Cherokee 140 - LASAR vs. Powerflow vs. Laminar Speed Kit

[EridanMan]

Hey Guys,

So my annual on 'Julie' (A Cherokee 140) is coming in substantially
lower than expected, and it looks like I'm going to have about 4k in
funds freed up that I had already budgeted to spend.

Of course, the sensible side of me says I should save the money for
Fuel... but what fun is that?

So... The situation is, new owner (first plane), considering mods. The
cowling is already apart and cylinders are off, and I'm wondering if I
should take advantage of the moment to install some goodies.

She already is getting the AMR&D 160 hp mod.

So... question is - which should I get?

I've heard lots of good things (mostly on here and in articles) about
the LASAR and Powerflow. They seem to do the same thing, Neither ads
appreciable weight to the aircraft, and both promise about the same
(reduced fuel consumption, better climb, more power). Powerflow is a
bit more expensive, LASAR is a bit newer (unproven?). Can any owners
comment?

The laminar Speed Kit is the lowest price (for parts), 2300 for fast
pants, airleron and flap seals, hinge fairings and wing smoothing...
I'm afraid that the wing smoothing is going to demand a repainting
though, and that's a bit more than I'd like to spend. But it is
another option.

A fourth option would be to spend the money on avionics (currently the
plane is a simple VFR, Intercom + KX170B and KT-78)... To be honest
though, I live out west, and I really think that aside from getting my
IFR ticket, I wouldn't have much use for cool panel toys.

If I want cool gadgets, I'll buy an ipod... I want my plane to fly- so
my first priority is on stuff that makes it do so better.

I find it interesting that all of these packages are about the same
price (once installation is included), all do about the same thing
(through very different means)... Which one would best help Julie
complete her mission as a light-duty, economical VFR cruiser?

Thanks for whatever input you may have (even the 'spend it on fuel'
camp;))

[EridanMan]

Oh - I'll Add-

Living in the Bay- High Altitude Performance gains would actually be
tremendously appreciated - It would be nice to be able to reliably and
comfortably make it over the rockies/fly to-from Tahoe, etc... I know
this is pushing a Stock 140 pretty hard.

Also... Anyone out there try putting all 3 mods on a single
aircraft?;)... I mean - I've read the reviews of the powerflow/laminar
demonstrator plane... I wonder how such an animal would perform with
the LASAR system installed as well?;)

(I know this makes zero financial sense... 'just buy a faster plane'
and all those good things... I mean this only as a 'what if?'
question;))

-Scott

[Jose]

> it looks like I'm going to have about 4k in
> funds freed up that I had already budgeted to spend.
>
> Of course, the sensible side of me says I should save the money for
> Fuel... but what fun is that?

At four dollars a gallon, and ten gallons per hour, I'd say that's a
hundred hours worth of fun. Once you decide on toys, pit them against a
hundred hours of flying. I say put the money in a kitty, and when you
feel like flying, but also feel sort of broke, take the money from the
kitty and get high.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> it looks like I'm going to have about 4k in
>> funds freed up that I had already budgeted to spend.
>>
>> Of course, the sensible side of me says I should save the money for
>> Fuel... but what fun is that?
>
>At four dollars a gallon, and ten gallons per hour, I'd say that's a
>hundred hours worth of fun. Once you decide on toys, pit them against a
>hundred hours of flying. I say put the money in a kitty, and when you
>feel like flying, but also feel sort of broke, take the money from the
>kitty and get high.

Is there a Gilbert Shelton aphorism hiding in there?

Don

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > it looks like I'm going to have about 4k in
> > funds freed up that I had already budgeted to spend.
> >
> > Of course, the sensible side of me says I should save the money for
> > Fuel... but what fun is that?
>
> At four dollars a gallon, and ten gallons per hour, I'd say that's a
> hundred hours worth of fun.

The 160hp 140 doesn't burn 10gph. Figure 8 to 8.5 gph.
So it's about 117 hours of fun.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"EridanMan" > wrote:

> So my annual on 'Julie' (A Cherokee 140) is coming in substantially
> lower than expected, and it looks like I'm going to have about 4k in
> funds freed up that I had already budgeted to spend.
>
> Of course, the sensible side of me says I should save the money for
> Fuel... but what fun is that?

Not much.

>
> So... The situation is, new owner (first plane), considering mods. The
> cowling is already apart and cylinders are off, and I'm wondering if I
> should take advantage of the moment to install some goodies.
>
> She already is getting the AMR&D 160 hp mod.

did you re-pitch the prop? When I modified my 140, I re-pitched
to the 60" prop, gained cruise speed and climb rate.

> So... question is - which should I get?

Save it for next year.

[snip]
> The laminar Speed Kit is the lowest price (for parts), 2300 for fast
> pants, airleron and flap seals, hinge fairings and wing smoothing...
> I'm afraid that the wing smoothing is going to demand a repainting
> though, and that's a bit more than I'd like to spend. But it is
> another option.

But it adds weight, taking away from the already constrained useful load

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Ross Richardson]

Everyone that I have talked to that has added the Powerflow system,
loves them. I have a C-172F with the Lyc 180 hp conversion and I am
thinking the same thing. More hp, less fuel burn, GW insignificant.


EridanMan wrote:

> Oh - I'll Add-
>
> Living in the Bay- High Altitude Performance gains would actually be
> tremendously appreciated - It would be nice to be able to reliably and
> comfortably make it over the rockies/fly to-from Tahoe, etc... I know
> this is pushing a Stock 140 pretty hard.
>
> Also... Anyone out there try putting all 3 mods on a single
> aircraft?;)... I mean - I've read the reviews of the powerflow/laminar
> demonstrator plane... I wonder how such an animal would perform with
> the LASAR system installed as well?;)
>
> (I know this makes zero financial sense... 'just buy a faster plane'
> and all those good things... I mean this only as a 'what if?'
> question;))
>
> -Scott
>

[EridanMan]

> did you re-pitch the prop? When I modified my 140, I re-pitched
> to the 60" prop, gained cruise speed and climb rate.

You gained climb with a longer pitch? that sounds odd.

There is always the AMR&D Prop tip mod and repitch... I've heard mixed
impressions about that though...

> Save it for next year.

But... but... I like my toys!;)

> But it adds weight, taking away from the already constrained useful load

That's very true... Fortunately my bird is a '67 with no options (no
toe brakes, simple vfr avionics) so she's rather light as Cherokee
140's go....

Granted... I know I can eat through that extra window _really_ quickly.

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning EridanMan > wrote:
<SNIP>

Scott,
I also have a '67 140. I have the following mods:
AMR&D: 160hp upgrade, prop tip mod, vortex generators
Metco Air: wing tips
Knots2U: flap, aileron and stabilator trim tab gap seals
Powerflow: exhaust
I also have stock Piper wheel pants.

The gap seal kit and Metco tips were definitely worth it. The Powerflow
exhaust is worth it if your old exhaust is on it's last legs. If its in
good condition, I'd wait.

--- Jay


--

Jay Masino "Home is where my critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[EridanMan]

Yeah, I suppose there is a certain logic in holding back to upgrade the
Exhaust/Ignition systems until they need replacement (whenever that may
be).

What is your impression of the prop tip + repitching mod (especially
with the 160hp stc, which I already have).

Out of curiousity, what type of real-world numbers are you seeing from
your bird?

-Scott

Jay Masino wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning EridanMan > wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Scott,
> I also have a '67 140. I have the following mods:
> AMR&D: 160hp upgrade, prop tip mod, vortex generators
> Metco Air: wing tips
> Knots2U: flap, aileron and stabilator trim tab gap seals
> Powerflow: exhaust
> I also have stock Piper wheel pants.
>
> The gap seal kit and Metco tips were definitely worth it. The Powerflow
> exhaust is worth it if your old exhaust is on it's last legs. If its in
> good condition, I'd wait.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
> --
>
> Jay Masino "Home is where my critters are"
> http://www.JayMasino.com
> http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
> http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"EridanMan" > wrote:

> > did you re-pitch the prop? When I modified my 140, I re-pitched
> > to the 60" prop, gained cruise speed and climb rate.
>
> You gained climb with a longer pitch? that sounds odd.

