Pipers/Strutural Engineering/Doors

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.

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.

"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?

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. :-)

"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