I have a Cessna 172 1965 G with original o-300. I have added STC alternator, electric starter, and sport an leading edge and wing tips. It's flys amazing! So now I've completed my PPL and I am getting ready for spring where I get to do my float rating. It has the STC seaplane prop and EDO 2000.
My question is, what are people's thoughts in adding the ART Wing-X wing extensions. I know because I have the 145hp there is no Gw increase. However they do claim:
Reduced stall speed;
Reduced takeoff and landing distances;
Reduced water landing impact loads by 8%;
Increased takeoff performance by as much as 30%;
Increased rate of climb by 12%;
Increased lateral stability in all phases of flight;
Increase service ceiling by almost 1,000 feet (7% more wing area);
Increase cruise speed 2% at cruise settings of 65% and 75%;
Increased fuel performance 1% to 2%;
Increased flight safety margin and stability at low speed;
What does everyone think?
That's a gem there.Cliffy100 wrote:Reduced water landing impact loads by 8%;
Sure, slap em on there and see how it goes. However, I would caution to you that there will be some downsides that they don't mention. I personally don't think you'll see any ROI for a 172.
The 172 on floats is a dog and therefore is the perfect airplane on which to learn to fly floats. It will fly like an overloaded 185, which is the best way to learn technique. With a powerful airplane, many operator faults can be disguised or exaggerated by horsepower. This one will take finesse and practise to fly well and you'll be a much better float pilot for it.
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Thanks so much for all the replies.
I purchased FSZZ with the intention to use it as a float trainer. I've already done a alternator upgrade as well as the electric start STC and as previously mentioned the sportsman STOL. This pretty much means with the wingx is the only upgrade available to me.
In preparaion for spring I've put fszz and myself on a diet. After removing the back seat, as well as my old comm 2 and a few other things I can get my useful load to 686lbs, which means after Gas I can get about 466lbs in. I currently weigh 250 so I figure if I drop 25 pounds over the winter that will make up for my emergency supply stash.
So I guess my question is besides the wingx (or a 180hp upgrade) is there anything else worth doing??
- IMG_6539.JPG (469.63 KiB) Viewed 4919 times
- IMG_6536.JPG (431.85 KiB) Viewed 4919 times
The wing extensions are nice, and will offer some benefits, though I agree with those who say that with the original 145HP you will see little benefit where you're looking for it. You're not going to carry any more weight out, and trying will just scare you off anything other than the smoothest water with a breeze.
The Lycoming 360 conversion is a super mod, but for the modified price, you may find a 180 for sale. Most Cessnas have always had the problem that their nice large cabins would fit more than their payload would carry, particularly on floats.
If you regularly fly into "camp", consider positioning fuel there, so you can fly minimum fuel back and forth otherwise. Cessnas also hold more fuel than most people need for most trips.
Though I don't own it, I fly a 1958 172 with a tailwheel mod, 180HP Lycoming, STOL and Wing-X, and it is my favourite plane of all time to fly. It has never been on floats, so I can;t comment it as a floatplane. But I have flown a number of 172's and 175's on floats, and the 180HP mod with a STOL kit is about as good as you can get with them.
I had installed Wing X on this 182, along with many other mods, mostly because of the gross weight increase from 2950 to 3350, so the extra wing area helped with that.
If you choose Wing-X, I highly recommend VG's under the H stab at the elevator hinge line, if your plane is at all nose heavy, they may be needed to continue to have the pitch control you're used to. Wing-X (particulalry with a Sportsman STOL). The increased wing area increases the wing pitching moment, so the tail has to work harder just to maintain control, it becomes possible to stall the elevator with full nose up control, unless we "help" the elevator a little. I have done the H stab VG addition to several aircraft with the wing changes.
I got my float rating on a stock C-170 with EDO 2000's @2500'asl in Alberta and it is an awesome trainer! Glassy water and too much weight makes a slow, noisy, flightless boat.
Have a blast! Float flying is the best!!
Ehemm... Yes.Any other mods such as VG's or wing extensions HAVE to be compatible with the STC modified wing
We are now dealing with a syndrome known as the "Frankenplane" (TC's term, not mine). They are correct. We are fortunate that Cessnas are such great planes that there are so many good mods available for them. But, that opens the possibility of multi mods overlying each other.
As a maintenance/modification refresher, every STC (includes LSTC, sSTC, and LSTA) certificate has fine print at the bottom; it reads:
"Conditions: This approval is only applicable to the type/model of aeronautical product specified therein. Prior to incorporating this modification, the installer shall establish that the interrelationship between this change and any other modification(s) incorporated will not adversely affect the airworthiness of the modified product"
The second sentence puts it ALL on the installer, which is not appropriate. In any other modification activity, it would be required to be an aircraft certification exercise (as opposed to maintenance) to make a determination about interrelationship effects of multiple mods. The maintenance person, as an installer, probably does not have the resource to make that determination, but they are signing for it! They should be making a log entry as to how that determination was made. Not easy for them to do.
The 182 in the Youtube I linked was purchased by me, on behalf of my client, as a plain un modified 182Q. Three years later, in addition to a whole new avionics suite, new paint and interior, it had 27 distinct modifications, many by STC. Several, including the reversing prop were entirely new, and the subject of the serialized STC I issued for the plane. I was careful to assure that EVERY mod on the plane, including all of the STC's, were specifically mentioned on the final sSTC as having been evaluated together, and being approved together. I wrote a 18 page flight manual supplement, just to be sure the correct information was presented. While flying the plane in Europe last summer, I was asked to produce information which I had written into the FMS, so I was glad to have it, and it be TC Approved.
The Canadian sSTC was then validated by an EASA STC, required, as the airplane has been exported to Norway. After 18 months of EASA review of my sSTC, and many questions to me, the EASA STC was issued as mine had been written. Thereafter, the export inspection was conducted in later August of last year, and the Norwegian import process begun in mid September. The Norwegian CAA has taken until yesterday to satisfy themselves that everything is in order with all the mods and approvals - they went over everything! If any mod on the plane had not been included in my sSTC, I would have been redoing paperwork.
So, word to the wise, if you are contemplating multi modding your plane (and there are many excellent combinations), assure that either each STC you purchase identifies the others you intend (and many wing mod STCs do), or you plan an alternative to assure that the modified plane has been properly evaluated and documented. In Canada, the only way that a major mod is approved is by an STC/sSTC.
For reference, the criteria for major/minor mod is found here:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... a-1893.htm
Note that when reading this document; "alter" or "affect" could mean increase/decrease, improve/reduce, so even if you've made the plane better, it's still a major mod.
as it stands you are going to be the lowest performing component of that aircraft for a good while, that is the first area I would spend money on, fuel / instruction / and exploration.
I mean all the toys and everything arnt going to add all that much till you get some hours on, don't be that kid that doesn't even know how to skate and is rocking 5k worth of gear on the ice
Now after you fly that engine to TBO...
If you want a mod, save up for the 180hp engine, I wouldn't bother with all the mods and money youre talkin if youre only rocking that tiny little motor.
Mine has a vacuum pump instead
Except for a STOL kit (cuff on the wing - Sportsman or Horton), they could save your life, even if you don't know they are doing it. Cessna adopted a reduced version of a STOL cuff for most later model 100 series, I guess they thought it was a good idea too. In normal operations (faster than 60 MPH, less than two G) you'll never know it's there. But slower or more G, and it could save you life if you got to that speed or G by carelessness. On a floatplane, the STOL kit can make the difference between getting of the water at all or not. For those takeoffs where you're hanging on the stall because a wave/swell crest threw you up, the plane might stay airborne, when without the STOL kit it might settle back.I mean all the toys and everything arnt going to add all that much till you get some hours on
Yes mine has electric flaps, I'm pretty sure all G models or newer have them
As for floats, this plane already has 400 hours or so on them. 2 owners before me and both got their float rating. Both moved on after 3-5 years to a 180 or 182. That's pretty much my plan.
With full gas tanks my useful load is only 480lb. Old owners said if they kept it light and not going overweight, it would take a hot windless day to have any problems. This is all PRE SPORTSMAN!
Now my big dilemma is still XWING or no xwing!!
If I added 30% to my xwing budget I could get a whole new paint job!
I would have posted a pic of mine to show you but my pictures on my iPad are too big to post here.