the plane just sat there. I could have gotten out and walked faster than this thing was moving! After that I tried some true short field landings and managed to put it down on the pavement and stop it in 300 feet - not too shabby for a 175-200 hour pilot (at the time). My airport has a 2200' grass strip that intersects the paved one at about the 1100' mark. I can routinely get down stopped and off the grass in less than 800' without really trying all that hard.
The 170 is a heck fo a plane and lots of fun to fly. I'd leave off the STOL kits and spend the money some other goody. Go out and really explore that slow flight/short field envelope and you'll see what this bird can really do!
My $.02
Doug
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
For the cost estimites I installed my VGs under the eye of my IA in about 4 hours with coffee breaks.
I agree that the 170 can land pretty short with out VGs. I agree that pilot skill is the leading factor as to how short one can land. I agree that if I had a "show" plane that I was keeping "stock", I wouldn't install VGs.
I WON my VGs as a door prize and don't have a dime invested in them so I'll tell you if they work or not with out any prejudice.
They do work. They will make your 170 fly so rediculiously slow that you would never do it except to demonstrate it. So what is the improvement? Kelly hit it pretty close. The aileron control is so postive that every pilot I've let fly it, has felt very comfortable flying their final at 50-55 indicated. Something most wouldn't usually do and some even blew the short final-landing cause I told them how slow they where. There are other threads on this site with more detail and discussion both pro and con about VGs and STOL kits so I won't go on.
I'll just finish by saying if someone is seriously considering a STOL kit they should consider the VGs. I welcome anyone who wants to try them out to look me up in PA.
I agree that the 170 can land pretty short with out VGs. I agree that pilot skill is the leading factor as to how short one can land. I agree that if I had a "show" plane that I was keeping "stock", I wouldn't install VGs.
I WON my VGs as a door prize and don't have a dime invested in them so I'll tell you if they work or not with out any prejudice.
They do work. They will make your 170 fly so rediculiously slow that you would never do it except to demonstrate it. So what is the improvement? Kelly hit it pretty close. The aileron control is so postive that every pilot I've let fly it, has felt very comfortable flying their final at 50-55 indicated. Something most wouldn't usually do and some even blew the short final-landing cause I told them how slow they where. There are other threads on this site with more detail and discussion both pro and con about VGs and STOL kits so I won't go on.
I'll just finish by saying if someone is seriously considering a STOL kit they should consider the VGs. I welcome anyone who wants to try them out to look me up in PA.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com