Less Gloom

I'm not being cynical, I'm just trying to be a realist. Though I'm not
intimately familiar with the aircraft industry, I doubt that Piper can
sustain themselves as a new airplane manufacturer on a piston-engine
parts business. They were late to the game with modern avionics in
their airplanes, all of which are 30+ year old designs. They could
innovate in the piston market and compete with Cirrus and Cessna, but is
there really that much room? My guess is that Piper is staking the
future of the company on moving away from pistons (and ditching the high
liability, low return associated with them) to focus on the young VLJ
market. Honestly, I can't say that I wouldn't consider the same if I
were running the company.

I agree 100% with you. In fact, I fully understand why Bass and
Piper would want to cut ties with the piston market, and only pursue
jets. Hell, it's Economics 101, if their only goal is to make more
money.

But then, don't come to a fly-in for CHEROKEE OWNERS, for
chrissakes. Just say you're "unavailable", and leave it at that.
The guy is an idiot for giving that speech in that venue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com,
Jay Honeck wrote:
But then, don't come to a fly-in for CHEROKEE OWNERS, for
chrissakes. Just say you're "unavailable", and leave it at that.
The guy is an idiot for giving that speech in that venue.

Hey, if he doesn't show up, he's blowing you off. If he shows up and
doesn't reveal anything "exciting," then you're ripping him to shreds.
So he shows up and tells you what's going on at Piper, and you're still
not happy? Geez, you guys are like a bunch of women! Can't please you!

From what you've described, I agree that it sounds like his message was
not well-matched to his audience, but then again, I'm not sure that he
really had any other good news. You guys probably wanted to hear about
PIper's plans for a "Cirrus killer," which is obviously something that's
not in the cards.

In the end, I'm not too worried about the parts issue, even if PIper
were to stop selling parts tomorrow. Where there's a will (and money to
be made), there's a way. I honestly don't think Piper has much to gain
by trying to ground the existing piston fleet, nor do I think that they
would be successful in doing so.


JKG

Hey, if he doesn't show up, he's blowing you off. If he shows up and
doesn't reveal anything "exciting," then you're ripping him to shreds.
So he shows up and tells you what's going on at Piper, and you're still
not happy? Geez, you guys are like a bunch of women! Can't please you!

Let me try that again. Bass shouldn't have "not shown up" -- he simply
should never have made himself available for speechifying to a bunch
of piston-single owners in the first place. The CPA would have been
better off with a Rod Machado-type entertainer doing the talking --
and so would Piper.

But who knew?

From what you've described, I agree that it sounds like his message was
not well-matched to his audience, but then again, I'm not sure that he
really had any other good news. You guys probably wanted to hear about
PIper's plans for a "Cirrus killer," which is obviously something that's
not in the cards.

Piper's "solutions" in the piston market have been so bloody obvious
to long-term Piper owners that we ALL wonder what their problem is.
They needed to do two things ten years ago:

- Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.
- Build an O-540-powered Arrow

They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
by Cirrus and Cessna. It's been like watching Chevy try to turn the
Impala into a Camry-killer. Painful to watch.

Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

In the end, I'm not too worried about the parts issue, even if PIper
were to stop selling parts tomorrow. Where there's a will (and money to
be made), there's a way. I honestly don't think Piper has much to gain
by trying to ground the existing piston fleet, nor do I think that they
would be successful in doing so.

All one has to do is look at the plethora of plastic part
manufacturers to see what would happen if Piper stopped making parts
for old planes. There will always be small companies willing to jump
into the breach.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Piper's "solutions" in the piston market have been so bloody obvious
to long-term Piper owners that we ALL wonder what their problem is.
They needed to do two things ten years ago:

- Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.

Since the current design is integral to the structural integrity of the
cockpit, adding a door would not be a trivial change. In fact, it
might not be possible at all, and retain the current type certificate.
Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

- Build an O-540-powered Arrow

They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
by Cirrus and Cessna.

Ah, but note that Cirrus uses a fixed gear design. Maybe there just
wasn't enough of a demand for a big engined Arrow.


Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

Again, I don't think switching to flush-rivets would be a "simple
change". There's definitely a difference in strength. Note that even
companies like Laminar Flow utilize fairings and... basically... Bondo
for their wing smoothing. If it was trivial to switch to flush rivets,
I suspect some enterprising company would already hold the STC for it.

Unfortunately, there are FAA imposed limitations to what you can change
and still comply with the existing type certificate. Or else you're
opening yourself up to certifying an entirely new airframe, and all the
associated engineering costs.

I agree that many little complanies will probably pop up to support our
Cherokees if Piper does stop producing parts.

--- Jay


--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
. ..
Jay Honeck wrote:
Piper's "solutions" in the piston market have been so bloody obvious
to long-term Piper owners that we ALL wonder what their problem is.
They needed to do two things ten years ago:

- Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.

