Cessna v. Piper trainers
#41
To revisit an analogy I used earlier- if you are being taxed less you cannot really say that you make any more money. You are simply getting more of what you already made. Same thing here- the wing is not making any more lift, it is actually making a bit less. But it is losing a lot less to downwash behind the wing. You can say it is making more lift but this is not really true. It has simply stopped losing so much kinetic energy to wingtip vortices. The net lift is greater although the total lift is less.
There seems to be a misconception that an increase in a specifc C/L is a total increase in lift... this is not true... total lift can only be increased when C/Lmax is increased
Last edited by ryan1234; 07-28-2009 at 09:34 PM.
#43
WOW....some cat fight-ish stuff going on here...
Back on topic...
My experiance has been the low wings can float quite a bit in ground effect and mainly a result of excess airspeed as already stated. One thing I like about the piper I flew was visibility. I liked actually seeing where I was turning especially from base to final.
The cessnas I flew were great aircraft too. I don't care for the ground handling charactaristics though....I just did not like the feel of the nose wheel steering. Sometimes I felt like I was jamming the rudder pedal all the way in just to turn.
I loved the stability of the piper pa 28 series I flew. Had full stabilator, full trim and full power and she would'nt break......nose up about 20 degrees and nothin......she would just hang on and at 7000 and high density alt...
Both good aircraft IMO.
Back on topic...
My experiance has been the low wings can float quite a bit in ground effect and mainly a result of excess airspeed as already stated. One thing I like about the piper I flew was visibility. I liked actually seeing where I was turning especially from base to final.
The cessnas I flew were great aircraft too. I don't care for the ground handling charactaristics though....I just did not like the feel of the nose wheel steering. Sometimes I felt like I was jamming the rudder pedal all the way in just to turn.
I loved the stability of the piper pa 28 series I flew. Had full stabilator, full trim and full power and she would'nt break......nose up about 20 degrees and nothin......she would just hang on and at 7000 and high density alt...
Both good aircraft IMO.
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Also, increase in Cl is unquestionably an increase in total lift. Lift = velocity squared * wing area * air density * coefficient of lift. How can Cl go up, a value in the lift formula increase, but lift not increase?
this could alter what is "felt".
If Cl goes up, lift goes up period. period.
basically you encounter higher lift conditions at a lower AoA
So lift did go up didn't it? You reduced AOA to keep lift from going up in your example, but that doesn't mean it didn't go up. So, you see you agree, you just have some misconceptions in there.
#45
This conversation... albeit interesting... has gone out of the scope of Cessna vs. Piper... so I'm going to start a new thread about lift in ground effect in the technical section...
Cheers
Cheers
Last edited by ryan1234; 07-29-2009 at 08:56 PM. Reason: spelin
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Good luck sir.
#47
Cessna 171 vs. Piper PA-28
There are several reasons for the Cessna being the predominate flight training airplane. Maintenance, ease of flying, and price. But one of the things that I do not like is the visibility. The high wing is an issue for me. The Piper PA-28 though is easy to get into and out of and provides good visibility. I also like the way the PA-28 feels in flight. It feels more solid both from a control perspective as well as a construction perspective.
When I first started flying, I was in Cessna's. Then when I went to FlightSafety Academy, I started flying the PA-28.
I'll fly either airplane if I have a choice but when it comes to recreational flying or flight instructing I prefere the Piper PA-28.
One other note, Cessna wanted their product out there so they really pushed the marketing. Piper was not as serious focusing more on the higher-end pistons and turboprops, hence the large number of Cessna's around airports. There are probably other reasons though too.
Regards,
Jeffrey
When I first started flying, I was in Cessna's. Then when I went to FlightSafety Academy, I started flying the PA-28.
I'll fly either airplane if I have a choice but when it comes to recreational flying or flight instructing I prefere the Piper PA-28.
One other note, Cessna wanted their product out there so they really pushed the marketing. Piper was not as serious focusing more on the higher-end pistons and turboprops, hence the large number of Cessna's around airports. There are probably other reasons though too.
Regards,
Jeffrey
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Think before YOU proceed
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM