Tri-pacer wing on Colt

[Colt Dude]

I have a Tail Wheel Colt that I love, but have always wanted (and could use on occasion) Flaps. Could a Pacer wing conversion be done? Thanks.

[Steve Pierce]

It would require some welding for pulley brackets and fair lead mounts in the fuselage and then there is the FAA. I would think it could be done but you might be money and time ahead to sell the Colt and buy a Pacer.

[JohnW]

I'm honestly not looking for a fight, but what in the World would you want flaps FOR on a Colt? Learn how to slip, make your approaches steep and slow with the throttle pulled off right from the top, and you can scare even yourself with how short it can land! As far as takeoffs, more DRAG comes with more LIFT, and the benefit is a wash. I have flown Vagabonds, Colts, Clippers and any number of TriPacers (I prefer them with the tailwheel returned to the proper end, myself) and "real" Pacers for nearly all of my adult life. Aside from profiting to a small degree for SOFT Field takeoffs (yanking the Johnson Bar and leaping into the air, on the ragged edge of Vmc and "locked in Jail" in ground effect until you get to wherever you WOULD HAVE BEEN along the runway at Vx or Vy anyway), all the flaps do for the ShortWing is change the deck angle slightly on approach, and make the pilot think he is doing something. Ever heard the phrase "the ShortWing Pipers glide like a fully loaded outhouse"? Yeah, they DO. Squeeze a lock-to-lock, full pedal slip onto that, and it will come almost STRAIGHT down!!! Flaps "happened" to the ShortWings because the American Flying Public was just beginning to get too lazy for it's own good, and the Cessner tricycle (training wheel in the front) was "easier" for those seeking self-gratification. Piper's Sales Department felt that "people wanted flaps" whether they needed them or not because they were "modern", and adding them to the Pacer was supposed to "stimulate sales". This was a simple case of the tail wagging the dog. It didn't sell any more taildraggers because people didn't want to "learn to be a pilot"...they wanted to FLY. This would be a definite waste of your time and energy, as you would be disappointed in the non-existant "improvement". Ask yourself, if you would, please...WHY did Piper "leave the flaps off" when they were already part of the PA-22 design? They were building a two seat TRAINER...if flaps DID anything, wouldn't it be reasonable to "prepare" a Student for "upgrading" to the four-seater as the family grew; making the cost of installation worth the effort? They didn't put 'em on, because the airplane DOESN'T NEED THEM. The true benefit to the four-seater having flaps was in changing the deck angle on final by moving the center of pressure BACK on the airfoil... with a couple of Tubbies in the back. You don't need "more drag" (even if you are looking for "more lift"). You would benifit more from "more THRUST". The ShortWing was a much nicer airplane BEFORE they shortened the ailerons so they could put flaps on! Then, too (as long as I'm on a roll!), them "sissy steering wheels" rather than the STICK was all part of the same tail wagging of the dog. "Progress for progress's sake". Anybody that has EVER flown a stick will tell you: "Yokes get the job done okay, but it just doesn't FEEL as natural as sticks." You don't steer an airplane with your hands...why do you need a "steering wheel"? Your arms appreciate resting them on your legs, anyway.

No disrespect whatsoever intended!

[Bultaco Jim]

I'm with John. I have both, a Pacer and a tailwheel Colt, and the flaps are little more than speed brakes for people who don't care to "lean over" once in a while. I'll be happy to trade you the wings off the Pacer for another set of Colt wings! Jim

[Jetfever]

Very interesting John, I did not know this about "flap development" at Piper, and I did suspect it for the "yoke" control wheel rather than stick. I assumed the PA22/20 was hard enough to "board", and the yoke made boarding the plane easier. No experience here, but I suspect the yoke makes it easier to work under the panel. (There is room for a human on the floor).
I often fly my 160 HP PA 22/20 "light", that is solo, only enough fuel for the trip, (I flight plan with reserve, and use a fuel dip stick I trust, I rarely top off, only when necessary) and a tool/ emergency bag in the boot. I LOVE to pull flaps on T/O and pop into the air. I have NEVER felt like I was in "jail" she climbs out quickly, and the short runway used is "eye watering" as you know for friends who hang out at a hangar at the approach end. (There is an Avid Magnum in this hangar and I bet my friend has twice the $ in his homebuilt). :D
I suppose you are correct about "Jail" when the plane is at gross wt, ( I need to check, I can't remember trying at gross) or when equipped with a smaller engine. I love to full slip WITH flaps from down wind abeam the numbers to just b4 touchdown. I will have to try full slips without flaps now! Adding flaps have the advantage in my plane of causing me to TRIM very little from cruise to landing speed. (as the speed reduction causes the nose to get "heavy" the flaps make pitch trim just about right!
I would gladly trade the flaps for bigger ailerons, I think the cross wind capability would be better!!!!

