VG's on Warrior?

OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
Vortex Generators on our Warrior..

Anybody out there with expirence with these?

Dave

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:05:50 -0400, Dave
wrote:

OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
Vortex Generators on our Warrior..

Anybody out there with expirence with these?

Dave


Why did you decide you wanted to do this?

z

OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
Anybody out there with expirence with these?

Why did you decide you wanted to do this?

I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
benefits from pipermods.com:
" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
# IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
# IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
# IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
# IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
# INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"

If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.

Thanks!

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben Hallert wrote:



I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
benefits from pipermods.com:
" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
# IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
# IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
# IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
# IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
# INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"

If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.

You cannot lower stall and increase cruise with one mod, pure hype.
VG's do lower stall. I had them on my 182 and have them now on my
Bonanza. They lower the stall about 3-5 mph on my Bo. You will lose a
little cruise speed and top speed, aprrox 3-5 mph. If they didn't lower
cruise what they're really saying is that they don't add any drag. If
they didn't add drag you wouldn't have to glue them on, they'd just sit
there. As for the low speed handling and gross weight performance that
is subjective. I have 1000 hours in 182's and could never tell any
difference in flying qualities. One thing you will notice is that if
you were to go to altitude and get into a power off 45 degree bank, full
back stick turn. When the airplane stalls if you do not have VG's the
plane will always roll to the high wing side. With VG's the plane does
not roll at all but simply descends at approx 1500 fpm. Having said all
that there's no reason to put them on a Warrior. The Warrior has no
performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
yourself down.

Newps wrote:



Ben Hallert wrote:



I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
benefits from pipermods.com:
" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
# IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
# IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
# IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
# IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
# INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"

If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.


You cannot lower stall and increase cruise with one mod, pure hype. VG's
do lower stall. I had them on my 182 and have them now on my Bonanza.
They lower the stall about 3-5 mph on my Bo. You will lose a little
cruise speed and top speed, aprrox 3-5 mph. If they didn't lower cruise
what they're really saying is that they don't add any drag. If they
didn't add drag you wouldn't have to glue them on, they'd just sit
there. As for the low speed handling and gross weight performance that
is subjective. I have 1000 hours in 182's and could never tell any
difference in flying qualities. One thing you will notice is that if
you were to go to altitude and get into a power off 45 degree bank, full
back stick turn. When the airplane stalls if you do not have VG's the
plane will always roll to the high wing side. With VG's the plane does
not roll at all but simply descends at approx 1500 fpm. Having said all
that there's no reason to put them on a Warrior. The Warrior has no
performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
yourself down.


If VG's are really only to improve stall characteristics, they don't
seem worth it in this case because Warriors already have pretty benign
stall characteristics.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

Newps wrote:
: performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
: yourself down.

You may want to keep an open mind on this. There are experimentally
documented cases where VGs not only decrease stall speeds, but also increase cruise
speed. Doesn't seem intuitive to go faster by adding draggy looking things, but it
turns out the more laminar airflow they provide decreases drag by more than what they
add.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
You may want to keep an open mind on this. There are experimentally
documented cases where VGs not only decrease stall speeds, but also increase cruise
speed. Doesn't seem intuitive to go faster by adding draggy looking things, but it
turns out the more laminar airflow they provide decreases drag by more than what they
add.

I've had AMR&D's VGs on my Cherokee for about 8 years. I spoke at length
with Art Mattson when I first got them. Here's the theory... The
inboard section of a Cherokee is not very aerodynamic. In fact, on the
slower Cherokees, it's almost always riding just above a stall. The air
is fairly turbulent going over that section of the wing. The VGs create
small sideways vortexes that enhance the laminar flow of that section of
the wing. As a result, there's less turbulence and drag in that area of
the wing during cruise. Art fully admits that the theory isn't as valid
on Cherokees that are already faster.

Anyway, I installed a lot of different speed mods on my 140 at the same
general time, so it's hard to say what did what (nor do I care). My 140
does tend to be about 15-20 mph faster than the average 140, plus it
handles really well at low speeds.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

wrote:
Newps wrote:
: performance to start with. All you would succeed in doing is to slow
: yourself down.

You may want to keep an open mind on this. There are experimentally
documented cases where VGs not only decrease stall speeds, but also increase cruise
speed. Doesn't seem intuitive to go faster by adding draggy looking things, but it
turns out the more laminar airflow they provide decreases drag by more than what they
add.

Might be a jet thing. It isn't with your typical spamcan.

http://www.nar-associates.com/techni...ruise_wide.pdf

On 6 Nov 2005 21:07:02 -0800, "Ben Hallert"
wrote:

OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
Anybody out there with expirence with these?

Why did you decide you wanted to do this?

I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
benefits from pipermods.com:
" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
# IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
# IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
# IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
# IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
# INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"

If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.

Thanks!

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL


Sorry you felt I was being a jerk. On the contrary I was looking to
learn something. I definitely have my opinions on VGs but have never
heard of anyone putting them on a Cherokee. With a big, fat, short
wing I was interested to see what it would do for the airfoil from
personal experience of others. Luckily others responded in a way that
provided me greater knowledge (thanks).

In case you missed the posts, it looks like for a Warrior II they
won't help much because Piper had already "fixed" the wing to some
degree so they might not benefit you. In my opinion, flap gap and
aileron seals would be where'd I'd put my money first. They should
lower the stall speed, increase low speed handling, and provide a
slightly higher cruise (2-3 kts); and I wouldn't have funny looking
things stuck all over my wings that would fall off over time.

Having said that, I'm also familiar with the wing root problems on
older Cherokees (which is what I own). It sounds like VGs could help
that somewhat so some additional investigation may be warranted.

Is it possible to put like 4 or 5 on each side, just to compensate for
the turbulent air at the wing root?

Thanks to those contributing to this thread.
z

Hi Z!

To clarify.

There are only 4 per side, between the fuel tank and the fuselage,
maybe one more.. (from the pictures)

Piper fixed the outer (tapered) portion of the wing, but the inner
portion is "plain old Cherokee" (on a Warrior)

Dave


On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:07:18 -0500, zatatime wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 21:07:02 -0800, "Ben Hallert"
wrote:

OK, after a lot of research, we are looking at installing AMR&D's
Vortex Generators on our Warrior..
Anybody out there with expirence with these?

Why did you decide you wanted to do this?

I'll go out on a limb and guess it's because of one of these stated
benefits from pipermods.com:
" # LOWER STALL 5 mph
# IMPROVE LOW SPEED HANDLING
# IMPROVE SHORT FIELD PERFORMANCE
# IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AT GROSS WEIGHT
# IMPROVE CRUISE 3 - 7 mph
# INCREASE IN TOP SPEED"

If you're familiar with the reasons someone might want to buy them
(considering your past posts, I know you are) but have knowledge about
why it would be a bad idea or doesn't do what it claims, then, with
respect, why be a jerk about it? Just tell us why it's dumb already
without stringing us along. I'm hoping to buy a Warrior II soon
myself, and I'm studying all the mods to see what flies and what dies.

Thanks!

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL


Sorry you felt I was being a jerk. On the contrary I was looking to
learn something. I definitely have my opinions on VGs but have never
heard of anyone putting them on a Cherokee. With a big, fat, short
wing I was interested to see what it would do for the airfoil from
personal experience of others. Luckily others responded in a way that
provided me greater knowledge (thanks).

In case you missed the posts, it looks like for a Warrior II they
won't help much because Piper had already "fixed" the wing to some
degree so they might not benefit you. In my opinion, flap gap and
aileron seals would be where'd I'd put my money first. They should
lower the stall speed, increase low speed handling, and provide a
slightly higher cruise (2-3 kts); and I wouldn't have funny looking
things stuck all over my wings that would fall off over time.

Having said that, I'm also familiar with the wing root problems on
older Cherokees (which is what I own). It sounds like VGs could help
that somewhat so some additional investigation may be warranted.

Is it possible to put like 4 or 5 on each side, just to compensate for
the turbulent air at the wing root?

Thanks to those contributing to this thread.
z