Pipers/Strutural Engineering/Doors

I would not be willing to pay 25 Lb in our clubs Archer for a second
door. I find 3 adult men and normal luggage puts me at full GW.

True. But with the 1460 pound useful load of our Pathfinder (Cherokee 235)
they could easily have sacrificed 25 pounds of structural reinforcement in
exchange for the added convenience and safety.

I still believe that Piper's decision to forego the pilot-side door in the
235/236 line has proven to be a many multi-million dollar mistake for Piper
over the years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

How expensive would it have been to get a second door certified? I wonder
why nobody has developed a second door STC if it is so desirable and easy to
do. The whole success of the Cherokee line was based on commonality of
parts and low cost.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:kXPFb.633938$Fm2.569782@attbi_s04...
I would not be willing to pay 25 Lb in our clubs Archer for a second
door. I find 3 adult men and normal luggage puts me at full GW.

True. But with the 1460 pound useful load of our Pathfinder (Cherokee
235)
they could easily have sacrificed 25 pounds of structural reinforcement in
exchange for the added convenience and safety.

I still believe that Piper's decision to forego the pilot-side door in the
235/236 line has proven to be a many multi-million dollar mistake for
Piper
over the years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

How expensive would it have been to get a second door certified? I wonder
why nobody has developed a second door STC if it is so desirable and easy
to
do. The whole success of the Cherokee line was based on commonality of
parts and low cost.

Right, but see EDR's post. Who cares how expensive the endeavor is, if it
means you'll sell three times as many planes?

On the other hand, there's no guarantee that a second door would have
guaranteed this result -- but for many "less sprightly" pilots, the single
door is a real handicap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Sure they could have sold more *if* the price was unchanged, but what if it
cost $10,000 more? The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or
206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating
off-airport and short field.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:GL%Fb.633459$Tr4.1633242@attbi_s03...
How expensive would it have been to get a second door certified? I
wonder
why nobody has developed a second door STC if it is so desirable and
easy
to
do. The whole success of the Cherokee line was based on commonality of
parts and low cost.

Right, but see EDR's post. Who cares how expensive the endeavor is, if it
means you'll sell three times as many planes?

On the other hand, there's no guarantee that a second door would have
guaranteed this result -- but for many "less sprightly" pilots, the single
door is a real handicap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or
206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating
off-airport and short field.

Well, that's somewhat debatable. If you're talking about landing in
wagon-rutted fields with three-foot hedges on either side, you're right --
the 182's high wing and steel gear will beat the low wing aircraft, hand's
down.

However, it's kind of the aviation version of SUV marketing: Sure, a Hummer
can climb a 60 degree slope, but who really cares? 99.995% of the
population will drive it to the store.

Bottom line: I fly the Pathfinder in and out of grass strips that would
challenge a lesser plane. That's as "off-road" as I care to get. Heck,
that's MORE "off-road" than most pilots I know *ever* get. (D'ja ever take
your MU-2 into Amana? :-)

Sure they could have sold more *if* the price was unchanged, but what if
it
cost $10,000 more?

As I understand it, the 235 was already priced higher than the 182 back in
'74 -- so the chances of Piper coming in with it under-priced were unlikely.
Still, Piper sold enough 235s and 236s to make them a profitable line, and
the second door would only have helped sales.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:IA1Gb.640175$Fm2.571783@attbi_s04...
The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or
206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating
off-airport and short field.

Well, that's somewhat debatable. If you're talking about landing in
wagon-rutted fields with three-foot hedges on either side, you're right --
the 182's high wing and steel gear will beat the low wing aircraft, hand's
down.

However, it's kind of the aviation version of SUV marketing: Sure, a
Hummer
can climb a 60 degree slope, but who really cares? 99.995% of the
population will drive it to the store.

Agreed but if a Hummer only costs a little more (and had no other drawbacks)
then everybody will buy it instead of the other SUVs which will only climb a
40 deg slope


Bottom line: I fly the Pathfinder in and out of grass strips that would
challenge a lesser plane. That's as "off-road" as I care to get. Heck,
that's MORE "off-road" than most pilots I know *ever* get. (D'ja ever
take
your MU-2 into Amana? :-)

I have flown into a lot shorter and rougher fields than that! Do they have
cheap fuel?

Sure they could have sold more *if* the price was unchanged, but what if
it
cost $10,000 more?

As I understand it, the 235 was already priced higher than the 182 back in
'74 -- so the chances of Piper coming in with it under-priced were
unlikely.

So would anyone have bought them if they were $10,000 more? We will never
know. Piper evidently thought that it wasn't worth it.

Still, Piper sold enough 235s and 236s to make them a profitable line, and
the second door would only have helped sales.

Again it would have helped sales at the same price but there is a limit to
how much people will pay for a feature. Saying that it is obvious that
adding another door would have helped Piper is to assume that the company
was inept.and they didn't know what their customers wanted.

Mike
MU-2

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . net, Mike
Rapoport wrote:

Sure they could have sold more *if* the price was unchanged, but what if it
cost $10,000 more? The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or
206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating
off-airport and short field.

Don't confuse the issue.
Rough field operations is a prop clearance issue.
That's why the outfitters and bush pilots use taildraggers.
Mooney's aren't the smartest airplanes to operate off of grass strips
unless you know for certain they have no dips or holes.

How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop
clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds.

Mike
MU-2


"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article . net, Mike
Rapoport wrote:

Sure they could have sold more *if* the price was unchanged, but what if
it
cost $10,000 more? The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182
or
206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating
off-airport and short field.

Don't confuse the issue.
Rough field operations is a prop clearance issue.
That's why the outfitters and bush pilots use taildraggers.
Mooney's aren't the smartest airplanes to operate off of grass strips
unless you know for certain they have no dips or holes.

In article .net,
Mike Rapoport wrote:

How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop
clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds.

Ahhhh!!! Now we're talking rough field! Just pump up the struts on them
Pipers. But, I am guessing that structurally, what you are getting at
is the load difference in having a landing gear box structure (Cessnas)
vice the wing attachment to the spar (Pipers).

BTW, IIRC, the Mitsubushi originally advertised short and rough field
capability for the original MU-2's. Even created advertising photos
with shots of the aircraft on grass with the outdoors backgrounds.

Alas, we digress! Back to the original topic, two cockpit doors.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:GL%Fb.633459$Tr4.1633242@attbi_s03...
How expensive would it have been to get a second door certified? I
wonder
why nobody has developed a second door STC if it is so desirable and
easy
to
do. The whole success of the Cherokee line was based on commonality of
parts and low cost.

Right, but see EDR's post. Who cares how expensive the endeavor is, if it
means you'll sell three times as many planes?

On the other hand, there's no guarantee that a second door would have
guaranteed this result -- but for many "less sprightly" pilots, the single
door is a real handicap.

'Spose it (the one door affair) ruined the Bonanza as well?