High or low wing?

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

I can vouch for at least 125 ktas in my not-quite-mint-condition Warrior II
at the appropriate density altitude and 75% power, so please, no nonsense
about that being an imaginary POH number. A member of the Piper list who is
a professional bizjet pilot and a Warrior II owner gets 126-127 ktas,
probably because he takes better care of his plane and rigs it more cleanly.
I didn't do enough cross-country in the 172P to establish whether it also
meets its POH numbers.

Note that the difference may be due to factors that have nothing to do with
high-wing vs. low-wing. For example, the Warrior has particularly efficient
wheel fairings -- if you remove them, you lose 7 ktas.


All the best,


David