Airvan aircraft

[John Pelchat]

I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
costs, handling and attributes of the plane?

Thank you in advance.

John Pelchat

[John Galban]

(John Pelchat) wrote in message >...
> I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
> celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
> colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
> aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
> anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
> costs, handling and attributes of the plane?
>
> Thank you in advance.

Is this what you're looking for?
http://www.gippsaero.com/articleZone.asp?articleZoneID=141

Saw it at Copperstate and was impressed

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[pix]

I have not flown it, but have looked over it a couple of times. I am told by
pilots that it handles like a big 172, is gentle and easy to fly. Very
roomy. Impressive aricraft, in the class of Cessna 206.

cheers...pix

"John Pelchat" > wrote in message
om...
> I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
> celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
> colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
> aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
> anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
> costs, handling and attributes of the plane?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> John Pelchat

[John Pelchat]

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> (John Pelchat) wrote in message >...
> > I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
> > celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
> > colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
> > aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
> > anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
> > costs, handling and attributes of the plane?
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
>
> Is this what you're looking for?
> http://www.gippsaero.com/articleZone.asp?articleZoneID=141
>
> Saw it at Copperstate and was impressed
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Yeah, I'm kinda of impressed too, but to date I have not seen anything
except on the web about the airplane. Could you share some of your
reactions to what you saw at Copperstate? Thanks

John

[Rick Durden]

John,

I did a review of the Gippsland Airvan for Aviation Consumer a couple
of years ago. In general, it is designed to compete with the Cessna
206/207, primarily in the third world. It has an O-540 Lycoming
engine derated to 275 hp due to noise requirements by reducing rpm
from the normal 300 hp setting at 2,700 rpm. It can seat 8 people
although there is the usual fuel/pax tradeoff. The c.g. is about as
long as that of a Cessna 206. It is slower than a 206, yet I liked it
because the crew and pax seating was more comfortable, there is a
sliding door that can be opened in flight for phototgraphy or
skydiving or what have you (the door on the 206 has to be removed
before flight) the nose does not block forward visibility in a climb
or when flying at loitering power settings and the cabin floor is
flat. It also sits level on the ground. It is essentailly a next
generation Cessna 207. Hanlding is satisfactory for an air barge,
quicker than that slug, the Cherokee 6, but not as quick as the Cessna
206. Flight deck is nicer than a 206, with doors for each crew
member.

I found that I liked it a great deal and if faced with a choice of 206
versus Airvan, I would probably lean toward the Airvan if cruise speed
were not a concern.

You may be able to get a copy of the review at the Aviation Consumer
website.

All the best,
Rick

(John Pelchat) wrote in message >...
> I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
> celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
> colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
> aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
> anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
> costs, handling and attributes of the plane?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> John Pelchat

[John Galban]

(John Pelchat) wrote in message >...
> >
> > Is this what you're looking for?
> > http://www.gippsaero.com/articleZone.asp?articleZoneID=141
> >
> > Saw it at Copperstate and was impressed
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> Yeah, I'm kinda of impressed too, but to date I have not seen anything
> except on the web about the airplane. Could you share some of your
> reactions to what you saw at Copperstate? Thanks
>

Well, I didn't get to fly it, but it looked like a great backcountry
hauler. Very roomy cabin with removable seats. I don't recall all of
the performance specs, but I recall that it was not exceedingly fast,
but could carry a heavy load.

There was a thread about it on r.a.p a few months ago. Do a Google
search for the subject : New Australian airplane and you should find
a post from Rick Durden, who actually flew it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting John Pelchat > wrote:
> I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
> celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
> colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
> aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
> anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
> costs, handling and attributes of the plane?

I am in CAP in Colorado. I got to fly one!
This one was configured for pilot and copilot and 9 passengers.
It has a HUGE cargo door... we rode a motorcycle up the ramp
and into the airplane.

I own a 1/4 share of a Cessna-206... the only thing lacking
in the AirVan is speed... cruise is about 105 KIAS.