Since the current design is integral to the structural integrity of the
cockpit, adding a door would not be a trivial change. In fact, it
might not be possible at all, and retain the current type certificate.
Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

- Build an O-540-powered Arrow

They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
by Cirrus and Cessna.

Ah, but note that Cirrus uses a fixed gear design. Maybe there just
wasn't enough of a demand for a big engined Arrow.


Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

Again, I don't think switching to flush-rivets would be a "simple
change". There's definitely a difference in strength. Note that even
companies like Laminar Flow utilize fairings and... basically... Bondo
for their wing smoothing. If it was trivial to switch to flush rivets,
I suspect some enterprising company would already hold the STC for it.

Unfortunately, there are FAA imposed limitations to what you can change
and still comply with the existing type certificate. Or else you're
opening yourself up to certifying an entirely new airframe, and all the
associated engineering costs.

I agree that many little complanies will probably pop up to support our
Cherokees if Piper does stop producing parts.

--- Jay


I, for one, an not so sure about either the door or the flush rivets--which
I have been tole are actually stronger, although they are also more labor
intensive.

However, I believe that Jay Honeck's original gloom was correct, as was the
subsequent contributor who suggested that Piper might cease to manufacture
slow selling parts and simply sell the existing stocks as orders come in.
Automobile manufacturers do that all the time and the parts involved are
technically not safety related, although the case could be argued for some
parts like seat back positioning locks; but some really mundane things like
air conditioning thermostats and interior door handles can make it
difficult, or even impossible, to maintain a classic car in original
condition. OTOH, the automobile manufacturers continue to offer new
products which (sort of) fit the old market system.

Therefore, despite my preference for an American company, I am currently
betting on one of the foreign companies, such as Diamond, who include
trainers and entry level aircraft in their product mix, to take over Piper's
old place opposite Cessna.

Peter

Peter,

Therefore, despite my preference for an American company, I am currently
betting on one of the foreign companies, such as Diamond, who include
trainers and entry level aircraft in their product mix, to take over Piper's
old place opposite Cessna.


They have, if you count sales of new airplanes. By that measure, Piper is dead
- and has been for quite a while.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

- Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.

Since the current design is integral to the structural integrity of the
cockpit, adding a door would not be a trivial change. In fact, it
might not be possible at all, and retain the current type certificate.
Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

Piper knows how to build them (ie-Tomahawk).
It will add weight, as the framing required will require more AL.
Structurally, I don't see that there would be much difference. The
structure sits atop the wing. Will not the load be carried by monocoque
structure?

- Build an O-540-powered Arrow

They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
by Cirrus and Cessna.

Ah, but note that Cirrus uses a fixed gear design. Maybe there just
wasn't enough of a demand for a big engined Arrow.

TIO-360C - 210 hp - 379 lbs
TIO-540W1A5 - 235 hp - 400 lbs

The Arrow is heavy enough without adding more weight to the nose.

Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

Look at how/where the fillets join the wing and fuselage.
While a fillet at the leading edge might pose a problem with removing
the cowl, the trailing edge fillet would interfere with the flap
operation.
The last redesign of the Cherokee series wing was 30-years ago when they
changed from the Hershey bar to the taper wing.

TIO-360C - 210 hp - 379 lbs
TIO-540W1A5 - 235 hp - 400 lbs

The Arrow is heavy enough without adding more weight to the nose.

Interestingly, I found out today that Piper built several O-540
powered Arrow prototypes, back in 1980 -- with 300 horsepower! (It
was supposed to be a trainer for some Banana Republic's air force.)

One is still in the registry -- registered to Piper under the
Experimental category.

Damn, I'll bet that thing moves right along!

Look at how/where the fillets join the wing and fuselage.
While a fillet at the leading edge might pose a problem with removing
the cowl, the trailing edge fillet would interfere with the flap
operation.

I've got the wing fillet mod on Atlas. It poses no problems with
either the cowling or the flaps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Look at how/where the fillets join the wing and fuselage.
While a fillet at the leading edge might pose a problem with removing
the cowl, the trailing edge fillet would interfere with the flap
operation.

I've got the wing fillet mod on Atlas. It poses no problems with
either the cowling or the flaps.

I see a Knots 2U wing root fairing kit, but cannot a trailing edge
fairing kit.
To effectively do the job, you need both.
Peter Garrison had an excellent article on wing fairings in one of his
FLYING columns last year or the year before.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:39:18 -0500, Jay Masino wrote:

Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

I've never flown a Piper, but this is one of the issues that turns me off
of the line. Under normal circumstances, this means more work.
Following an emergency landing, that could be significant. I don't like
thinking about getting a kid out of the back seat away from the door.

But as I wrote, I've never tried it.

- Andrew