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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I might argue Chevy|Ford vs. Toyota. The Piper is more "normal," and thus
has simpler, more available, and I daresay cheaper parts. The Mooney is a better engineered plane (like a Cessna is) Just curious. In your view, how is a Cessna "better engineered" than a Piper? I've flown them both, seen the insides of both, and both brands appear to be almost identical in both performance and design, other than the wing being in the wrong place on Cessnas. And they have both proven, over time, to be extremely durable, classic designs. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
: Just curious. In your view, how is a Cessna "better engineered" than a : Piper? : I've flown them both, seen the insides of both, and both brands appear to be : almost identical in both performance and design, other than the wing being : in the wrong place on Cessnas. And they have both proven, over time, to be : extremely durable, classic designs. : -- Basically, Cessna made every model specific to its own target engineering specs. For example, the 170/172/175/177 are all different in many ways other than engines. Even within a specific model, things were changed a lot, resulting in lots of trial/error. Some design tweaks were good, some notsomuch. Ignoring the high/low wing issue, a 172 with 150hp engine is a lot better on a grass strip than a PA-28-140/150 since it's a little lighter and has a better airfoil. By the book, however, I believe a -140 cruises a bit faster, even though it takes more runway to get off. If you look at what Piper did, they had a design and pretty much stuck with it, changing things only as necessary. Consider the stabilator on Arrows vs. older -140's. Just additional chunks riveted on to make them wider. The -235 uses the same wing, just with fueltank/wingtip/wing extensions added. Consider: Pacer/Tri-Pacer/Colt Apache/Aztruck PA24-180/250/260/400/twin - all have the same wing spar, for example PA28-140/150/160/180/235 etc ... just bolt on the changes you need and pump 'em out. It makes for a less expensive product that may not be an optimal design for any one, but is adequate for all. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
The Cessna's have more utility. Many Cessna models are/were available with
factory seaplane kits. The 150, 170, 172, 180, 182, 185, 190, 195, &206 were all offered as factory seaplanes. How many aluminum Pipers are seaplanes? Answer, ZERO. Although there was "one" Cherokee 180 factory seaplane, I flew it and it was a dog. The landing gear is the weak spot on the Pipers. Used on unimproved strips the struts get pushed through the wing. That's why you see Cessna 206s and 207s in Alaska with 25,000 hrs on them. The 260 and 300 Cherokee "6s" have good load carrying capacity, but they are a pig to fly and to last at all need to be flown off pavement. You will NEVER see a Cherokee with that kind of time as a bush plane. The Cessnas have a better wing for short unimproved strips, and far superior flaps for short field approaches. Cessnas have "Paralift Flaps" big fowler flaps, more expensive to engineer and produce, and worth it. Further, the Cessnas all have better control harmony. Not that they feel good, but much better handling qualities than the Cherokee line. They all fly like trucks, just he Cherokee flys like a Mack truck and the Cessna like a Ford 150. Piper even worked to destroy the control harmony built into the first Warriors. They early Warriors had "Frise" ailerons and had pretty nice roll control, better than a comparable Cessna. But by the 1976(?) model year they were replaced by cheap piano hinge ailerons and the nice feel they had for two years went away. Karl "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:GwZXd.113513$4q6.87063@attbi_s01... I might argue Chevy|Ford vs. Toyota. The Piper is more "normal," and thus has simpler, more available, and I daresay cheaper parts. The Mooney is a better engineered plane (like a Cessna is) Just curious. In your view, how is a Cessna "better engineered" than a Piper? I've flown them both, seen the insides of both, and both brands appear to be almost identical in both performance and design, other than the wing being in the wrong place on Cessnas. And they have both proven, over time, to be extremely durable, classic designs. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... kage wrote: How many aluminum Pipers are seaplanes? Answer, ZERO. For more aluminum Piper seaplanes, check out: http://aztecnomad.com/ http://www.aticusa.com/genav/aztec_f...e_gallery.html Like I said, they're not popular, but they are out there. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) John, Clayton Scott pulled out the FIRST Aztec Nomad in 1965. He built it for my friend Jack Murdoch, who had just sold $55,000,000 of Tektronix stock. Jack funded the project and also owned the Piper distributorship for the West. I was able to fly the "Nomad" extensively in the late 60's until Jack died in a Super Cub. There is little comparison of the Aztec and the Cherokee. One has a proud history and the other is a pretty good trainer gone bad. Best, Karl |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
[snip]
... just bolt on the changes you need and pump 'em out. It makes for a less expensive product that may not be an optimal design for any one, but is adequate for all. Or it could have been they found something that worked and didn't try to break it. That's my take on it. As I was reading Cory's post, I couldn't help but wonder why he was describing Cessna's design changes as being "better". It seems Piper got it right, and just beefed things up as needed. BTW: Our 235 has many parts different from other Cherokees, just as a 182 has many parts different from a 172. They may look the same, but structurally they're somewhat different to handle the increased power, load and speed. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
: That's my take on it. As I was reading Cory's post, I couldn't help but
: wonder why he was describing Cessna's design changes as being "better". It : seems Piper got it right, and just beefed things up as needed. I didn't say "better," I said "better-engineered." That basically means that nothing is overbuilt by more than necessary. For an aircraft, it makes for one that's lighter and thus has better short/soft performance. The wing of the Cherokee was designed to be very cheap/easy to make, and have very docile stall characteristics, as you know. Unfortunately, that means its low-speed performance is pretty doggy. The "better-engineered" plane will tend to break easier than one that's overbuilt. Whether you consider one or the other "better" is personal preference. I, personally, consider Piper's "better" because they have similar performance for my current needs at a lower acquisition/maintenance cost point. : BTW: Our 235 has many parts different from other Cherokees, just as a 182 : has many parts different from a 172. They may look the same, but : structurally they're somewhat different to handle the increased power, load : and speed. : -- Different, yes. Substantially different, not really. Piper's solution to span the gamut was to add a additional stiffener here and there, or chunking on extensions. Cessna's solution was much more to design another whole airplane and have teething pains all over again (think Cardinal here, for example). -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
: I didn't say "better," I said "better-engineered." That basically
: means that : nothing is overbuilt by more than necessary. : "better-engineered" depends on the requirements. Engineering can : take into account price, producibility, future maintenance, ease of : use, ease of transition, etc. It's not just about the flying performance : of the airplane. Fair enough. I was referring to the flying attributes of the craft, not the none-performance related qualities you mentioned. Perhaps a better way to put it would be to say that brand C are better engineered according to flying requirements, but brand P are better engineered as a product (costs lower with similar utility). -Cory ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
So I invested my US$6°°.....GUESS WHAT!!!... less than ten days later, I received money | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | January 16th 05 06:48 AM |
Ongoing Arrow alternator/charging problem | Chuck | Owning | 6 | December 22nd 04 01:18 AM |
CF-105 AVRO Arrow etc. | Ed Majden | Military Aviation | 4 | February 22nd 04 07:00 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |