Good Used 4 Seaters

: Cory:

: I, too, have the cherokee 180D (hershey bar). The published ceiling
: is 16K (ok, on a 1969 document) but I've had it up to 15K. I've
: noticed that the newer the cherokee, the lower the ceiling due to
: more weight of the aircraft. Overall max weight of 2400 has
: remained the same.

Remember that these published service ceilings are alegedly at max gross. I really doubt there are many 180's that can
actually make it up 15K at full gross. I've had mine up there before, but it was only with 2 people and 3/4 tanks... had about
50-100fpm is all.

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane
Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate
the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but
all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through
under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet
if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad
news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to
the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary
structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case
you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles
are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been
only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years
ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural
engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did
the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he
lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed
with minimum weight in mind.

Bud


Roy N5804F wrote:
Dave,

I also appreciated an almost unbiased comparison between the C172 &
PA28-161.
What has really got my interest are the comments you make about the airframe
structural differences.
Obviously both aircraft were designed very well as I am not aware of any
AD's that have addressed major structural problems with either breed.
However,the Cherokee takes all the landing loads through its wing structure
whereas the Skyhawk takes landing loads onto its fuselage.
Your comments polarizes my view, that the Cherokee needs and [by your
observations] may be structural stronger than the Cessna.
I was never really sure why I personally preferred to fly a Cherokee but you
may have eluded to a significant difference between the airframes, that had
failed to sink in to my grey matter.
Thanks for an objective posting on this volatile subject.

Roy
Piper Archer N5804F



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Good Used 4 Seaters


Only by comparison of these two aircraft..

The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.

The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
wings level flight without pilot input.

One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
to speak...

We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....

BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...

Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small
sample)

Cheers!

Dave

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
wrote:

Marco Leon wrote:

snip


Dave wrote:

Hehe.. sure..

At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way.

snip


Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
that!!)


snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.



"Dave" wrote in message
...
Only by comparison of these two aircraft..

The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.

The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
wings level flight without pilot input.

One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
to speak...

We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....

BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...

Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small
sample)

Cheers!

Dave

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
wrote:

Marco Leon wrote:

snip


Dave wrote:

Hehe.. sure..

At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way.

snip


Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
that!!)


snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.

wrote:
Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane
Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate
the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but
all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through
under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet
if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad
news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to
the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary
structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case
you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles
are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been
only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years
ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural
engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did
the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he
lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed
with minimum weight in mind.

All true, and I'm a Mooney owner ('81 M20J) and fan. In fairness,
though, I think it's important to point out that the Mooney structure is
steel instead of aluminum, and therefore more vulnerable to moisture
related corrosion.

DGB

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Bob Noel said:

as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing
aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to
walk around in the hangar.


Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?



I do!

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

The fuselage is steel tube on a Mooney, but the strength of the wing
and landing gear attachment at the main spar, I am pretty sure is all
aluminum, just like most light GA aircraft. The only problem having the
gear attached to the wing on the Mooney, is it causes fuel tank leaks
due to the pounding of hard landings on the wet wing it uses for fuel.
My Cardinal has a wet wing, and they do not have as much problem with
tank leaks as Mooneys since the gear is attached far away from the
wing.

Bud

Dave Butler wrote:
wrote:
Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane
Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate
the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but
all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through
under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet
if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad
news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to
the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary
structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case
you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles
are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been
only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years
ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural
engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did
the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he
lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed
with minimum weight in mind.

All true, and I'm a Mooney owner ('81 M20J) and fan. In fairness,
though, I think it's important to point out that the Mooney structure is
steel instead of aluminum, and therefore more vulnerable to moisture
related corrosion.

DGB