The International Cessna^® 170 Association

AS to what my friends were testing the VGs for, It never occurred to me to ask. I just assumed it was to determine if there was a significant enough improvement in the aircraft performance to justify the expense of the kit. They all three did not feel that there was.

Bruce

So if I understand you correctly they are worth the expense based on better control but not improved performance? I have had several people with the same year 206 as mine and a 205 driver tell me that it will improve the control at slower speeds, I have been tempted to spend the $1200.......

Aryana
Thanks for the vids and all the info, it was what I was looking for. The 170 certainly will perform very nicely short field.
Just wishing the cabin was just a bit wider.

Thanks again

W.

worth the expense based on better control but not improved performance? I

"Control is better performance." not a question, but a statement....

So, VG's make the plane feel better at much lower speeds and thus allows you to land even shorter than a 170 could ever get out of. I can almost see the benefit of being more stable near a stall but I never really considered a 170 to be unstable in a stall or even a turning stall.

It all comes down to personal preference and what one likes about one's airplane.

So David you have felt comfortable enough then to approach for landing comfortably and consistently at 50 mph touching down even slower?

VGs and leading edge cuffs (LEC) are not necessary for 90% of 170 operators. I don't have them on my current 170 and I'm operating out a 1800 ft grass field with a 4% slope that the preferred approach is you land down wind or most likely with a right quartering tailwind but uphill with your approach between a house and trees. (But it is a cheap tie down and is usable 10 months of the year. )

If I was outfitting a 170 for short field work and money was no object and I didn't have to scrape snow or ice of the wing I'd have both a LEC and VGs. If money was tighter I'd get the VGs based on my first hand experience. If I was in a heavy snow belt and the plane was kept outside where I'd have to clean snow and ice off to operate then I'd save the VG money and put it towards a LEC.

I usually make my final around 60 indicated, 55 over the fence if I look at it by then. That puts me down and stopped in about 500 or 600 feet using 30 degrees of flap I guess. But that's not the point I was making. My point was, 99% of the pilots out there don't NEED to fly THAT slow to land the airplane in a safe distance.

It's going to be the very rare pilot and rare field that NEEDs to land slower or shorter than the stock plane can and still plan to take off out of there the same field.
I'm certain some one on this forum has been in or can think of a situation where it WOULD be needed but I'd argue that case isn't anywhere near 10% of anyone's flying.

There is also an argument against them (and this is really nit-picking) that if VG's allow you to pick up a wing in a stall...and you get used to doing that...they will make you a worse pilot when you fly NON VG airplanes. (Yeah, that's really nit-picking)

VG's to work and some planes actually do NEED them. My Dad's old HyperBipe had a real nasty wing drop stall and it was abrupt enough that it felt like a rope broke that was holding you up. After the VG's, the plane was almost tame in a stall. You still needed to use the rudder but no where near as dramatic.