They were at Buena Vista, Colorado, doing a demo to CAP, and doing
high altitude operations. It flys amazingly like a 180hp supercub...
roll down the runway to 45 KIAS, rotate and climb at 60 KIAS.
Very docile, very forgiving. It does AWESOME "canyon turns"...
the emergency maneuver we teach in Idaho to turn away from rising
terrain and fly down-canyon.

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO, USA
CELL/VM: 970 231-6325 CELL Message: (100 char)
EMAIL: WEB: http://www.frii.net/~jer
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane & Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 197 Young Eagles!

[Rick Durden]

Pilot, copilot and 9 pax????

The one I flew had a total of 8 seats. Where did they put an
additional 3? For that matter, where would they have put one more
unless it was in the aisle? All of the Airvans I've seen have no more
than 8 seats.

You must have had things pulled way back to be at 105 KTAS, or was
that KIAS? The one I flew cruised at about 125-130 KTAS.

It is a very good airplane. Airline that runs them in Central America
reported that pax preferred them to the Cessna 206s and 207s.

All the best,
Rick


wrote in message >...
> In rec.aviation.piloting John Pelchat > wrote:
> > I was watching Discovery Wings when I saw a spot about the CAP
> > celebrating it's anniversary and I saw a scene with an Airvan in CAP
> > colors (lots of bright red and blue). I have seen nothing in the
> > aviation publications about this aircraft. Does anyone here know
> > anything about it beyond what is on the Airvan-USA website regarding
> > costs, handling and attributes of the plane?
>
> I am in CAP in Colorado. I got to fly one!
> This one was configured for pilot and copilot and 9 passengers.
> It has a HUGE cargo door... we rode a motorcycle up the ramp
> and into the airplane.
>
> I own a 1/4 share of a Cessna-206... the only thing lacking
> in the AirVan is speed... cruise is about 105 KIAS.
>
> They were at Buena Vista, Colorado, doing a demo to CAP, and doing
> high altitude operations. It flys amazingly like a 180hp supercub...
> roll down the runway to 45 KIAS, rotate and climb at 60 KIAS.
> Very docile, very forgiving. It does AWESOME "canyon turns"...
> the emergency maneuver we teach in Idaho to turn away from rising
> terrain and fly down-canyon.
>
> Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

[Kevin]

Rick Durden wrote:
> Pilot, copilot and 9 pax????
>
> The one I flew had a total of 8 seats. Where did they put an
> additional 3? For that matter, where would they have put one more
> unless it was in the aisle? All of the Airvans I've seen have no more
> than 8 seats.
>
> You must have had things pulled way back to be at 105 KTAS, or was
> that KIAS? The one I flew cruised at about 125-130 KTAS.
>
> It is a very good airplane. Airline that runs them in Central America
> reported that pax preferred them to the Cessna 206s and 207s.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>
>
> Best looking flight deck of any plane i have seen. It would make one hell of a private plane if you were not in a hurry.

[John Pelchat]

Kevin > wrote in message news:<PBsCb.98779$_M.518176@attbi_s54>...
> Rick Durden wrote:
> > Pilot, copilot and 9 pax????
> >
> > The one I flew had a total of 8 seats. Where did they put an
> > additional 3? For that matter, where would they have put one more
> > unless it was in the aisle? All of the Airvans I've seen have no more
> > than 8 seats.
> >
> > You must have had things pulled way back to be at 105 KTAS, or was
> > that KIAS? The one I flew cruised at about 125-130 KTAS.
> >
> > It is a very good airplane. Airline that runs them in Central America
> > reported that pax preferred them to the Cessna 206s and 207s.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Rick
> >
> >
> > Best looking flight deck of any plane i have seen. It would make one hell of a private plane if you were not in a hurry.

Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
Webshots screensaver (grin).

Based on the limited amount of material I have read so far, I also
think it would make a great private plane for hauling the family
around.

Best

John

[Rick Durden]

John,
>
> Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
> intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
> overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
> Webshots screensaver (grin).
>
Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
bifocals.

I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

Any thoughts on the subject?