[Gilbert Pierce]

I am with JohnW. No need for flaps. If you really want to make an improvement and are willing to fight with the FAA, put Clipper ailerons on the Colt. It would be less work then putting on flaps, require the same frustration with the FAA but you would vastly improve the handling.

[Colt Dude]

No disrespect detected or offence taken. As partial owner of a Rv-7a and Luscombe 8a, I agree with the statement on sticks. I am watching the development of a conversion for the Colt with much interest. The flaps I am on middle ground. I have 600hrs in the little T/W Colt and am very comfortable with slips, but have never flown a Pacer, I might be thinking the flaps are more effective than they are. Also, I volunteer with JAARS and have been watching their pilots make beautiful full flap stabilized approaches for super precise touchdowns. Keep in mind that I am not comparing the Piper to a Helio-Courier! More just their method of approach (same with the PC-6, C206 and Kodiak). I live on a 2000` grass strip and the Colt is always great here. When working the local strips and getting down to one thats a 1000` long, it would be nice to use flaps instead of a steep slip (I fly alot with a 3.5 year old son and he isnt used to FULL slips yet). I appreciate the conversation and feedback. The Colt will be going down for recover in the next year or so and it would have been a good time to do a mod like a wing swap if practical and/or approved. I will probably stick with installing wing tips and VG`s. The bigger engine will wait until TBO (about 800hrs away). On another note, if anyone is flying through North Carolina and needs to make a pitstop, feel free to drop in at Hawks Creek Airpark. The Id is 4NC0 and we are the house and red hangar on the south side. I work weekend nights for Cessna (dont hold this against me) so am home Monday morning through Friday afternoon. I have a truck that can be used to visit a local restraunt if desired. The Chevy also has a bed tank if you need filtered auto gas (this is not a business, just a service at cost to fellow short wingers if needed or convienent). The hangar if pretty much fully equipped if you have unexpected need of repairs or need to protect you plane from the weather for a day or two.

[andya]

I agree with John also. The biggest anoyance with flaps IMHO is the trim change when they come out. I've also experience early on that with someone in the back seat I barely have enough trim with flaps out to keep the nose down untill I really get slow.

[Bultaco Jim]

Colt Dude, my 5 1/2 yr old son was probably 3 when we first slipped the Colt. I warned him and told him exactly why we were doing it,- he was fine. Maybe give HIM the choice on which side to slip on; they love choices.
On the other subject, both my planes have V.G's - they're great. The Pacer has Madras droop-tips and the Colt is stock. I don't like the droop-tips at all; they don't do enough to justify the loss of visability.
That's a nice offer of hospitality to all the East coast guys. But, remember, east is least, West is Best!

[pistoncan]

On the other subject, both my planes have V.G's - they're great. The Pacer has Madras droop-tips and the Colt is stock. I don't like the droop-tips at all; they don't do enough to justify the loss of visability.
I have read that someone (I think it was Blanton) tried a true test of them and flew a pacer with a stock wing on one side and a Madras on the other. He said if they were creating any additonal lift the plane should be constantly making a turn and it didn;t. I don;t know if there are improvements in aileron control etc. but I thought it was an interesting test.

[pistoncan]

I took my first lessons in a Luscombe and learned to slip it. I rrecall I caught holy heck from a later instructor when I (without thinking) slipped a cessna with flaps) Apparently that was a big NO NO. :D

[Steve Pierce]

On the other subject, both my planes have V.G's - they're great. The Pacer has Madras droop-tips and the Colt is stock. I don't like the droop-tips at all; they don't do enough to justify the loss of visability.
I have read that someone (I think it was Blanton) tried a true test of them and flew a pacer with a stock wing on one side and a Madras on the other. He said if they were creating any additonal lift the plane should be constantly making a turn and it didn;t. I don;t know if there are improvements in aileron control etc. but I thought it was an interesting test.

You need to find a post on supercub.org by Jerry Burr. It has pictures of a tufted stock wing and a Madras tipped wing. Big difference. He also explains why testing tips the way Blanton did doesn't work. When I get some time I will try and find it.

[pistoncan]

[quote="Bultaco Jim":15bdabci] On the other subject, both my planes have V.G's - they're great. The Pacer has Madras droop-tips and the Colt is stock. I don't like the droop-tips at all; they don't do enough to justify the loss of visability.
I have read that someone (I think it was Blanton) tried a true test of them and flew a pacer with a stock wing on one side and a Madras on the other. He said if they were creating any additonal lift the plane should be constantly making a turn and it didn;t. I don;t know if there are improvements in aileron control etc. but I thought it was an interesting test.

You need to find a post on supercub.org by Jerry Burr. It has pictures of a tufted stock wing and a Madras tipped wing. Big difference. He also explains why testing tips the way Blanton did doesn't work. When I get some time I will try and find it.[/quote:15bdabci]
Thanks Steve, I will look for that article. I don;t have any bias one way or the other. (lack of experience) I try to look for the truth, whereever it's found.

[jay heil]

here is a couple quotes i pulled from some posts " The biggest anoyance with flaps IMHO is the trim change when they come out. I've also experience early on that with someone in the back seat I barely have enough trim with flaps out to keep the nose down untill I really get slow."

"Adding flaps have the advantage in my plane of causing me to TRIM very little from cruise to landing speed. (as the speed reduction causes the nose to get "heavy" the flaps make pitch trim just about right!"

ok now it seems in the first quote the flaps are making his nose go up and in the second quote from a differant person it looks like its looking like the flaps are getting his nose to come up in my airplane when im in the pattern and slowed down my nose is high until i put in some flaps which make for much better visibility on final is that how everyone else's work?

[Jetfever]

I took my first lessons in a Luscombe and learned to slip it. I rrecall I caught holy heck from a later instructor when I (without thinking) slipped a cessna with flaps) Apparently that was a big NO NO. :D
If you read the Cessna 172 Pilot Handbook is says: "Avoid slips with flaps extended". This is NOT a prohibition as some Pilots/ CFI's interpret. (This has become like an old wives tale).
Full flaps and full rudder deflection slips can cause a "buffet" over the elevator, the reason for this caution in the "book". The plane handles just fine however.

There is a limitation/ requirement written in the Cessna Book and written right on the fuel selector, left or right tank in level flight only. This IS mandatory, slips can cause fuel starvation.

[Jetfever]

here is a couple quotes i pulled from some posts " The biggest anoyance with flaps IMHO is the trim change when they come out. I've also experience early on that with someone in the back seat I barely have enough trim with flaps out to keep the nose down untill I really get slow."

"Adding flaps have the advantage in my plane of causing me to TRIM very little from cruise to landing speed. (as the speed reduction causes the nose to get "heavy" the flaps make pitch trim just about right!"

ok now it seems in the first quote the flaps are making his nose go up and in the second quote from a differant person it looks like its looking like the flaps are getting his nose to come up in my airplane when im in the pattern and slowed down my nose is high until i put in some flaps which make for much better visibility on final is that how everyone else's work?
Jay, I was shocked to read the first quote in your post as well.
I guess one mans idea of "a great handling aircraft" is not shared by all!?
I will stick by my statement. As I slow in the pattern from cruise, and pull back on the elevator and the trim loads increase, I wait until I am well in the white arc and if I have planned correctly I add a notch of flaps as I pass downwind abeam the numbers. This almost eliminates the need for aft trim, and a "hand in the air on the ceiling trim crank." I love my Pacer but I think Cessna has a much better/ more natural trim handle/ system to use. This is the first plane I have flown where I do not insist on eliminating trim pressure in the pattern, it is just too awkward. I do trim for "hands off" cruise.
Steve

[Gilbert Pierce]

This is the first plane I have flown where I do not insist on eliminating trim pressure in the pattern, it is just too awkward. I do trim for "hands off" cruise.
Steve

1900 hours in my Clipper. I always trim the pressure off for landing. I just never thought of that overhead trim crank as awkward. :) I guess it is just what you get use to .

[craigh]

This is the first plane I have flown where I do not insist on eliminating trim pressure in the pattern, it is just too awkward. I do trim for "hands off" cruise.
Steve

1900 hours in my Clipper. I always trim the pressure off for landing. I just never thought of that overhead trim crank as awkward. :) I guess it is just what you get use to .

I'd have to agree with you Gilbert. After owning many different types of aircraft and sampling at least 5 different trim systems, the Piper/Tcraft overhead trim crank is definitely my favorite.

