transitioning to a Piper
S. Sherman
checked out in an Archer I. Can anyone give me advice on what to
expect as far as handling is concerned? I just bought the checklist
and POH but I'd like to know those 'esoteric' differences that the
manuals don't tell you about.
Thanks,
-Stacy
Kalle
The only thing I can think of that if you keep too high speed over the
threshold the 28 will float a bit longer than the 172. However, with proper
speed the float is not much to worry about.
Then off course it is the matter of separate tanks. There is no "both" so
change to most fuel is essential but that's in the poh...
"S. Sherman" <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com...
Jay Honeck
> threshold the 28 will float a bit longer than the 172. However, with
proper
> speed the float is not much to worry about.
Actually, your float will be minimal, compared to a 172. In my experience,
a Skyhawk will NEVER land if you come in too hot, versus the Cherokee (AKA:
the "Sled") which will arrive like a load of sand if you get too slow.
The Archer likes to land with a touch of power, which provides you with a
much smoother flare and arrival. In the Skyhawk you tend to chop the power
on downwind, and almost dead-stick it around the pattern till touchdown; in
the Archer you cut the power to 1700 RPM on downwind, and hold that until
very short final.
Suffice it to say that a stabilized approach and constant airspeed (about 80
mph) will usually be rewarded with a nice landing. Start hunting for
airspeed, though, and all bets are off. (Of course, this is true in any
aircraft, not just the Archer...)
Otherwise, the only other flying difference is that you can actually SEE the
airport environment while flying your pattern in the Archer! :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
Matthew Waugh
tanks and a fuel pump to turn on and off (although on the flip side, no
carb. heat to mess with either, although that's a religious debate I
suppose).
My opinion, the Piper's go where you put them, the Cessna's fly like you're
herding sheep, you get where you intended, it's just not as precise. Just an
opinion :-)
Mat
"S. Sherman" <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com...
Casey Hansen
much more solid on the landing, and just seemed for "buff" all around. Tight
aircraft.
Clear Skies,
Casey Hansen
PP-ASEL
"S. Sherman" <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com...
Jim Weir
{;-)
Jim
"S. Sherman" <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com...
S. Ramirez
Stacey,
Here is another difference that hasn't been mentioned above -- flaps.
The Archer has a manual flap stick in the middle between the two seats.
You directly control the flaps with it. I made a mistake in my early years
of learning to fly a Piper that if you decide on a go around, don't grab the
flap stick and just zero out the flaps. The airplane will nose down and
sink a little, giving you an adrenaline rush if you are close to the ground.
In a 172, the flaps are electrical and take time going up, thus giving you
time to adjust for the difference in lift and pitch control. When going
around in an Archer, knock it down by one notch at a time. I know this
sounds fundamental, but the first time I had to do a go around in the
Archer, I instinctly dropped the stick all the way, and I'm just warning you
about this.
I prefer the Archer II to the Cessna's when traveling cross country.
They are a good mix of useful load, power, efficiency and cost. I wish they
were faster, but then again, I wish all airplanes were faster. That's why
I'm building an Aerocanard!
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
Oviedo, FL USA
Bba
own subjective experience with a Cherokee 180, which is almost the same
thing:
When I did that same transition my initial impression was that the plane
glides like a brick and that it is very easy to get the stall horn blaring.
Other than that the flying caracteristics is very docile and very similar to
the 172. It was my impression (on both Cherokee 140 and Cherokee 180) that
the wing can drop very quickly during a stall and it pays to be ready for
footwork (never got the same impression in a Warrior with tapered wing). The
low wing flare is different due to ground effect, you need less flare in
order not to porpoise (sp?). Also the low wing IMHO can float a low ways
down the runway if you do not get the speed down. Feul pump and feul
selector is obviously different, learn where and how they fit into your
check lists.
Obviously you are going to read the book, but herewith my 2c worth:
Do your first landings on a long runway so that you can experiment with the
ground effect characteristics of the low wing.
Be prepared to initially carry 5kts more on approach until you are
comfortable with the characteristics of the Hershey Bar wing (the long
runway helps).
Limit yourself to 2 notches of flaps initially.
DO NOT FLARE, you will go up again unless your speed is just right. Try to
fly parrallel to the ground and slowly raise the nose to keep the plane from
touching down.
I bet that you will do great landings after just two tries. Enjoy the
different perspective, you can actually see the runway when turning base and
final wow!
Hope this helps
Ben Bothma, AL
PS: No, I do not prefer one over the other. High wing or low wing is fine by
me and each have their strong points.
Sherman" <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2002/02/19
Al Gilson
mean when they say, "retract the flaps slowly" on a go-around. With
electric flaps on a go-around you just tap the switch into the up position
and they retract slowly by themselves. With the manual (it's like a big
emergency brake handle between the seats) you can go from full flaps to no
flaps in a nanosecond.
In article <qotg8.18041$j93.5...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "S. Ramirez"
<sram...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
--
Al Gilson, Spokane WA USA
PP-ASEL
N3082U
Check out my Flying Page at:
http://www.ieway.com/gilson/flying.html
Codestrike
like to be landed slightly flat when compared to the Cessnas. On the flare,
pick a slightly nose high attitude, and hold it to touchdown.
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:p0qg8.8558$e07.1645@sccrnsc01...
RT
Codestrike <nos...@codestrike.com> wrote in message
news:GBEg8.34752$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I'd agree with this. The other major difference is that the low wing
Pipers
> like to be landed slightly flat when compared to the Cessnas. On the
flare,
> pick a slightly nose high attitude, and hold it to touchdown.
>
> "Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:p0qg8.8558$e07.1645@sccrnsc01...
> > > The only thing I can think of that if you keep too high speed over the
> > > threshold the 28 will float a bit longer than the 172. However, with
> > proper
> > > speed the float is not much to worry about.
Agree. In fact I think it's harder to go from low wing to high wing than
v.v.
From low wing to high wing you tend to drive the thing in like a tack,
forgetting you don't have that fluffy feather ground effect mattress.
Low-wing-only pilots really should have a restricted license. They have no
experience with proper, effective, flaps and they dive at the ground
expecting ground effect to save 'em etc, etc...
Hmmm, I suppose you could say that low wings are the kindergarten of
aircraft...
<snigger>
JG
I found it useful for my checkout on an Archer II.
S. Sherman <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com>...
Trip Farmer
ease itself down.............
Trip
In article <GBEg8.34752$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
nos...@codestrike.com says...
Dane Spearing
for all intents and purposes, the same as an Archer). In terms of
actually differences in flying, landing, etc...there really aren't any.
The time it took me to transition to the Cherokee was about 45 minutes.
The only "major" (if you could call them that) operational differences
are:
(1) Electric Boost Pump (make sure to turn it on during takeoff and
landing operations, and when switching tanks)
(2) No "both" position on the fuel selector, so you actually have to
think about switching between tanks.
The Cherokee/Archer is actually a bit easier to deal with than the
Cessnas on the ground, and for TO and Landing operations. The low wing
gets you into ground effect sooner, and the wider gear means its much
more stable once on the ground.
Honestly, I wouldn't sweat it. If you can fly a Cessna 172, you can fly
a Cherokee/Archer.
-- Dane
S. Sherman
-The Pipers tend to float more on landing than the cessnas (except for
one person who said they float less). I've heard this before. I
still have trouble floating in the Cessnas sometimes so I'm sure it
will take me a few tries.
-The fuel management is different since there is no both tanks
setting.
-The flaps act much faster since they're manual. I also noticed in
the POH that they go from 10, 25 and 40 degrees. Do most people land
with 25 degrees of flaps? That's what I do in the cessna. I really
have to drag it in with 30 degrees.
-Someone said they don't seem to glide as well as the cessnas but the
glide chart in the manual seems to say otherwise. Also, they look
more aerodynamic than the cessnas so they should glide better.
I noticed the people posting (and the POH) use MPH instead of knots
for everything. Is this how the airspeed indicator is marked? Why
can't they pick a measurement and stick with it? Nothing worse than
stalling close to the ground because you think you're going 60 kts!
