Vortex Generators
- Thread starter NC86786
- Start date
mhackens
New member
And while we're at it we could put a mustache on the Mona Lisa :twisted:
There were a couple of times in my career that VG may have saved my rear. Might even put them on
my 210, but would never deface the beautiful wing of my triple tail with them.
Just my opinion, I am weired enough to think the TT's are beautiful aircraft, but VG's are definetly UGLY :!:
Would be happy to discuse, VG's with you off line. Even send a evaluation report I did for a
government agency, that resulted in putting them on all their cubs.
Doubt if anyone has an approval for the Bellancas :?:
There were a couple of times in my career that VG may have saved my rear. Might even put them on
my 210, but would never deface the beautiful wing of my triple tail with them.
Just my opinion, I am weired enough to think the TT's are beautiful aircraft, but VG's are definetly UGLY :!:
Would be happy to discuse, VG's with you off line. Even send a evaluation report I did for a
government agency, that resulted in putting them on all their cubs.
Doubt if anyone has an approval for the Bellancas :?:
My impression is that all vortex generators do is lower the stall speed and give a bit more aileron control at low speed. My stall speed in 46 mph. What more does anyone need. Any lower stall speed and the angle of attack would make for a tailwheel first landing. Unless you are planning on picking up "il duce" off a mountain top in Italy, the stall we have is more than one could ask for. And as mentioned, they destroy a perfectly lovely wing. I think to get approval, one would need an STC and that isn't going to happen.
Hmmmm... I seem to have struck a nerve.
Guys, haven't you ever run out of rudder on your Cruisair? I know I have. VGs aren't just for wings, my boys! I don't find them ugly, but I guess that's just a personal preference. Yes, I'd love to talk to anybody offline about this. You can e-mail me directly, if you'd like, but PLEASE, no hate mail
: xodix@juno.com.
As for picking up an Italian dictator from a mountaintop in a Cruisair...the concept is good, but, like Benny Siegel, I'd just as happily have iced the sucker (not that I was born yet)!
Guys, haven't you ever run out of rudder on your Cruisair? I know I have. VGs aren't just for wings, my boys! I don't find them ugly, but I guess that's just a personal preference. Yes, I'd love to talk to anybody offline about this. You can e-mail me directly, if you'd like, but PLEASE, no hate mail
: xodix@juno.com.As for picking up an Italian dictator from a mountaintop in a Cruisair...the concept is good, but, like Benny Siegel, I'd just as happily have iced the sucker (not that I was born yet)!
Dan Cullman
New member
OK, boys, the airplane that picked up our Italian friend had slats and flaps. The only Bellanca that had them was the YO-50, that never saw production. How did we get on this topic?????????? My feeling on VGs is that they may be beneficial in the extreme low end of the speed spectrum, where we should be within a foot or so of the runway.
Dan Cullman
New member
The rudder on the Cruisair/Cruisemaster series is the weakest control of the whole airplane. It is a function of a small rudder and limited travel. Try slipping at 80mph. The ailerons have tons of authority, but the rudder is maxxed out. This is what keeps us on our toes in x-wind landings!
mhackens
New member
GOLDSCHMIDT, MICHAEL
Outstanding you’ve had the old bird 12 years. You have certainly earned the right to do what you want with it.
Going to try to make a few intelligent remarks on what little I know about VG’s. Been gluing the belly back in 40B all day so don’t know how this will go. Trying to kill the last two brain cells I have left. :?
First, you don’t put them on the rudder, some of the twins and possible a few singles, have them on the vertical to direct the flow over the rudder. Micros are usually the ones you find spread all over the airplane. When I evaluated the Micros on a cub for my employer, against my will. They didn’t have them under the horizontal stabilizer as they now do. Could do a beautiful tail wheel first, three point, solo. After they added them to the tail it landed more like a cub, hard to get the tail down solo, *but much slower*. I agree, don’t think they would help the Bellanca much with those two stabilizers hanging out there.
