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

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.

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.

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.

"G. Burkhart" wrote:

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

Clarke doesn't have fuel burn figures, but consumption is usually about 0.055 gallons
per horsepower.

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:11:53 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



"G. Burkhart" wrote:

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

Clarke doesn't have fuel burn figures, but consumption is usually about 0.055 gallons
per horsepower.

The old PA28-180, Hershey bar wing Cherokee 180 burns between 8 and 10
GPH, depending on how hard you push it.

It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
You can tell I prefer the 180:-))

It was a great short field plane and to me all of the Cherokees ride
the bumps much better than the Cessnas of the same size.

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

They're worse 'n ants.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
You can tell I prefer the 180:-))

The only immutable thing I've learned from airplane ownership is this:
There is no substitute for horsepower.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article Fpmpc.53004$xw3.3200075@attbi_s04, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
You can tell I prefer the 180:-))

The only immutable thing I've learned from airplane ownership is this:
There is no substitute for horsepower.

even more important:

aerodynamics (compare the twin Comanche to the Apache).

and, of course, money

--
Bob Noel

In article Fpmpc.53004$xw3.3200075@attbi_s04, Jay Honeck
wrote:

It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
You can tell I prefer the 180:-))

The only immutable thing I've learned from airplane ownership is this:
There is no substitute for horsepower.

.... and horsepower = $$$

And we all know there is no substitute for more $$$!