Which airplane?

I'm about as cheap as they come, and I believe that the best bang-for-the-buck
in a relatively useful airplane is the Cherokee.

Thanks for the replies. You're right about the Cherokee being the best
bang for the buck. Been looking around and the competitors seem to be
C172, Cherokee, Bonanza and Mooney shares. Flyable Cherokees can be had
for 25k, but I suppose I should expect more cost than that.

At least for range, lower wing aircraft seem to be generally better,
despite the difficulty in low speed handling and stalls (in simulators
anyway). The Cherokee in X-plane was nice, stalled the best of low-wing
planes I've seen. However the glide ratio was godaweful bad compared to
a C172 although the Cherokee is more streamlined and has similar wing
loading (I think). Why is the glide ratio so bad? Doing a gilmi glider
in this thing will be tough, considering these are old planes.

So I was looking for kit planes to compare (I'd rather pay upto 5k than
build for half a year). Saw the CH 640 and CH 801. CH640 has more
range, but the 801 holds all the other cards. The 801 is TWICE the
price of the 701 (which can about hold 3 people IMHO) and requires
engines that are 3 times the price of the Jabiru/Rotax that the 701 can
take. Makes me wanna go for a 2-seater.

Speaking of 2-seaters, there are C150s on the market at 14K. Almost
half that of a Cherokee.

Big question: how 'tough' are the low wings compared to the high wings?
The CH 801 looks tough and I'm hoping to visit the far north, where not
all landing strips are metalled or well maintained. The Cherokee has
low wheels with fairings which disqualifies it for a bushplane.

Since these are Kit EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, can I put a Jabiru 100hp on
an 801 and expect it to fly, but with climb rates of ~400? Even better
can the 701 be made to carry 800lbs?

The Cessna 150/152 doesn't have much
range or load carrying capability for two people. The 172 has a price premium because
"everyone learned to fly in them." The Cherokee 140 (150hp) is $5-10k less than a
172, holds more gas (than a comparable year, anyway), and goes negligibly faster
requiring slightly more runway, and climbs slightly slower. The low compression ones
(150hp) are happiest on mogas (87 or better), and even some of the high-compression
ones can run 91 mogas (like our 180 hp). There are planes that go faster, haul more,
have more range, or cost less... but you usually have to pick one or two from that
list for any one plane. It'll take three people without having to be too careful, or
potentially four for a trip around the local area if you "plan light" carefully.

Just for the record, my partner and I just got back from a cross-country
(Southwest Virginia to Juneau, Alaska!) in our -180. Ran it at 60-65% power the whole
way (so it's like a 150hp at 75%)... 8.0-8.5 gph and about 112-115 kts TAS.

If you go experimental/kit, it's a whole 'nother ballgame of performance. As
far as the mogas, it depends on what you're going to do with it. If you will use it
primarily for travel, it's much less interesting, since you likely won't be able to
get mogas where you are going... so you've got at best the fillup on your home end.
You also need to make sure the fuel in your area doesn't have alcohol in it... none of
hte mogas STCs allow it. All that said, we've been very happy with ours, since we've
done lots of training with it. Perfect situation for mogas. Lots of local and
relatively short cross-countries, so you can just BYOG. I got my whole instrument
rating with about 30 hours of mogas.


-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Ghazan Haider wrote:
: Thanks for the replies. You're right about the Cherokee being the best
: bang for the buck. Been looking around and the competitors seem to be
: C172, Cherokee, Bonanza and Mooney shares. Flyable Cherokees can be had
: for 25k, but I suppose I should expect more cost than that.

I haven't looked at prices much since about 3 years ago when we bought our
Cherokee, but I would imagine a minimally equipped mid-high time PA28-140 could be had
for $25k

: At least for range, lower wing aircraft seem to be generally better,
: despite the difficulty in low speed handling and stalls (in simulators
: anyway). The Cherokee in X-plane was nice, stalled the best of low-wing
: planes I've seen. However the glide ratio was godaweful bad compared to
: a C172 although the Cherokee is more streamlined and has similar wing
: loading (I think). Why is the glide ratio so bad? Doing a gilmi glider
: in this thing will be tough, considering these are old planes.

The Cherokee has an extremely benign stall. I almost hesistate to say that it
*does* stall... you have to really provoke it with a aft loading to even get it to
break. It usually just shudders a bit, drops the nose, and auto-recovers while
sinking. The wing is a very stubby airfoil and is fairly symmetrical. Piper designed
the plane to be easy to fly (which it is). The glide ratio by the book is allegedly
the same as 172, (8:1 or so IIRC), but in reality it is not. It glides like a
polished brick. In practice, it's mostly a matter of calibrating your internal
"power-off glide distance" to a Cherokee, though. Not bad once you get dialed in.
Adding wingtips and AMR&D vortex generators help the sink rate a fair bit. Making it
that benign to stall had the tradeoff of bad sink a little more draggy airfoil.


: So I was looking for kit planes to compare (I'd rather pay upto 5k than
: build for half a year). Saw the CH 640 and CH 801. CH640 has more
: range, but the 801 holds all the other cards. The 801 is TWICE the
: price of the 701 (which can about hold 3 people IMHO) and requires
: engines that are 3 times the price of the Jabiru/Rotax that the 701 can
: take. Makes me wanna go for a 2-seater.

I can't speak for kit planes, except that probably without exception they will
have more impressive numbers than 40 year old certified designs.

: Speaking of 2-seaters, there are C150s on the market at 14K. Almost
: half that of a Cherokee.

That seems a bit low, even for C150s. I would think mid-high teens for a
comparably ragged-out C150. Remember that a C150 is not the same as a C152. 100 hp
vs. 110, less fuel range, etc. The C150 does fly happily on mogas with nothing more
than a sticker, though.

: Big question: how 'tough' are the low wings compared to the high wings?
: The CH 801 looks tough and I'm hoping to visit the far north, where not
: all landing strips are metalled or well maintained. The Cherokee has
: low wheels with fairings which disqualifies it for a bushplane.

Most $25k Cherokees won't have fairings. Ours doesn't and I routinely fly
into and out of grass strips. I had a few gravel strips on our trip to Alaska. I
certainly wouldn't call it a "bushplane," but grass strips of 2000' are doable if
you're careful. Of course ours is 180hp, so that helps get rid of some "pucker
factor."

: Since these are Kit EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, can I put a Jabiru 100hp on
: an 801 and expect it to fly, but with climb rates of ~400? Even better
: can the 701 be made to carry 800lbs?

Can't help you there.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************