REFLECTOR: Winglet Lowers/STOL

[Alan Shaw <wingco@iu.net>]

Jerry Brainard wrote:

> I have just received a set of winglet lowers.  Has there been a
> determination that the lowers are required or are they
> optional?  There was installation information that came with
> them, but nothing about the functionality.

Thanks Chuck

Yes, Duane and Mark explained that they could land the XL slower with
winglet bottoms because of much better low speed control.  The "bigger"
XL simply needs more tail feathers proportional to it's size.  Adding to
the top of the winglet helps too but puts  more load on the winglet
structure at the high speed end.

On the long wing/small fuselage (173), the winglet bottoms are to be
considered an option.  They help if you have short and tricky airfields
you want to use.  It is my controversial opinion that this model is 2"
forward CG and that it is a much better balanced and capable machine
with a 540.  This is based on calculations of center of lift/center of
gravity as well as flight test in such an airplane.  This is as close to
STOL as a Velocity gets.  I took the first 540 powered Maule to Central
America (I brought it back too, after two years...slightly bent).
I just erased my special slow steep canard approach technique because
even when executed by experienced hands their is always risk in STOL
approaches.  Don't  cross control to get a steep decent.  My approaches
are always fairly straight in.
The best thing is to just get that neutral trim set for 80 to 85 knots
set on short final and slight flare/fly it on before it drops below 65
knots.   Forget this over the fence stuff at 100 knots... you are way
too hot.    Airspeed control is the key and correct trim makes that
easy.

Alan