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 » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

High or low wing?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #26  
Old May 15th 04, 12:02 AM
G. Burkhart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks, George, for the detailed information on this. One question I have;
what is the fuel burn difference between the models/years?

-Greg B.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


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.



 




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
High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa? Jack Allison Owning 99 January 27th 05 11:10 AM
High wing vs low wing temp Owning 11 June 10th 04 02:36 AM
High Wing or Low Wing Bob Babcock Home Built 17 January 23rd 04 01:34 AM
End of High wing low wing search for me dan Home Built 7 January 11th 04 10:57 AM
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping Wright1902Glider Home Built 0 September 29th 03 03:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 PM.


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