I've also noticed in the POH that they warn against spins. Do the
pipers have a tendency to go into flat spins (not that I'm planning on
spinning it)?
The guy who's checking me out is my regular instructor and he owns a
Piper so he'll have some good advice for me. He told me it would
probably be two sessions. One for airwork and one for takeoffs and
landings. I'm really looking forward to expanding my repetiore and
having two more planes in the club to fly!
-Stacy
Steve Foley
RT <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:a5vnj9$v54$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
Roger Halstead
Now I'll add my two sense worth...<:-))
"S. Sherman" <ssher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbe83bda.02030...@posting.google.com...
> Thanks everyone for the advice. So, to summarize:
>
> -The Pipers tend to float more on landing than the cessnas (except for
> one person who said they float less).
Make that two... They slow quickly, they tend to have more momenturm and
are a bit nose heavy compared to a 172. You almost have to work to make one
float, but you can do it.
The Archer does not have the Hershey bar wing.
> I've heard this before. I
> still have trouble floating in the Cessnas sometimes so I'm sure it
> will take me a few tries.
>
> -The fuel management is different since there is no both tanks
> setting.
>
> -The flaps act much faster since they're manual. I also noticed in
> the POH that they go from 10, 25 and 40 degrees. Do most people land
> with 25 degrees of flaps? That's what I do in the cessna. I really
> have to drag it in with 30 degrees.
I put 375 hours on one and like the Deb, I always used full flaps...Where I
applied them depended on conditions.
>
> -Someone said they don't seem to glide as well as the cessnas but the
> glide chart in the manual seems to say otherwise. Also, they look
> more aerodynamic than the cessnas so they should glide better.
>
Maybe because they are going a bit faster. They will also come down hill
faster.
> I noticed the people posting (and the POH) use MPH instead of knots
> for everything. Is this how the airspeed indicator is marked? Why
If the POH is that way then the ASI "should" be, unless it's been replaced.
> can't they pick a measurement and stick with it? Nothing worse than
> stalling close to the ground because you think you're going 60 kts!
>
> I've also noticed in the POH that they warn against spins. Do the
> pipers have a tendency to go into flat spins (not that I'm planning on
> spinning it)?
Some, more than others.
I saw the video tape of an Archer with 4 guys in it. It was a training
flight from one of the schools in Florida. They spun it....Not wise with 4
aboard even for those approved for spins. It spun all the way to the water.
Hit flat. Killed all four.
The one I flew (Cherokee 180 and not an Archer) had a plackard that
said..."Intensional spin entry from full stall only". It spun nicely, but
that extra turn *after* you made the proper inputs takes some getting used
to. <:-))
>
> The guy who's checking me out is my regular instructor and he owns a
> Piper so he'll have some good advice for me. He told me it would
> probably be two sessions. One for airwork and one for takeoffs and
> landings. I'm really looking forward to expanding my repetiore and
> having two more planes in the club to fly!
>
As you are getting checked out by an instructor who is familiar with the
plane...Ask him these questions...He is the one who counts. <:-))
Keep the nose up.
One of the biggest problems with the Archers and 180s is pilots landing them
on the nose gear....They do tend to be a bit nose heavy, although they don't
feel like it.
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
> -Stacy
Jay Honeck
> aircraft...
Actually, I transitioned from low to high wing, and found the 172 almost
laughingly easy to land.
I mean, heck -- I could actually SEE the wheels (rather than "feel" for
them) touching the runway. How much easier can it get? ;)
Eric Paslick
(snip)
> -The flaps act much faster since they're manual. I also noticed in
> the POH that they go from 10, 25 and 40 degrees. Do most people land
> with 25 degrees of flaps? That's what I do in the cessna. I really
> have to drag it in with 30 degrees.
I find Cessna flaps to be more effective than the flaps on Cherokees. On a
172 I normally only use 20 degrees, while in a Piper I normally use full
flaps.
Eric Paslick
PP-ASEL
Mechanic-Powerplant
epas...@tampabay.rr.com
lam...@aol.com
RT
"Steve Foley" <steve...@NOSPAM.att.net> wrote in message
news:u88634e...@corp.supernews.com...