[Bultaco Jim]

Jetfever, my Pacer does the same thing yours does. In other words, flaps make the nose come up, so as you slow down, you just pull back on the yoke, and when you hit 100, pulling half flaps eases your back pressure to nearly "neutral". Saves some cranking.

[Jim]

Hi,

".....and when you hit 100, pulling half flaps eases your back pressure to nearly "neutral"."

Is that 100 feet, or are you fooling around with your flaps at 100 MPH?

[Jetfever]

This is the first plane I have flown where I do not insist on eliminating trim pressure in the pattern, it is just too awkward. I do trim for "hands off" cruise.
Steve

1900 hours in my Clipper. I always trim the pressure off for landing. I just never thought of that overhead trim crank as awkward. :) I guess it is just what you get use to .

I'd have to agree with you Gilbert. After owning many different types of aircraft and sampling at least 5 different trim systems, the Piper/Tcraft overhead trim crank is definitely my favorite.

I think part of the reason I "do not insist on eliminating trim pressure" is the "Spring System" that applies a force to the elevator feel. I find this spring artificial in feel, in fact I would love to flight test and land my Pacer with this system disconnected. With over 250 hours in type, I still cannot quite "feel" the elevator talk to me when the wing is about to "give up" or quit flying.

I fly aerobatics in an Extra 300L a Zlin 526 and SF 260C. I can fly these planes at the ragged edge of a stall, yet not ever get a buffet. The elevator communicates to the pilot via "feel" just before the wing stalls, in any attitude. I think the spring system on my Pacer hides this feel.

[Bultaco Jim]

Jim, I meant 100 mph. To be exact, I always wait for the airspeed indicator to sweep past 100 before putting down half flaps. The manual says "95mph or below" , so I'm right there, since I pull it slowly. 100 is my visual clue, so that's what my fingers typed! I have never pulled FULL flaps at 95, that's always much later in the game.

[Gilbert Pierce]

I flew a Clipper with the bungees disconnected. It felt very loose and unstable to me. However, since you fly aerobatic airplanes that are basically unstable by design I can see where you would prefer the to have the bungees loosened up. Back off the turn buckles on the bungee springs and give it test. You won't crash flying without them.

[Glen Geller]

I fly a PA22 with the bungees removed, it feels tight and responsive. My two hangar-mates' bungee-equipped PA22s feel heavy in cross control situations, and in anything less than moderate crosswinds I can still fly level with feet only.

[Gilbert Pierce]

Glen,
I was referring to the bungee springs on the elevator. I believe you are talking about the cross control springs that feed aileron input to the rudder or from the rudder to the aileron.
The Clipper fortunately did not have this aberration.

[JohnW]

Hmmm, this is a new one on me! Never seen turnbuckles on the trim bungee "assist spring(s)" installation. Only formed Nicopress "eyes" and clevisii (clevissssses? clevises? I give up...clevis, one each, two times) on the ends which attach to the jackscrew shaft, and the springs themselves connecting the assist cables to the elevator cable attach points where they mount near the elevator bellcranks (with the somewhat "odd" hardware on the aft ends). Not once have I seen a turnbuckle in that "system"...kinda had me re-reading the thread to see if it was the "interconnect" that was the subject.

Are turnbuckles part of some secret-squirrel balanced tailfeather installation on your Clipper, Gilbert?

[Gilbert Pierce]

JohnW you are right, I screwed up. :o There are no turnbuckles on the cables connecting the bungee springs. The Clipper I flew without them was not mine. The owners of the airplane in question felt it did not fly right. I flew it and knew something was amiss but didn't what for sure. Investigation determined the elevator bungess were just disconnected. When they were reconnected the airplane flew fine.

[JohnW]

Ah, Gilbert...no biggie! Please allow me to loan you my favorite excuse for screwin' up: "The only people that don't ever do anything wrong are those that just don't ever DO ANYTHING." See, I think in reality it might have something to do with the Earth being at it's closest to the Sun, this time of the year...nobody is immune to Brain Fartz, and MINE seem to happen about now...

Actually, I was kind of hoping there WAS a secret squirrel mod that went along with the double-sheave trim cable installation on your Clipper (is that a correct assumption, that you have the "TriPacer type" twin sheave trim cable system along with balanced tailfeathers???). I'm interested especially in the better "no slip" setup for my Clipper project, but the turnbuckles (while not really NECESSARY) when hooking everything up) could save a little skin, too!