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I upgraded my 140 to 160hp and also
re-pitched the prop. It definitely goes faster (if you use warrior
power settings - after all, it has the warrior engine/prop combo),
and also climbs faster than my 140 prior to the upgrade.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning EridanMan > wrote:
> What is your impression of the prop tip + repitching mod (especially
> with the 160hp stc, which I already have).

My prop is pitched to about 60" (Art claimed it was just shy of 60). As a result,
the static RPM stayed near the low end, but climb still improved as well as cruise.
I'm not really sure if the prop tip mod did anything.

> Out of curiousity, what type of real-world numbers are you seeing from
> your bird?

About 130-135 mph (113-117 knots) at 2500RPM and 2000'. All the mods together
showed a definite cumulitive effect, but in reality, it's hard to attribute
specific numbers to one particular item.

--- Jay


--

Jay Masino "Home is where the critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Denny]

Local fella put the Lasar system on his Warrior 3 years back... Says he
can't really tell the difference... He flys 300 hours a year... Says
he doesn't feel it was necessarily a waste of money but if/when he gets
another plane he won't install it a second time... Keep your mags
overhauled every 500 hours and you will be fine...

Forget the powerflow muffler unless the current exhaust is shot... To
make more power requires more fuel flow, period! Given that a few %
increase in power means almost no change in cruise speed you are
wasting fuel...

Gap seals and fairings can be worthwhile and if you are determined to
spend, this is where I would spend it......

denny - and Fat Albert the Apache...

[EridanMan]

Yeah, I'm definitely starting to get the sense that waiting to replace
with upgrades, rather than spend new up front is probably my best bet.

Which means I'll probably do the Laminar Flow stuff first, because
Julie is definitely going to need a paintjob sooner rather than later.

I've actually been considering spending the spare cash on the interior.
I'm already redoing the panel (putting in a standard T)... I was
planning on replacing the carpets with airtex stuff... maybe I should
go ahead and do the seats/sidepanels while I'm at it.

Or... anyone know a good upolstry shop in the Bay area that can do
aircraft interiors if you give them the old ones as templates?

-Scott

Denny wrote:
> Local fella put the Lasar system on his Warrior 3 years back... Says he
> can't really tell the difference... He flys 300 hours a year... Says
> he doesn't feel it was necessarily a waste of money but if/when he gets
> another plane he won't install it a second time... Keep your mags
> overhauled every 500 hours and you will be fine...
>
> Forget the powerflow muffler unless the current exhaust is shot... To
> make more power requires more fuel flow, period! Given that a few %
> increase in power means almost no change in cruise speed you are
> wasting fuel...
>
> Gap seals and fairings can be worthwhile and if you are determined to
> spend, this is where I would spend it......
>
> denny - and Fat Albert the Apache...

[[email protected]]

I'd go with airframe speed mods: Hoerner-style wingtips, gap seals,
hinge fairings and wing root fairings, and better wheel pants. That
would just about eat up your $4k and make a noticeable improvement in
the way the plane handles plus give you some more top cruise speed too.

[[email protected]]

On 22 Jun 2006 19:30:32 -0700, "EridanMan" >
wrote:


>I've actually been considering spending the spare cash on the interior.
> I'm already redoing the panel (putting in a standard T)... I was
>planning on replacing the carpets with airtex stuff... maybe I should
>go ahead and do the seats/sidepanels while I'm at it.
>
>Or... anyone know a good upolstry shop in the Bay area that can do
>aircraft interiors if you give them the old ones as templates?
>
Find someone that does a LOT of auto interior re-work.

Talk to a furniture re-upholster (sp?) shop that does institutional
(nursing home, hospital, etc.) work. The "burn" requirements for
institutional fabrics meet or exceed the requirements for your
Cherokee.

Have the auto shop do the work, using the institutional materials, and
play really really stupid if the FAA (one chance in a million) asks
who redid your interior.

Or save the certs from the fabrics and tell them to stick in their
ass.

Or pay three to ten times as much for an "approved" interior.

TC

[Chris G.]

Yea... That seems like a not very good plan of action. I would pay the
extra $$$ to have the work done properly so I would not have to worry
about the FAA asking questions. Telling them to "stick it" when you
didn't follow the regs is not something the FAA will ignore.

