High or low wing?

C. Paul Williams, MD wrote:

There is so much wrong with our health care system in the US that I
have changed my long standing opposition to nationalized health
care...I now believe it is the only way every person in the US can get
health care. Just don't expect it to be the same level of on demand,
every test and drug, every complaint addressed care that it has been
for those with private insurance.
OK, I'm a newbie here, flame away!

No flames required.

Our system in Canada has its advantages and disadvantages -- for example,
family doctors can prescribe any tests they think necessary without getting
an insurer's permission first, but on the other hand we have a shortage of
family doctors in some areas, forcing some people to use walk-in clinics at
first when they move to a new town.

Hopefully the U.S. will find a way to emulate the good parts of Canada's
system -- we spend a lot less per person on health care for an equally
healthy population -- while avoiding some of the bad parts. And with luck,
U.S. doctors will still make enough to keep flying.


All the best,


David

Hopefully the U.S. will find a way to emulate the good parts of Canada's
system

This would be extremely difficult, given that Canadians depend upon
the existence of the U.S. health care system next door to provide fast
care, esp in cardiac cases.

Where will Americans go when health care is rationed? Well, there's
always India.

Noting the number of Canadians in American hospitals, a physician
entrepreneur in India has built a hospital to serve them for more
routine procedures, such as hip replacements. You can fly to India and
get your new hip in a few days instead of the months that would be
required in Canada, and for about a third of the price that would be
charged in the U.S.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver writes:

Where will Americans go when health care is rationed? Well, there's
always India.

What do you mean "when"? It's heavily rationed now.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,

Mine doesn't have any doors. Or one big clear one wrapped
around the top, depending on how you look at it.

Paul

Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time I climb
into my airplane it's raining. I have enough problem trying to keep the
passanger seat dry with a single door. I think your one big clear one would be
great for recreational flying, but the good news for me is, most of my time
gets paid for out of a corporate pocket, not my own, so utility in not so nice
conditions becomes important.

"tony" wrote in message
...

Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time
I climb into my airplane it's raining. I have enough problem trying to
keep the passanger seat dry with a single door.


You should have gone with a high wing. You could have kept your seats dry
and had another door as a bonus.

David Megginson wrote in message e.rogers.com...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

Do you have a source for that? It happens that I have the PIM's (generic
POH's) on my shelf for the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:

Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

My experience is the same as a CFI. The Cherokee is faster. The seats
are also a bit further apart (we're talking inches here). The Cherokee
is also more stable and doesn't flop around as much. Of course the
hardest part of doing stalls in a Cherokee is knowing when its
stalled. Its so tame its hard to detect. Most of them simply will not
give you a break with power on and the yoke back to the stops.

-Robert

the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:

Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

My experience is the same as a CFI. The Cherokee is faster. The seats
are also a bit further apart (we're talking inches here). The Cherokee
is also more stable and doesn't flop around as much. Of course the
hardest part of doing stalls in a Cherokee is knowing when its
stalled. Its so tame its hard to detect. Most of them simply will not
give you a break with power on and the yoke back to the stops.

-Robert

Isn't it also true that most high perforance SEL are low wing? I admit, in
spite of all their shortcomings, I do like Mooneys, and don't know of an
equivelent high wing airplane that matches its performance. Or, for that matter
(I'll retreat into my panic room and lock the door) a low winged one that's
commecrially available.

"tony" wrote in message
...
Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time I
climb
into my airplane it's raining.

You could always get someone to hold an umbrella for you...that's the way
the RAF guys do it, or so I'm told! :-) Probably got some cadets to do it.

Paul

Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time I
climb
into my airplane it's raining.

You could always get someone to hold an umbrella for you...that's the way
the RAF guys do it, or so I'm told! :-) Probably got some cadets to do it.

Paul


Paul even though I run my own company, if I asked one of my people to hold an
umbrella for me as I got in, then somehow get to my destination and hold it for
me when I got out, well. . .

I'll stick wioth the Mooney.

David Megginson wrote:

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

Do you have a source for that?

According to Clarke's "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Aircraft", the PA-28 was
introduced in 1961. At that time, the 172 had a 145hp engine, cruised at 130 mph, and
the difference between max gross and empty weight was 1040 lbs. The PA-28 had 150hp,
cruised at 130 mph, and the difference in the two weights was 945 lbs. With the
optional 160hp engine, cruise went up to 132 mph and capacity to 990 lbs for the
PA-28.

In 1963, the PA-28s with 180hp engines became available, which made the plane 11 mph
faster than the 172 (which still had 145hp). Carrying capacity also went up to 1175
lbs, which exceeded the Cessna's for the first time. Note that 150hp and 160hp
versions were still being produced, so whether a PA-28 built during the mid-60s can
out-perform a 172 of the same period, depends on the engine in the Piper.

In 1968, Cessna went to 150hp, which boosted cruise speed to 138 mph (still 3 mph
slower than the 180hp Piper but faster than the 160hp model). Capacity went down to
986 lbs.

In 1974, Piper introduced the PA-28-151. With 150hp, the cruise was 126 mph (12 mph
slower than the Cessna), but the plane could carry 1024 lbs.

In 1977, both Cessna and Piper went to 160 hp. For Cessna, this was the infamous "H"
series engine. Cruise for the Cessna stayed 138 mph and capacity stayed 986 lbs
(though max gross went up) Cruise for the Piper was 140 mph and capacity dropped to
972 lbs.

Piper continued to make 180hp planes, and the PA-28-161, introduced in 1976, cruises
at 148 mph and carries 1137 lbs, both being significantly higher values than those
for the 172 of the period.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.