[Gilbert Pierce]

John,
I never have a problem admitting I am wrong. When you do that then you can forget about it and get on with more important things. I have found out in my later life that I am more prone to being wrong and try to do a better job of checking the facts before I run my mouth. :D

I will admit to having the complete Tri-Pacer double sheave trim system in my airplane. All legal and signed off by the Feds via a field approval during a more enlightened time. In other words an FAA Inspector who knew what his job was, how to do it and was not intimidated by tube and fabric airplanes. Oh, he also had common sense. Unfortunately he is now retired and replaced by bureaucrats that only know "I can't approve that, you need to find a DER" and then they go back to their Starbucks and fat pills.
I put the O-320 on my Clipper which I think made a real airplane out of an already great one. I could not trim it at cruise speed due to slippage at the increased cruise speed. The double groove trim pulley system solved that problem. Steve copied the Tri-Pacer drawing for idler placement and welded in the fittings. I bought the two double groove pulleys from Univair and other associated stuff necessary and installed it all while the fuselage was down for rebuild.
Anybody that puts more horsepower on an airplane with that single grooved pulley system would be remiss in my mind by not going to the double groove pulley.

I do not have a balanced elevator. I believe Steve either has an approval for that or is contemplating it. Not sure what advantage that would be. I think my Clipper and my VAG fly just fine the way they are.

I am still contemplating your PM of several weeks ago, working on a response.

[JohnW]

Gilbert; please allow me to say with absolutely no hubris whatsoever that from my viewpoint, we share a common perception about "being wrong". ...and, Welcome to my World.

I'm not a hundred percent sure of your tone in regards to your diatribe about getting the mod for the double trim system through Field Approval. In the low key discussions with my PMI about this (no paperwork submitted -yet- just a little "touch me, feel you" centering on mostly "definitions" and "possibilities"), I've taken away from our limited discussions on the subject to date, some hope in regards to the differences between "primary" and "secondary" flight controls and the requirements associated with the need for "Engineering Approval". Clearly the effects of such a design change (which was applied by Piper to an installation otherwise basically unchanged in any other manner, and only affect the "system" for the better). As you say...no slippage from surface feedback under flight loads. I believe that when the 150 hp mods first started becoming popular on the PA-12 airplanes, that CAA Engineering evaluation RECOMMENDED installing balanced elev/stab installations, after conferring with Piper. Seemingly, the well-know "trim cable slip" issue would have been germaine(?). Fortunately, my Inspector is well regarded at work, and has a broad GA background that has included working from the IA end of alterations, in close contact with the "Old School Crowd at [my] FSDO. I believe his opinions and positions on Field Approvals mirror more correctly the intent and purposes of the process as it was INTENDED to work when it was written. To wit...BEFORE there became "fifty different FAAs" across the Country and we wound up with the perceived constraints forced down our throats. The key, as always was, is and should continue to be the art of "Read, Write and Understand English" and "pull the gear pins out of your brain before answering". I don't defend or condemn anyone, but many things have been interpreted over the years since an FAA (CAA) guy literally "re-licensed your airplane every year" as "OKAY TO DO by Field Approval; things that were in fact clearly defined within the realm of "affecting the integrity of the altered aircraft's ability to return from flight" were basically pencil-whipped without proper consideration, at some locations. In all fairness, my Region has been fair and equitable (in my position) right along. Unfortunately, there is still the issue o requiringf "interpreting the Rules" on a Local basis. This promotes the inability (or unwillingness) to think get in the way of making a decision. I'm saying... Some people shouldn't be in charge, get my meaning? Now, the New Kids with G11 license plates have swung from the ridiculous, to the sublime. This too, shall pass (but I'm not sure it will do so necessarily within my "working lifetime"). There is positive reinforcement now for "refusing anything and everything, and if somebody wants something signed off, let them pay someone [besides me, I don't WANT to take responsibility] in the Private Sector to provide authorization...for a fee." Clearly, this is wrong. And, it is unacceptable. FSDO seeking clarification from ACO used to work, and it worked well. What happened??? It would appear that FAA can't work with ITSELF anymore! In my opinion this defeats the purpose of the Agency that was started to "protect aviation, the flying public, and the non-flying public from unscrupulous entrepreneurs and dangerous idiots." This may foretell the demise of aviation. It should not be allowed to happen, but how can this be prevented? [ans: well, by invoking a Management that takes responsibilities seriously and doesn't consider "duty" to be a Pay Grade, or a "position", as the end to a means. That's no example to set.] But hey, whatcha gonna do?

Thanks for the comment on the PM. I've been patient (and remain so), and hoping that you were not personally offended by the content. My tone was meant to be flat out, on the level straight from the heart and not intended to wound. While candid, and open, I wasn't overtly careless in my choice of words.

[Steve Pierce]

John, Here is what my research has uncovered on the viability of the double groove trim via field approval.

From the FAA 8900.1 Volume 4

Changes that alter the movable control surfaces that affect the dynamic and/or static balance, alter the aerodynamic contour of movable control surfaces, or change the weight distribution.

Changes in control surface travel, control system mechanical advantage, location of control system component parts, or direction of motion.

Changes in basic dimensions or external aerodynamic contour/configuration of the aircraft such as wing and tail planform or incidence angles, canopy, contour or radii, the location of wing and tail fairings, winglets, wing lift struts, tiptanks, windows, and doors.

All require an STC. I can't see any reason why they can't field approve the modification using their own checklist. What do you think?

[Gilbert Pierce]

My comment about having a field approval for the trim system was aimed at those on some sites that quick to jump to the conclusion that I just did it and no official sanction or the only interpretation of the rules is they way they read them. I have no issue with your readings of the rules. I don't do that. All of the many modifications have been either STC's for Field Approvals.

Steve used to have a wonderful working relationship with the local FSDO. All that disappeared when they got a new manager and the Inspectors were intimidated into sending everything to engineering. After that I tried working with my local FSDO rather than going thru his. NO GO. You need a DER.
Steve submitted the FAA Approved Field Approval Request Package to his FSDO for the trim pulley medications for the Clippers he is rebuilding. Even after showing them in their rules and regulations that the requested trim modifications were within their purview they refused. See Steve's coment on this above. Hence my diatribe against the new order in the FAA. I am glad you still have some old timers to work with. That is an exception rather than the rule these days.
No offense on the PM comment taken John.

[andya]

FSDO seeking clarification from ACO used to work, and it worked well. What happened??? It would appear that FAA can't work with ITSELF anymore! In my opinion this defeats the purpose of the Agency that was started to "protect aviation, the flying public, and the non-flying public from unscrupulous entrepreneurs and dangerous idiots." This may foretell the demise of aviation. It should not be allowed to happen, but how can this be prevented? [ans: well, by invoking a Management that takes responsibilities seriously and doesn't consider "duty" to be a Pay Grade, or a "position", as the end to a means. That's no example to set.] But hey, whatcha gonna do?

John, you are right on. I'm sure I posted this before but about 10 years ago I was working a PA-24 that had a B&C alternator installed but the guy that did the work filed no paper work (337). It had been there for 5 years and 400 hours. Tried to work with FSDO to get a field approval. They actually were at our airport for an airshow check up and spent 2 hours going over the installation to assure it was done iaw all instructions (B&C and 43.13), took all that info back and discussed it. Took everything to the Chicago ACO and asked for analysis. Chicago told them not much to do or test, it has been working for 5 years and 400 hours, what else can you prove by more testing and eval. They turned it down because it was not a PMA part (what????). These are the same guys that D Grimm had a deal with on some oil lines. Finally had to install an Interavia STC's set up. A year later I was talking to another old head in the office and that subj came up. He said, yeh, I heard them guys discussing that thing for days on the other side of the cubical divider, he said that should have been approved. I took advantage of him right then and got him to agree on a dual B&C field approval installation on a PA-30 for another airplane I was working on for a friend. Govt in general - we are here to help you. BS

[Jim]

Bultaco Jim wrote;

".......I always wait for the airspeed indicator to sweep past 100 before putting down half flaps.
.......The manual says "95mph or below" , so I'm right there,
.......since I pull it slowly. 100 is my visual clue,"

I guess I'm confused again. The booklet that came with my plane mentions 80 MPH as top end for the flaps. I'll attach a picture of the line from the booklet. I haven't seen my airspeed guage for a while, so I'm not sure where the the top of the white arc is exactly.

Are you dealing with something different?

