Good Used 4 Seaters

In article ,
wrote:

: slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)

Even *I* don't know if I buy that. The Hershey-bar wing is pretty slug-like
compared to the 172. It helps in turbulence, stall
characteristics, and crosswind, but not in climb-related things. In the
early-mid 70's are you talking about taper-wing? Then that might
be the case (dunno... I'm only calibrated to Hershey-wing PA28's).

As was explained to me (years ago, when the change to taper-wings
occurred), the Hershey-bar wing is a better climber, up to 10,000 feet.
The taper-wing advantage takes over above 10,000.

In article , Blanche
wrote:


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.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

john smith wrote:


As was explained to me (years ago, when the change to taper-wings
occurred), the Hershey-bar wing is a better climber, up to 10,000 feet.
The taper-wing advantage takes over above 10,000.



Yeah, you get 200 fpm instead of 150.

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?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Welcome to Global Warming, everyone. It appears to be globally
warmer, and if that isn't Global Warming, then What The Fsck Is?
-- Mike Andrews

I'm 5' 10" and can easily walk under the entire wing of (my) 1960 C-172 A...
d²


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ...
: 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?
:
:
: --
: Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
: Welcome to Global Warming, everyone. It appears to be globally
: warmer, and if that isn't Global Warming, then What The Fsck Is?
: -- Mike Andrews

..Blueskies. wrote:
I'm 5' 10" and can easily walk under the entire wing of (my) 1960 C-172 A...
d²


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ...
:
: Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?
:
:

I'm 5'11 and got may fair share of diamond shaped injuries when I was
renting 172's prior to buying my Six. My only real beef with a high
wing (or a T tail) is getting ice or snow off of it.

wrote:
: slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)

Even *I* don't know if I buy that. The Hershey-bar wing is pretty
slug-like compared to the 172. It helps in turbulence, stall
characteristics, and crosswind, but not in climb-related things. In the
early-mid 70's are you talking about taper-wing? Then that might
be the case (dunno... I'm only calibrated to Hershey-wing PA28's).

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.

Example, according to the 180G docs, absolute is 15K and service is 13K.
Yet in the similar docs for my 180D, the numbers are 16K/14K. I've been
up above 14.5K many times (Leadville, for example).

I dunno...

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

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

Nope. I own a cherokee.

And I'm not a tall guy.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Hi Roy!

Your observations make sense....

The structures of the 2 aircraft are very different in the details.
Our Warrior seems to have more braces/gussets throughout its structure
than the Cessna..

And it ..well ..just feels "solid" in all aspects of operation.

....not an engineering analysis....just layman observation..

Obviously, both are more than adequate in the strength department..

But they sure "feel" different, both in the air and on the ground

Dave


On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:48:54 GMT, "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.

HAH!

No argument there..

Our Warrior is snuggled in among a Tiger, a 441, Navaho, RV6, a
WestWind jet and a Hughes 300..

All low wing. (except the Hughes) ...

It is a LONG walk accross the hangar floor!



Dave


On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:56:17 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , Blanche
wrote:


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.