The first pair I used I put on with two way tape thinking I would take them off and send them back. After about a month I did have to send them back. It was during the time I flew with out them waiting for a different brand that I realized how much they change the flying characteristics of the Super Cub for the better. We ended up using Bonderylayer VG’s on our cubs. We however tried them on the Husky's and took them off. (much different airplane)
In conclusion; it has been my experience that they will help almost any aircraft you put them on in some way. (Safety was my main goal)
As my backseater of 20 years commented after we had the first set on the cub for a couple of days, “WOW your turning this thing like you did when you were young.” :roll:
Go down to the hobby shop buy some extrusion and some two way tape and become our test pilot. :!:
We just may have back country Super Bellancas and not know it. :wink:
Disclaimer: I don’t sell VG’s-will install them for you and demonstrate their utility for you-but I didn’t have them on my personal cub.
Outstanding you’ve had the old bird 12 years. You have certainly earned the right to do what you want with it.
Going to try to make a few intelligent remarks on what little I know about VG’s. Been gluing the belly back in 40B all day so don’t know how this will go. Trying to kill the last two brain cells I have left. :?
First, you don’t put them on the rudder, some of the twins and possible a few singles, have them on the vertical to direct the flow over the rudder. Micros are usually the ones you find spread all over the airplane. When I evaluated the Micros on a cub for my employer, against my will. They didn’t have them under the horizontal stabilizer as they now do. Could do a beautiful tail wheel first, three point, solo. After they added them to the tail it landed more like a cub, hard to get the tail down solo, *but much slower*. I agree, don’t think they would help the Bellanca much with those two stabilizers hanging out there.
The first pair I used I put on with two way tape thinking I would take them off and send them back. After about a month I did have to send them back. It was during the time I flew with out them waiting for a different brand that I realized how much they change the flying characteristics of the Super Cub for the better. We ended up using Bonderylayer VG’s on our cubs. We however tried them on the Husky's and took them off. (much different airplane)
In conclusion; it has been my experience that they will help almost any aircraft you put them on in some way. (Safety was my main goal)
As my backseater of 20 years commented after we had the first set on the cub for a couple of days, “WOW your turning this thing like you did when you were young.” :roll:
Go down to the hobby shop buy some extrusion and some two way tape and become our test pilot. :!:
We just may have back country Super Bellancas and not know it. :wink:
Disclaimer: I don’t sell VG’s-will install them for you and demonstrate their utility for you-but I didn’t have them on my personal cub.
When I said, you couldn't expect help from putting them on the rudder, I was part in jest. I don't think any of the VG's are put on rudders as rudders don't become more effective (I wouldn't think) by changing air adhesion- the rudders as opposed to horizontal surfaces are not "flying" . Hence, VG's would not change their performance and as Dan has pointed out (and anyone who has tried to make a landing with any good crosswind can attest) the rudder seems to be the weak point in the triple tails. Anyhow, If I were flying out of a 500 foot strip and had no other choices, perhaps persuing the VG's makes sense. My home base used to be an 1800 foot strip with powerlines on the approach end and landings were never a problem (I recall by biennial flight review "so you fly out of Green Acres?? No need to demonstrate a short field landing") So lets ask the question. Why do you want VG's? What are you expecting?
Alain1
New member
Remove those fins at the end of the stab and you'll see a more efficient rudder in cross wing take off and landing...but it will be a fish in cruise.
That crosswind impact is greater or the need to move the tail left or right in a fast manner is slowed down by these stabilisers. But they are useful in cruise.
The VG could be efficient if you had a rudder stalling problem. But this is not the case. You'd gain very little in efficiency compare to what you'd lost in cruise.
Lets try to install small rudders on these fins... :lol: :lol: Like the real Conny. 3 rudders! wow :shock:
A.
That crosswind impact is greater or the need to move the tail left or right in a fast manner is slowed down by these stabilisers. But they are useful in cruise.
The VG could be efficient if you had a rudder stalling problem. But this is not the case. You'd gain very little in efficiency compare to what you'd lost in cruise.
Lets try to install small rudders on these fins... :lol: :lol: Like the real Conny. 3 rudders! wow :shock:
A.
shipchief
New member
I alwat thought the endplates were to increase the effectiveness of the elevators?
Has anyone actually flown a triple tail with the endplates removed? As a single tail (as it were)
To find out if it effects horizontal snaking/rudder efectiveness :?: or elevator effectivness? :?:
Has anyone actually flown a triple tail with the endplates removed? As a single tail (as it were)
To find out if it effects horizontal snaking/rudder efectiveness :?: or elevator effectivness? :?:
Robert Szego
New member
Don't go there: The original Cruisair Jr. did not have end plates and there were a couple of fatalities that seemed to indicate the need for them. Dan probably has a better handle on this.
