High or low wing?

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

On Sat, 08 May 2004 22:30:39 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

We've been fighting for years on this subject with Jim Fisher and Jay
Honeck, trying to convince them that low-wingers are more masculine and
overall a better choice for real pilots, but they won't listen

Don't let him fool you, Doc Williams -- HECTOP is a known high-wing pilot
and Communist sympathizer. And we all know what them Com-simps are all
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that must be the reason whz he left Russia back then ...

about, now DON'T we....?

martin


--
If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
we call it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together
and decide to take money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
C J Campbell in rec.aviation.piloting

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 $$$!