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon


wrote:

> play really really stupid if the FAA (one chance in a million) asks
> who redid your interior.
>
> Or save the certs from the fabrics and tell them to stick in their
> ass.

[karl gruber]

It wouldn't be the FAA that asks. It would be ANY AI worth his salt. Why
would the stupid owner want to risk his life and the livelihood of his
mechanic by pulling off some illegal upholstery job?

I'm with you, do it right or sell the piece of junk!

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Chris G." > wrote in message
reenews.net...
> Yea... That seems like a not very good plan of action. I would pay the
> extra $$$ to have the work done properly so I would not have to worry
> about the FAA asking questions. Telling them to "stick it" when you
> didn't follow the regs is not something the FAA will ignore.
>
> Chris G., PP-ASEL
> Salem, Oregon
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> play really really stupid if the FAA (one chance in a million) asks
>> who redid your interior.
>>
>> Or save the certs from the fabrics and tell them to stick in their
>> ass.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:46:21 -0700, "Chris G." >
wrote:

>Yea... That seems like a not very good plan of action. I would pay the
>extra $$$ to have the work done properly so I would not have to worry
>about the FAA asking questions. Telling them to "stick it" when you
>didn't follow the regs is not something the FAA will ignore.
>

It's a case of get educated or get out.

"pay the extra $$$ to have the work done properly" is a sad joke in
GA, expecially when it comes to aircraft interior rework.

Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
PA28.

I'll give you a hint, there isn't one.

If there isn't a specific reference, the FAA can stick it. If there
isn't a reg, it's pretty tough for them to say that you didn't follow
it.

BTW, how much personal contact/interaction have you had with FAA GA
maintenance ASI's?

TC

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:34:56 -0700, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>It wouldn't be the FAA that asks. It would be ANY AI worth his salt. Why
>would the stupid owner want to risk his life and the livelihood of his
>mechanic by pulling off some illegal upholstery job?

ROTFLMAO.

So tell me, just how would said AI determine that A) the work was
"illegal", and B) what would this alleged "illegality" be based on?

TC

[David Lesher]

writes:


>So tell me, just how would said AI determine that A) the work was
>"illegal", and B) what would this alleged "illegality" be based on?


He looks for the USDA CHOICE brand on the inside of the Naugahyde;
if it's missing.....call the cops.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
> interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
> PA28.

Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
to me.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf

[[email protected]]

Yup. Real straightforward as far as I'm concerned:

A manufacturer's statement
is acceptable due to neither the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (CAA) nor the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) having
published an FAA fire standard for either flash
or flame resistance for interior materials for
CAR-3 aircraft.

I believe that in my original post I mentioned that if you were truly
concerned about the legality of the institutional materials
(flash/flame resistant) used, save a piece of the material with the
stamp on the back.

It would be a totally different ball game if you were trying to buy
interior "parts" instead of performing a re-rag, or if you were talking
about a non-CAR3 aircraft.

TC


Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
> > interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
> > PA28.
>
> Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
> to me.
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf

[Newps]

Right, part 23 aircraft are different. For CAR3, expecially if
placarded "No Smoking", any material that meets any federal spec qualifies.

wrote:
> Yup. Real straightforward as far as I'm concerned:
>
> A manufacturer's statement
> is acceptable due to neither the Civil
> Aeronautics Administration (CAA) nor the
> Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) having
> published an FAA fire standard for either flash
> or flame resistance for interior materials for
> CAR-3 aircraft.
>
> I believe that in my original post I mentioned that if you were truly
> concerned about the legality of the institutional materials
> (flash/flame resistant) used, save a piece of the material with the
> stamp on the back.
>
> It would be a totally different ball game if you were trying to buy
> interior "parts" instead of performing a re-rag, or if you were talking
> about a non-CAR3 aircraft.
>
> TC
>
>
> Newps wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Find me a CAR3 or for that matter a CFR14/PT91 or 43 reference to
>>>interior re-furb materials & workmanship applicable to a 60's vintage
>>>PA28.
>>
>>Would not AC 43.13-1b, ch 9-61 not apply? Seems pretty straightforward
>>to me.
>>
>>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2009-10.pdf
>
>