[JohnW]

The PA-22 (125hp) and 22-135 airplanes had a Vfe of 80mph. The PA-22-150 and -160 airplanes had a 95 mph Vfe. This can be confirmed in the Type Certificate Data Sheets, as well as the AFM that is SUPPOSED to be in the airplane whenever it flies (and that is one of the reasons WHY its supposed to be there). Uh, without going into the serial number eligibilities, I BELIEVE this coincided with the addition of the "13th rib". Upgrading an earlier airplane to a 150, 160 (or higher) horsepower engine does NOT include automatically raising the flap extension speed (just as it does NOT automatically grant a gross weight increase). Just "having" a 13 rib wing on an earlier airplane doesn't, either! Fact is, it requires some kind of approved paperwork to have the "wrong" wing on it at all (even if it IS "better"), and even if the approval extends to different "flight characteristics" specifically, the aircraft still retains it's original "model designation" that Piper gave it, and unless the data appears ON the approved paperwork (including an addendum to the Flight Manual), the airplane must still be flown iaw the limitations of the TCDS (and the AFM).

[Bultaco Jim]

John, It looks like some of us just learned something! ...That the early 22's and late 22's have different flap speeds. I still might remove all that hardware and spackel the flaps over!

[JohnW]

B. Jim; I'll tell ya what I came away from this with (I knew about the different flap extension speeds from "reading the directions" in the different AFMs, but...) what I never put together in my head over and above the "extra" rib was that otherwise, the means for attaching the flaps (the flap HINGES as well as the hinge pins, actually) are identical in both "types". A couple of splayed angles with a couple brazier head rivets to make up to the flimsy "false spar" and one bolt through the spar on each of the mounts (well, I knew THAT part, too, having changed out my fair share of aileron and flap hinge arms). Piper raised the flap ext speed with an extra rib (and here I thought it was all about gross weight). This raises (in MY mind) a couple of questions that never bothered me, before. Like I say...the day I stop learning is the day I die (I HOPE I mean that FIGURATIVELY!).

Hell, I wouldn't spackel. Just tiewrap the handle so it can't be lifted and cover the flap gaps with silkspan. Slop it over with some fuelproof dope and you're good to go (I'd recommend the thin film heat shrink -do they still make MonoKote?- but it pulls off over about 120 indicated. REAL speeds, not "scale" speeds).

[Bultaco Jim]

Sounds good John. Should I silkspan two of the flap edges, or all three?

[Jim]

Hi again,

JohnW wrote;

.......what I never put together in my head over and above the "extra" rib was that otherwise, the means for attaching the flaps (the flap HINGES as well as the hinge pins, actually) are identical in both "types".

From the booklet;

".......can cause possible damage to the hinge legs...."

I guess I'm missing something still. How is an additional rib adding rigidity or structural integrety to a hinge that may be damaged at 80+MPH in the 135 hp planes? I now wonder if Piper just figured that these things probably wouldn't be blown away at 95 mph and went with a new max deploy speed.

Thanks!

[JohnW]

Jim; Well, to quote myself..."this raises (in MY mind) a couple of questions that never bothered me, before." I don't think you are missing anything, at all. Not at all. If you are not already familiar with it, look up CAR 3 (and fasten your seatbelt) and you will be totally enlightened on what the requirements WERE when these airplanes were designed and built. Very interesting, if you are an "inquiring mind" type. It's available free for the download from FAA's RGL Home page (I have it on CD).

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... enFrameSet (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgWebcomponents.nsf/HomeFrame?OpenFrameSet)

I sincerely doubt that Piper was cavalier in "just figuring..." anything. That ain't how they done it.

[Jim]

Thanks JohnW

These Piper sites are really going to miss your postings when your time comes.

Now, as long as you're here, how about hitting your enter key a little more often. Your paragraphs are sort of hard to read when they don't break very often.

Thanks again,

[JohnW]

When my TIME COMES!?!? You know something I don't???

Jeez, Jim...I was kinda thinkin' that you hit your enter key a little too often. You want a line break every one or two SENTENCES?

I can do that, but back in the days when I wuz learnin' my three Rs (and they made me take home my own personal copy of McGuffey's Newly Revised Eclectic Primer) I wuz teached that you break paragraphs when the subject of the text changes, and that includes as it develops and/or matures. [Is that a run-on sentence?]

;)

[Jim]

Hi again,

.......You know something I don't???

Only what the Rice Crispies tell me.

.......Jeez, Jim...I was kinda thinkin' that you hit your enter key a little too often.

That could be. I do a lot of CAD stuff so I'm running at a high resolution and text is pretty small more often then not. If I could make the rules everybody would only be allowed to post using bold text.