Alain1
New member
I donno but there was bigger and smaller version and the difference in handling from one another was not that great I'm sure. Maybe this is why they went to smaller plates instead of the big elephant ear with stringers and fabric. Don't get me wrong, all of them look great but I don't think it is that dramatic. I think it's a fishtailing thing in cruise. But don't take my word for it. And I will not try without them...
Guseppe was not stupid, there is certainly a very justified reason he designed the bird this way.
Guseppe was not stupid, there is certainly a very justified reason he designed the bird this way.
alabamaflyboy
New member
I was lucky enough to attend a Bellanca Club banquet at Oshkosh a number of years ago where August Bellanca was the featured speaker. His primary topic was his own Skyrocket II design (all composite, 6 seat airplane that never got the necessary financial backing), but since all of the members were owners of earlier designs, he agreed to answer a few questions about his Dad and some of the earlier designs.
The way I remember his story, the first Cruisair Junior was running through the certification tests. It had a standard tail configuration - single stabilizer and rudder. It flew great with in this configuration.
The company had promised its financial backers that the plane would have production certification completed by a certain date, and they were down to the wire on the last day. The CAA inspectors were on the field and the plane had passed all of the certification tests except the hands-off spin recovery tests. No matter what they tried, it took more than the maximum allowable number of turns to recover from the spin. It was getting late in the day, and it was obvious that the vertical stabilizer would have to be made larger. It was also obvious that there was not enough daylight left to cut open the fabric, fabricate and weld a new vertical stabilizer into place, recover the plane and complete the tests. If the tests were not completed, the financial backing would be pulled and that would be the end of the Bellanca company.
So, someone got the idea of attaching the two elephant ear type stabilizers on the end of the horizontal stabilizers to increase the total vertical stabilizing area. This was done and the plane passed the spin tests with flying colors (pardon the pun). Since the certified prototype included the triple tail, all subsequent production planes had to be produced with triple tails.
August's story ended here.
At that point, the triple tails kind of became a trademark of the Bellanca airplanes. The triple tails were continued up until the Viking line was introduced, even though I think they could have changed to standard tails when the Cruisair Senior and Cruisemaster were certified, since the type certificates are different and each new T.C. had to pass all new certification tests.
I think if you were to add up the total vertical stabilization surface area for the Triple Tails, particularly the 260 HP versions, it will probably be pretty close to that of the Viking.
Dave York
The way I remember his story, the first Cruisair Junior was running through the certification tests. It had a standard tail configuration - single stabilizer and rudder. It flew great with in this configuration.
The company had promised its financial backers that the plane would have production certification completed by a certain date, and they were down to the wire on the last day. The CAA inspectors were on the field and the plane had passed all of the certification tests except the hands-off spin recovery tests. No matter what they tried, it took more than the maximum allowable number of turns to recover from the spin. It was getting late in the day, and it was obvious that the vertical stabilizer would have to be made larger. It was also obvious that there was not enough daylight left to cut open the fabric, fabricate and weld a new vertical stabilizer into place, recover the plane and complete the tests. If the tests were not completed, the financial backing would be pulled and that would be the end of the Bellanca company.
So, someone got the idea of attaching the two elephant ear type stabilizers on the end of the horizontal stabilizers to increase the total vertical stabilizing area. This was done and the plane passed the spin tests with flying colors (pardon the pun). Since the certified prototype included the triple tail, all subsequent production planes had to be produced with triple tails.
August's story ended here.
At that point, the triple tails kind of became a trademark of the Bellanca airplanes. The triple tails were continued up until the Viking line was introduced, even though I think they could have changed to standard tails when the Cruisair Senior and Cruisemaster were certified, since the type certificates are different and each new T.C. had to pass all new certification tests.
I think if you were to add up the total vertical stabilization surface area for the Triple Tails, particularly the 260 HP versions, it will probably be pretty close to that of the Viking.
Dave York
Dan Cullman
New member
The triple tail on the early Bellancas is certainly a trademark, but not unique in the industry. Indeed, the essay by Dave York is correct, for the most part. The sad truth is, that the very first Junior was spun in during trials, killing the test pilot. John Underwood sent me the CAA's accident report on this. Maybe we ought to reprint it in my history column. GMB added the fins and some other mods to prevent a repeat, the airplane passed it's test, and the rest is history.