One step closer to owning an Arrow

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"

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

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"

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

In article ,
wrote:

[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.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[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"

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************

In article ,
wrote:

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.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************