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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
Mike Rapoport wrote: How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds. Ahhhh!!! Now we're talking rough field! Just pump up the struts on them Pipers. But, I am guessing that structurally, what you are getting at is the load difference in having a landing gear box structure (Cessnas) vice the wing attachment to the spar (Pipers). BTW, IIRC, the Mitsubushi originally advertised short and rough field capability for the original MU-2's. Even created advertising photos with shots of the aircraft on grass with the outdoors backgrounds. Alas, we digress! Back to the original topic, two cockpit doors. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
It was you who substituted "rough" for "short"! I was just going along!
Short, rough field takoff and landing along with high cruise speed where indeed the design goals for the MU-2. The main feature used to accomplish these goals were full span double slotted fowler flaps. which eliminated the room for ailerons, hence the spoilers. Mike MU-2 "EDR" wrote in message ... In article .net, Mike Rapoport wrote: How much rough field experience do you have? Rough field is about prop clearance but it is also about gear strength and low stall speeds. Ahhhh!!! Now we're talking rough field! Just pump up the struts on them Pipers. But, I am guessing that structurally, what you are getting at is the load difference in having a landing gear box structure (Cessnas) vice the wing attachment to the spar (Pipers). BTW, IIRC, the Mitsubushi originally advertised short and rough field capability for the original MU-2's. Even created advertising photos with shots of the aircraft on grass with the outdoors backgrounds. Alas, we digress! Back to the original topic, two cockpit doors. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:GL%Fb.633459$Tr4.1633242@attbi_s03... How expensive would it have been to get a second door certified? I wonder why nobody has developed a second door STC if it is so desirable and easy to do. The whole success of the Cherokee line was based on commonality of parts and low cost. Right, but see EDR's post. Who cares how expensive the endeavor is, if it means you'll sell three times as many planes? On the other hand, there's no guarantee that a second door would have guaranteed this result -- but for many "less sprightly" pilots, the single door is a real handicap. 'Spose it (the one door affair) ruined the Bonanza as well? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It was you who substituted "rough" for "short"! I was just going along! "The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or 206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating off-airport and short field." Actually, I substituted "rough" for "off-airport". Short can apply to hard surface, but doesn't necessarily affect landing gear strength. (Just clarifying my thought process. :-) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"john smith" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: It was you who substituted "rough" for "short"! I was just going along! "The 235 was never going to sell as well as the 182 or 206 anyway which both have significant utility advantages operating off-airport and short field." Actually, I substituted "rough" for "off-airport". Short can apply to hard surface, but doesn't necessarily affect landing gear strength. (Just clarifying my thought process. :-) OK |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|