Search
Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

Cessna v. Piper trainers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-28-2009, 08:49 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryan1234's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Default

Originally Posted by Cubdriver View Post
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.
exactly... the curve just shifts to be encountered "earlier", no total gain. This can be slightly confusing in application because of the reduction in thrust required (a "gain" in useful thrust, so to speak), this could alter what is "felt". - As well as the increase in pressure around the static source lowers the indication of airspeed.


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.
ryan1234 is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 03:40 AM
  #42  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

Exactly, Ryan.

I have to go on the road now. Fly safe guys.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 05:01 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NoBeta's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: autopilot abuser
Posts: 166
Default

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.
NoBeta is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:17 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Default

Originally Posted by ryan1234 View Post
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
WHAT!?!?!? Absolutely 100 percent wrong sir. Cl max is the limiting factor for a wings ability to create lift. Meaning above Cl max the wing is stalled, Cl max has absolutely no bearing on the lift a wing is creating at any given point in time. Cl max only means the limit at which the wing can produce lift before being stalled, in most lift formula it is found by (2 pi AOA) just to keep things simple.

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".
An aircraft does not feel, no more than you are effected by the wind outside the bus on the ride to work. (not saying you take a bus)


If Cl goes up, lift goes up period. period.

basically you encounter higher lift conditions at a lower AoA
You agree with us, you just don't realize it. Look at a situation given this above statement: wings AOA 10 degrees producing 2000 lift to offset 2000 pounds. Now you said for any given AOA there is an increase (this increase is because of Cl) in lift when in ground effect. Leave the aircraft at 10 degrees now and put it in ground effect, by your statement lift has now gone up say 2100 pounds and you would balloon back out of ground effect if you left the AOA at 10 degrees.

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.
shdw is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 05:45 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryan1234's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Default

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

Last edited by ryan1234; 07-29-2009 at 08:56 PM. Reason: spelin
ryan1234 is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:05 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Default

Originally Posted by ryan1234 View Post
This conversation... albeit interestnig 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
Research that before you post an already answered question, that doesn't make a forum look professional. Do your research, ask questions if you have to after that but don't just throw up a thread asking "does lift go up in ground effect," that has been answered irrefutably. IMO you should understand that before you proceed.

Good luck sir.
shdw is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 04:07 AM
  #47  
Line Holder
 
cospilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: CRJ200, CRJ700, CRJ900, Left Seat
Posts: 71
Default 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
cospilot is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 07:47 PM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: PA-31/left, LJ31/right
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by shdw View Post
Research that before you post an already answered question, that doesn't make a forum look professional. IMO you should understand that before you proceed.

Good luck sir.
And this does look professional?


Originally Posted by shdw View Post
WHAT!?!?!? Absolutely 100 percent wrong sir
Think before YOU proceed
mshunter is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
39
12-21-2018 06:57 AM
cpatterson19
Part 135
25
02-17-2016 06:01 PM
Zayghami
Flight Schools and Training
31
11-04-2008 04:40 AM
TonyWilliams
Regional
5
09-04-2008 02:06 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices