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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Good Used 4 Seaters
: Cory:
: I, too, have the cherokee 180D (hershey bar). The published ceiling : is 16K (ok, on a 1969 document) but I've had it up to 15K. I've : noticed that the newer the cherokee, the lower the ceiling due to : more weight of the aircraft. Overall max weight of 2400 has : remained the same. Remember that these published service ceilings are alegedly at max gross. I really doubt there are many 180's that can actually make it up 15K at full gross. I've had mine up there before, but it was only with 2 people and 3/4 tanks... had about 50-100fpm is all. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Good Used 4 Seaters
Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed with minimum weight in mind. Bud Roy N5804F wrote: Dave, I also appreciated an almost unbiased comparison between the C172 & PA28-161. What has really got my interest are the comments you make about the airframe structural differences. Obviously both aircraft were designed very well as I am not aware of any AD's that have addressed major structural problems with either breed. However,the Cherokee takes all the landing loads through its wing structure whereas the Skyhawk takes landing loads onto its fuselage. Your comments polarizes my view, that the Cherokee needs and [by your observations] may be structural stronger than the Cessna. I was never really sure why I personally preferred to fly a Cherokee but you may have eluded to a significant difference between the airframes, that had failed to sink in to my grey matter. Thanks for an objective posting on this volatile subject. Roy Piper Archer N5804F ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 PM Subject: Good Used 4 Seaters Only by comparison of these two aircraft.. The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight. The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to wings level flight without pilot input. One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so to speak... We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior.... BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only difference we noticed was in the roll attitude... Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small sample) Cheers! Dave On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson wrote: Marco Leon wrote: snip Dave wrote: Hehe.. sure.. At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. snip Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss that!!) snip Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical using the -140, -160, & -180s. "Dave" wrote in message ... Only by comparison of these two aircraft.. The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight. The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to wings level flight without pilot input. One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so to speak... We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior.... BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only difference we noticed was in the roll attitude... Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small sample) Cheers! Dave On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson wrote: Marco Leon wrote: snip Dave wrote: Hehe.. sure.. At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. snip Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss that!!) snip Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical using the -140, -160, & -180s. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Good Used 4 Seaters
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Good Used 4 Seaters
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Bob Noel said: as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to walk around in the hangar. Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead? I do! -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP KSWI |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good-bye, My Good Friend | Capt.Doug | Home Built | 2 | August 12th 05 02:47 AM |
Any good aviation clip-art? | zingzang | Piloting | 2 | August 11th 05 01:32 AM |
We lost a good one.... | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | May 28th 05 05:21 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |