A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

One step closer to owning an Arrow



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 10th 05, 04:22 PM
kage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Cessna's have more utility. Many Cessna models are/were available with
factory seaplane kits. The 150, 170, 172, 180, 182, 185, 190, 195, &206 were
all offered as factory seaplanes. How many aluminum Pipers are seaplanes?
Answer, ZERO. Although there was "one" Cherokee 180 factory seaplane, I flew
it and it was a dog.

The landing gear is the weak spot on the Pipers. Used on unimproved strips
the struts get pushed through the wing. That's why you see Cessna 206s and
207s in Alaska with 25,000 hrs on them. The 260 and 300 Cherokee "6s" have
good load carrying capacity, but they are a pig to fly and to last at all
need to be flown off pavement. You will NEVER see a Cherokee with that kind
of time as a bush plane.

The Cessnas have a better wing for short unimproved strips, and far superior
flaps for short field approaches. Cessnas have "Paralift Flaps" big fowler
flaps, more expensive to engineer and produce, and worth it. Further, the
Cessnas all have better control harmony. Not that they feel good, but much
better handling qualities than the Cherokee line. They all fly like trucks,
just he Cherokee flys like a Mack truck and the Cessna like a Ford 150.

Piper even worked to destroy the control harmony built into the first
Warriors. They early Warriors had "Frise" ailerons and had pretty nice roll
control, better than a comparable Cessna. But by the 1976(?) model year they
were replaced by cheap piano hinge ailerons and the nice feel they had for
two years went away.

Karl


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:GwZXd.113513$4q6.87063@attbi_s01...
I might argue Chevy|Ford vs. Toyota. The Piper is more "normal," and
thus has
simpler, more available, and I daresay cheaper parts. The Mooney is a
better
engineered plane (like a Cessna is)


Just curious. In your view, how is a Cessna "better engineered" than a
Piper?

I've flown them both, seen the insides of both, and both brands appear to
be almost identical in both performance and design, other than the wing
being in the wrong place on Cessnas. And they have both proven, over
time, to be extremely durable, classic designs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So I invested my US$6°°.....GUESS WHAT!!!... less than ten days later, I received money [email protected] Owning 1 January 16th 05 06:48 AM
Ongoing Arrow alternator/charging problem Chuck Owning 6 December 22nd 04 01:18 AM
CF-105 AVRO Arrow etc. Ed Majden Military Aviation 4 February 22nd 04 07:00 PM
Re; What do you think? Kelsibutt Naval Aviation 0 September 29th 03 06:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.