Pipers/Strutural Engineering/Doors

The only single-engine piston aircraft that I can think of that Piper
has put a door on each side of the fuselage is the Tomahawk.
Except for the addition of a couple wing ribs for wing walk area and a
door frame, are there any structural reasons why a pilot side door
could not be added? Now that Piper has gone to the overhead panel, the
left sidewall is clear of any "controls". (Is the fuel selector still
there? It could be relocated to the center console as it is on the
Saratoga.)

It adds more weight than you might think. The area around the door has to
be reinforced. Make a paper box and feel how stiff it becomes when you tape
the final side and then cut a jarge hole on one side and note how much
stiffness it loses.

Mike
MU-2


"EDR" wrote in message
...
The only single-engine piston aircraft that I can think of that Piper
has put a door on each side of the fuselage is the Tomahawk.
Except for the addition of a couple wing ribs for wing walk area and a
door frame, are there any structural reasons why a pilot side door
could not be added? Now that Piper has gone to the overhead panel, the
left sidewall is clear of any "controls". (Is the fuel selector still
there? It could be relocated to the center console as it is on the
Saratoga.)

In a previous article, EDR said:
Except for the addition of a couple wing ribs for wing walk area and a
door frame, are there any structural reasons why a pilot side door
could not be added? Now that Piper has gone to the overhead panel, the

There is a company that has an STC for a pilot side door for the AzTruck.
(They also do a float conversion, beleive it or not.) I believe they do a
lot of structural reinforcement of the fuselage as well.


--
"The magic of usenet has never been its technology; and, only in part, its
reach. Its magic -- its power -- is based on the very real human connections
that form 'round its threads of conversation... the relationships that are
kindled, flamed and, on occasion, extinguished and mourned." -deCadmus

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message news
It adds more weight than you might think. The area around the door has to
be reinforced. Make a paper box and feel how stiff it becomes when you tape
the final side and then cut a jarge hole on one side and note how much
stiffness it loses.

Yes. It's pretty amazing what a hole does to the strength. I have a baggage
door mod on my Navion (it was a factory option). There are extra structural
members and a zillion rivets to support a foot square hole in the side.

-Ron

In article . net, Mike
Rapoport wrote:

It adds more weight than you might think. The area around the door has to
be reinforced. Make a paper box and feel how stiff it becomes when you tape
the final side and then cut a jarge hole on one side and note how much
stiffness it loses.

I understand the torsional rigidity issue.
Cessna does it, suspending the fuselage from the wing.
Beech did it with the Musketeer line.
I would think the wing on the bottom would make it easier because the
wing center section spar box and not the fuselage structure is not
carrying the load.
How much weight are we talking about? 25 pounds?
The weight's of Pipers and Cessna's seem pretty comparable across the
product lines.

Is the question more one of economics?

Recently, EDR posted:

The only single-engine piston aircraft that I can think of that Piper
has put a door on each side of the fuselage is the Tomahawk.

How about the Pacer / Tri Pacer?

Except for the addition of a couple wing ribs for wing walk area and a
door frame, are there any structural reasons why a pilot side door
could not be added?

There would have to be a considerable amount of fuselage stiffening added
to the pilot side. That would add quite a bit of weight, reducing the
useful load and performance.

Now that Piper has gone to the overhead panel, the
left sidewall is clear of any "controls". (Is the fuel selector still
there? It could be relocated to the center console as it is on the
Saratoga.)

The fuel selector is under the dash area, ahead of where a door cutout
would be. I don't think that's the big problem that's kept Piper away from
dual doors.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, EDR posted:
The only single-engine piston aircraft that I can think of that Piper
has put a door on each side of the fuselage is the Tomahawk.

How about the Pacer / Tri Pacer?
Doesn't count... I am only considering low-wing monoque construction.

EDR wrote:
In article . net, Mike
Rapoport wrote:


It adds more weight than you might think. The area around the door has to
be reinforced. Make a paper box and feel how stiff it becomes when you tape
the final side and then cut a jarge hole on one side and note how much
stiffness it loses.


I understand the torsional rigidity issue.
Cessna does it, suspending the fuselage from the wing.
Beech did it with the Musketeer line.
I would think the wing on the bottom would make it easier because the
wing center section spar box and not the fuselage structure is not
carrying the load.
How much weight are we talking about? 25 pounds?
The weight's of Pipers and Cessna's seem pretty comparable across the
product lines.

Is the question more one of economics?

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.

John Roncallo

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

It adds more weight than you might think. The area around the door has
to
be reinforced. Make a paper box and feel how stiff it becomes when you
tape
the final side and then cut a jarge hole on one side and note how much
stiffness it loses.

I understand the torsional rigidity issue.
Cessna does it, suspending the fuselage from the wing.
Beech did it with the Musketeer line.
I would think the wing on the bottom would make it easier because the
wing center section spar box and not the fuselage structure is not
carrying the load.
How much weight are we talking about? 25 pounds?
The weight's of Pipers and Cessna's seem pretty comparable across the
product lines.

Is the question more one of economics?

With a high wing aircraft there is already additionaly structure present to
transfer the load of the wing to the gear. Of course, you are right, a
secon door adds cost. I don't know how much weight but these planes are
pretty limited already.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:
With a high wing aircraft there is already additionaly structure present to
transfer the load of the wing to the gear. Of course, you are right, a
secon door adds cost. I don't know how much weight but these planes are
pretty limited already.

Excellent point!
I totally didn't think of that structure.