All the best,
Rick

[John Pelchat]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> John,
> >
> > Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
> > intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
> > overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
> > Webshots screensaver (grin).
> >
> Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
> wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
> found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
> penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
> possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
> were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
> the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
> and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
> things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
> factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
> and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
> bifocals.
>
> I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
> big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
> always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
> have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
> be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
> front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.
>
> I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
> think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
> because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
> years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
> in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
> panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
> same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
> front of the pilot.
>
> Any thoughts on the subject?
>
> All the best,
> Rick

Rick,

I'll open with that I offered the comment regarding overhead panels
90% in jest.

I have heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of bifocal wearers
properly seeing things and that has made sense. I have never heard
the survivability aspect of the argument. It sounds a lot like the
arguments for shoulder harnesses that cite the dents created by panel
controls in the foreheads of deceased pilots.

As you noted, many may not know about this issue due to their age (I
offer no similar excuse). My acceptance of overhead panels is based
on some of the other horrible panel arrangements of I have seen. It
seems some aircraft had their switches, controls, and instruments
installed with a 12-gauge shotgun. I agree that it never really
seemed to be about space. Chances are that the designers were not
being perverse but rather they were thinking about other things like
ease of manufacture. I just never liked reaching all the way to the
other side of the panel and thought putting things there was a poor
idea. My experience with overhead controls was a long time ago and
limited to trim using a crank that made (to me) absolutely no sense.

The people building the big iron continue using overhead switch panels
despite the amazing amount of real estate on the front panel being
freed up on newer aircraft with multi-function displays. Part of the
argument I have heard is that you put stuff up there that is not used
very often.

On the other hand, the extent that some of these panels go back seems
to be an ergonomic and chiropractic nightmare. I wonder how much this
was a factor for the Swissair crew in the MD-11 with the electrical
fire off the Canada coast a few years back. The thought of trying to
reach way back to isolate an electrical problem on a dark night does
not appeal to me.

This ends my humble $.02 and thanks for a great discussion.

Best

John

[John Galban]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
> wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
> found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
> penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
> possible.
<snip>
>
> I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
> think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
> because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
> years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
> in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
> panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
> same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
> front of the pilot.

If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
for a couple of decades).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Pelchat]

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> (Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> > Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
> > wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
> > found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
> > penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
> > possible.
> <snip>
> >
> > I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
> > think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
> > because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
> > years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
> > in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
> > panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
> > same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
> > front of the pilot.
>
> If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
> flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
> their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
> the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
> can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
> for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
> for a couple of decades).
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

John,

I have not sat in any of the New Pipers, but no one I know has said
anything nice about the overhead switches on them. IMHO, the switches
were very well placed when they were located in the center of the
panel. I never cared for the side wall placement I have seen on
Lances and some other Cherokee models.

However, if someone were to offer me a cherry Cherokee with the side
switches, it would not be an automatic no.

Best

John

[Rick Durden]

John,

Good points, especially about the instruments being installed in holes
made with a shotgun...I think that is how the Piper Apache panel was
designed.

All the best,
Rick

(John Pelchat) wrote in message >...
> (Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> > John,
> > >
> > > Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
> > > intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
> > > overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
> > > Webshots screensaver (grin).
> > >
> > Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
> > wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
> > found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
> > penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
> > possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
> > were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
> > the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
> > and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
> > things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
> > factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
> > and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
> > bifocals.
> >
> > I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
> > big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
> > always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
> > have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
> > be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
> > front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.
> >
> > I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
> > think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
> > because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
> > years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
> > in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
> > panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
> > same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
> > front of the pilot.
> >
> > Any thoughts on the subject?
> >
> > All the best,
> > Rick
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll open with that I offered the comment regarding overhead panels
> 90% in jest.
>
> I have heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of bifocal wearers
> properly seeing things and that has made sense. I have never heard
> the survivability aspect of the argument. It sounds a lot like the
> arguments for shoulder harnesses that cite the dents created by panel
> controls in the foreheads of deceased pilots.
>
> As you noted, many may not know about this issue due to their age (I
> offer no similar excuse). My acceptance of overhead panels is based
> on some of the other horrible panel arrangements of I have seen. It
> seems some aircraft had their switches, controls, and instruments
> installed with a 12-gauge shotgun. I agree that it never really
> seemed to be about space. Chances are that the designers were not
> being perverse but rather they were thinking about other things like
> ease of manufacture. I just never liked reaching all the way to the
> other side of the panel and thought putting things there was a poor
> idea. My experience with overhead controls was a long time ago and
> limited to trim using a crank that made (to me) absolutely no sense.
>
> The people building the big iron continue using overhead switch panels
> despite the amazing amount of real estate on the front panel being
> freed up on newer aircraft with multi-function displays. Part of the
> argument I have heard is that you put stuff up there that is not used
> very often.
>
> On the other hand, the extent that some of these panels go back seems
> to be an ergonomic and chiropractic nightmare. I wonder how much this
> was a factor for the Swissair crew in the MD-11 with the electrical
> fire off the Canada coast a few years back. The thought of trying to
> reach way back to isolate an electrical problem on a dark night does
> not appeal to me.
>
> This ends my humble $.02 and thanks for a great discussion.
>
> Best
>
> John

[Rick Durden]

John,

Why do I wonder whether the overhead in the Piper's was motivated by
marketing folks who thought they looked cool and didn't have the
faintest inkling of the research that had been done that concluded
they were not a good thing to put in an airplane.....


All the best,
Rick

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> (Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> > Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
> > wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
> > found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
> > penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
> > possible.
> <snip>
> >
> > I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
> > think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
> > because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
> > years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
> > in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
> > panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
> > same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
> > front of the pilot.
>
> If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
> flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
> their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
> the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
> can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
> for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
> for a couple of decades).
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dennis O'Connor]

Hey, wait a minute, I resemble that remark...

Fat Albert the Apache

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
> John,
>
> Good points, especially about the instruments being installed in holes
> made with a shotgun...I think that is how the Piper Apache panel was
> designed.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>
> (John Pelchat) wrote in message
>...
> > (Rick Durden) wrote in message
>...
> > > John,
> > > >
> > > > Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
> > > > intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement
regarding
> > > > overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
> > > > Webshots screensaver (grin).
> > > >
> > > Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
> > > wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
> > > found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
> > > penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
> > > possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
> > > were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
> > > the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
> > > and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
> > > things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
> > > factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
> > > and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
> > > bifocals.
> > >
> > > I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
> > > big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
> > > always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
> > > have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
> > > be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
> > > front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
> > > think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
> > > because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
> > > years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
> > > in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
> > > panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
> > > same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
> > > front of the pilot.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on the subject?
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > > Rick
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > I'll open with that I offered the comment regarding overhead panels
> > 90% in jest.
> >
> > I have heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of bifocal wearers
> > properly seeing things and that has made sense. I have never heard
> > the survivability aspect of the argument. It sounds a lot like the
> > arguments for shoulder harnesses that cite the dents created by panel
> > controls in the foreheads of deceased pilots.
> >
> > As you noted, many may not know about this issue due to their age (I
> > offer no similar excuse). My acceptance of overhead panels is based
> > on some of the other horrible panel arrangements of I have seen. It
> > seems some aircraft had their switches, controls, and instruments
> > installed with a 12-gauge shotgun. I agree that it never really
> > seemed to be about space. Chances are that the designers were not
> > being perverse but rather they were thinking about other things like
> > ease of manufacture. I just never liked reaching all the way to the
> > other side of the panel and thought putting things there was a poor
> > idea. My experience with overhead controls was a long time ago and
> > limited to trim using a crank that made (to me) absolutely no sense.
> >
> > The people building the big iron continue using overhead switch panels
> > despite the amazing amount of real estate on the front panel being
> > freed up on newer aircraft with multi-function displays. Part of the
> > argument I have heard is that you put stuff up there that is not used
> > very often.
> >
> > On the other hand, the extent that some of these panels go back seems
> > to be an ergonomic and chiropractic nightmare. I wonder how much this
> > was a factor for the Swissair crew in the MD-11 with the electrical
> > fire off the Canada coast a few years back. The thought of trying to
> > reach way back to isolate an electrical problem on a dark night does
> > not appeal to me.
> >
> > This ends my humble $.02 and thanks for a great discussion.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > John

