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