Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By A le Ron
#1148900
Maybe it's just me. I don't think Piper improved the PA28 when the design improvements were made between early Cherokee models and later Warriors and Archers. :?: I strongly prefer the handling of the older aircraft.
User avatar
By Keef
#1148910
I don't think the taper wing did anything for cruise speed. Pete's G-AYAC cruises a knot or two faster than G-UTSY.
By flyingdoug
#1148912
I learned on and flew club Warrior-161s for a few years. Quite recently I purchased a share in a Cherokee 140. I think the Cherokee feels a bit nicer to fly, but maybe I'm just biased since it's part-mine ;)
#1148913
From a piloting pleasure viewpoint, the old plank-wing aircraft are probably more enjoyable.

From a safety viewpoint, the tapered wing aircraft are almost certainly safer, particularly about the stall. The stall warner tends to be more reliable (=goes off consistently before rather than during or after the stall), the pull force on the yoke to stall the aeroplane is substantially greater, and the aeroplane tends to stall "straight" whilst the plank wing aeroplane can often drop a wing substantially at the stall.

Some of the earlier plank wing aeroplanes also only had a visual (big red light) stall warner, whilst the later ones, and all the tapered wing aeroplanes have a good loud audible warner.


If you look at the historic analysis of stall/spin accidents done by GASCo, it showed that the plank wing PA28s were about average for the fleet - similar to say a C150 or C172, but the tapered wing aircraft showed NO stall/spin fatalities in 27+ years.

G
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1148917
A le Ron wrote:Maybe it's just me. I don't think Piper improved the PA28 when the design improvements were made between early Cherokee models and later Warriors and Archers. :?: I strongly prefer the handling of the older aircraft.



+1

Our Hershey Bar Arrer has a stall warner klaxon that can be heard 100yds away across the airfield on preflight checks (no I'm not kidding).

I guess I'm biased, but I have had plenty of experience of slab and taper wing in all their manifestations and I really do prefer the Hershey Bar.

Not least because I fly from a grass strip and the ability to drop it like a stone with no need to sideslip just by cutting the power comes in handy.

Float it doesn't.

But you can chuck 'em around a bit

Image

Peter :wink:
Last edited by PeteSpencer on Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Ridders
#1148921
Your not alone a le ron. I much prefer the handling characteristics of the shorter slab wingers.
As well as payload and handling differences, the cabin is smaller on slabwings.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1148923
Is that row of skids on the underside a standard fit or are you taking precautions against another wheels up landing? :twisted:
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1148925
flybymike wrote:Is that row of skids on the underside a standard fit or are you taking precautions against another wheels up landing? :twisted:


They are hardpoints for ordnance in our constant battle against Astra-driving chavs who keep ripping up our strip. :twisted:
User avatar
By MichaelP
#1148931
Slab wing or taper wing a Cherokee is a Cherokee...
They all sound like someone's dragging a load of metal dustbins across the grass when they land.
During the night of the October storm a Cherokee turned into wind and then drifted with the gusts across Redhill Aerodrome to end up in the mud without damage.
Lot's of aeroplanes were damaged but this Cherokee stayed stubbornly on the ground. It was the Hershey Bar wing version.

Stephen was going on and on yesterday about how he could plonk his Cherokee 140 anywhere... True. Close the throttle and fly a breeze block (lighter than most bricks but with more draggy wetted area).
My brother goes on and on about his new wingtips that add a few knots to the cruise and a bit of float to the landing hold-off, (Cherokee 140). I tell everyone it's the aviation equivalent of a K Car and my brother hates me for it!

I think the question is of how old an aeroplane you want?
I think one should go for a strong modern composite airframe :twisted:

If you don't like the tapered wing, what about the Piper T Tails! (Arrow IV, Lance, Seminole) a fashion statement?

I've flown Cherokee 140/150/160/180/Arrow II, and Warrior/Archer/Arrow III and I didn't notice much difference.
BTW the Cherokee 140 is cleared for spinning but the Warrior isn't... Might have a bearing on the spin accident statistics.
By Hotelfox
#1148935
A le Ron wrote:Maybe it's just me. I don't think Piper improved the PA28 when the design improvements were made between early Cherokee models and later Warriors and Archers. :?: I strongly prefer the handling of the older aircraft.


I believe the improvements were design, engineering and the aerodynamic aspect. I also think the tapered wing is more
pleasing to the eye.

I have flown both and I personally prefer the tapered wing, for much more control in the roll at slower speeds.

More here. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 0cDjEpr_hA
By Silvaire
#1148936
MichaelP wrote:I think the question is of how old an aeroplane you want?


The older the better... :D I was speaking to a guy today who learned how to fly in a Cherokee at our local airport, some time in the 70s. The aircraft went away for, oh, 35 years but now its back, apparently looking pretty spiffy and again teaching students at the same FBO where he flew it, 40 years later. There really is something to be said for infinite maintainability. So again, with that in mind, the older the better.

I've owned and flown etceterini because that's what I seem to enjoy, but if I were to buy a low wing Piper other than a Comanche, it'd be an original Hershey Bar winged Cherokee as designed by Fred Weick, John Thorp and others. Smart guys, simple aircraft.
User avatar
By RobertL
#1148940
Interesting on possible differences in stall/spin accidents although this may be due to other factors. Most of my recent time in PA28 has been in taper wing versions and this is a good, benign, predictable aircraft where you fly the wing all the way to landing. Slab versions (Arrow and -180) in my experience were very practical and may have tended to cruise faster than book speeds - whether this was due to my technique being somewhat agricultural, I do recall you tended to motor them down, flare, cut power and land...reasonably firmly. I don't recall wing drop at stall but may not have explored stalling that thoroughly. The slab wing -180 I flew was very efficient in cruise producing a consistent 125 KTAS which somewhat begged the question for the complexity of the Arrow, or the expense of new composites. The taper wing Warriors seem to be more like 105 KTAS. The -180 appears very good value as the Warrior is sought out for training and the -180 seem to be available at very low prices despite boasting the Lycoming 360 in its most bullet proof form.
User avatar
By KNT754G
#1148942
I had extreme diffuculty in forcing a slab wing 140 to drop a wing at the stall very recently.

The whole point of the redesigned wings (and tailplane of course) was to cope with the bigger fuselage and increased MAUW.

they probably could have just increased the wing span and still left it slab shaped but then a tepring wing is closer to the "ideal" elliptical wing shape.
User avatar
By Lowtimer
#1148961
I personally prefer a slab-wing 180 hp version, but for me it has to be be a late one with the big tail, throttle quadrant and low-mounted trim wheel. The early ones haven't really got enough elevator power.