[Kevin]

John Pelchat wrote:
> (John Galban) wrote in message >...
>
(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
>>
>>>Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
>>>wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
>>>found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
>>>penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
>>>possible.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
>>>think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
>>>because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
>>>years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
>>>in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
>>>panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
>>>same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
>>>front of the pilot.
>>
>> If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
>>flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
>>their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
>>the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
>>can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
>>for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
>>for a couple of decades).
>>
>>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>
> John,
>
> I have not sat in any of the New Pipers, but no one I know has said
> anything nice about the overhead switches on them. IMHO, the switches
> were very well placed when they were located in the center of the
> panel. I never cared for the side wall placement I have seen on
> Lances and some other Cherokee models.
>
> However, if someone were to offer me a cherry Cherokee with the side
> switches, it would not be an automatic no.
>
> Best
>
> John


There are some more photos of the Airvan flight deck at this website.
It shows detail for the overhead panel.


/www.njwg.cap.gov/Operations/Gippsland/

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Kevin" > wrote in message
news:7mQDb.410999$ao4.1343213@attbi_s51...
> John Pelchat wrote:
> > (John Galban) wrote in message
>...
> > John,
> >
> > I have not sat in any of the New Pipers, but no one I know has said
> > anything nice about the overhead switches on them. IMHO, the switches
> > were very well placed when they were located in the center of the
> > panel. I never cared for the side wall placement I have seen on
> > Lances and some other Cherokee models.
> >
> > However, if someone were to offer me a cherry Cherokee with the side
> > switches, it would not be an automatic no.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > John
>
>
> There are some more photos of the Airvan flight deck at this website.
> It shows detail for the overhead panel.
>
>
> /www.njwg.cap.gov/Operations/Gippsland/

This one seems a lot more efficient in a refurbished Rockwell JetProp 1000
(but it's an "eyebrow panel" not specifically an "overhead" panel.

http://www.eagle-creek.com/magic_pop_up/images/cockpit3.jpg

[John Pelchat]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> John,
>
> Why do I wonder whether the overhead in the Piper's was motivated by
> marketing folks who thought they looked cool and didn't have the
> faintest inkling of the research that had been done that concluded
> they were not a good thing to put in an airplane.....
>
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>

Rick, I suspect that did have something to do with it but on the other
hand, I like a lot of things about the new Piper panel, including a
centralized (and apparently) organized annunciator panel. AND tons of
real estate for a good switch panel to be relocated to.

To the gentleman from the NJ Civil Air Patrol, thank you very much for
the pictures and the write-up about the Airvan.

I still pick AirVan as my favorite panel and I will close by wishing
all on the groups a very merry Christmas.

best to all of you

John Pelchat

[Kevin]

John Pelchat wrote:
> (Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
>
>>John,
>>
>>Why do I wonder whether the overhead in the Piper's was motivated by
>>marketing folks who thought they looked cool and didn't have the
>>faintest inkling of the research that had been done that concluded
>>they were not a good thing to put in an airplane.....
>>
>>
>>All the best,
>>Rick
>>
>
>
> Rick, I suspect that did have something to do with it but on the other
> hand, I like a lot of things about the new Piper panel, including a
> centralized (and apparently) organized annunciator panel. AND tons of
> real estate for a good switch panel to be relocated to.
>
> To the gentleman from the NJ Civil Air Patrol, thank you very much for
> the pictures and the write-up about the Airvan.
>
> I still pick AirVan as my favorite panel and I will close by wishing
> all on the groups a very merry Christmas.
>
> best to all of you
>
> John Pelchat

The overhead panel makes it easier to access all of the breakers
without reaching over to the right side of the panel.

I designed and built a panel for my jeep TJ which has all of the
electrical switches overhead, ignition , accessories, lights etc. . It
makes everything easy to access.

/www.jeepboard.net/modules.php?set_albumName=TJs&id=jeep_004&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php