> Where is Jim Fisher and his 'manly low-wing' comments when we need him?
>
> RT <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:a5vnj9$v54$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> > aircraft...
> >
> > <snigger>
> >
I'm disappointed too - I thought he'd be on that like a shot :-)
Brian Wade
I transitioned from C172K to PA-28-181. I did not see anyone mention the
electrical system differences. In the PA-28, the gauge measures only the
current being sourced by the alternator, NOT whether the alternator is handling
the ship's entire electrical load. Make sure you understand this difference and
the consequences thereof. Also, the PA-28s I know about have a split master
switch. If yours does, find out why it is split, learn what the two halves
really do, and learn why it is a good idea to start the airplane with the
alternator side shut off. The Piper I fly has a port for external power; if
yours does, learn the procedure for using it. Regarding weight and balance,
learn the limitations for operating the airplane in utility category. Finally,
I did not see anyone mention the carburetor heat differences. In the C172K,
carburetor heat is definitely on the prelanding checklist. In the PA-28s it's a
no-no to activate carburetor heat as a routine prelanding measure. Learn why.
Have fun, and whatever you do, do not try to enter the cockpit from the pilot's
side of the airplane.
Cheers,
Brian Wade
Steve Robertson
Let me wade in with my 2 cents ...
I agree with those who have told you that if can fly a C172 that you will
have no trouble with a Cherokee.
The C172 will float forever if you are going too fast and/or don't use
full flaps. Same for the Cherokee.
Yes, you will have to deal with fuel management. However, you will rarely
ever need to use carb heat.
The Cherokee flaps are not as effective as those big barn doors on the
C172. However, full flaps on a Cherokee will give you a real nice sink
rate such that it will take a bit more muscle to keep the nose up on flair
than a C172. I like full flaps, but 25 deg. is okay, too. Use whatever
works for you.
Well, the Cherokee has a pretty good glide ratio, but despite what the
book might say, a 172 will win a glide contest any day.
Using knots or MPH is guided by how old the plane is. Older planes (before
the mid 70s or so) used MPH for everything. Newer ones use knots for
everything. When you fly a particular plane, use whatever is in your POH,
which normally will match the outer ring on your airspeed indicator. Then
you will never be confused about a critical speed while flying.
Cherokees are not prone to flat spinning. Some Cherokees are approved for
spins. I had a 1974 Cherokee 140 ("Hershey bar" wing) that allowed spins
within a certain weight and balance range. The newer Archers and Warriors
(with the tapered wing) are placarded against spins. I'm pretty sure the
reason for prohibition is that Piper intentionally didn't get the plane
certified for spins so as to discourage aerobatic activity - lawsuits you
know. Besides, with either an older Cherokee or a newer one, you will find
it practically impossible to stall much less spin. VERY gentle stall
characteristics. More like a loss of altitude straight ahead than a real
breaking stall like you get in a Cessna. You might not even get that in a
power-on departure situation. You might just get a real low rate of climb.
I predict that you will like the visibility, especially in the traffic
pattern, better in the Piper and that you will dislike the single door.
But if you like flying a 172, I think you will also like the Cherokee.
Best regards,
Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beech Musketeer Super III
RT
Brian Wade <b...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C84BD9A...@stny.rr.com...
,
> I did not see anyone mention the carburetor heat differences. In the
C172K,
> carburetor heat is definitely on the prelanding checklist. In the PA-28s
it's a
> no-no to activate carburetor heat as a routine prelanding measure.
>Learn why.
Yes, I'd like to...............
And the reason is?
And you use carb heat in a PA-28 when?
Robert Hall
when turning final.
Regards,
Robert Hall
ELLX
RT <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:a62lpc$149$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
Jack Cunniff
Answer: Whenever you suspect that existing engine roughness is caused by
carb icing.
This is a nice recurring thread - I did a check on groups.google.com,
which yielded this unwieldy URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Cherokee%20carb%20heat&as_epq=carb%20heat&as_ugroup=rec.aviation.*&num=100&hl=en
One of the discussions it brings up was this posting - note the date:
From: Geoff Peck (ge...@peck.com)
Subject: Re: removal of carb heat on final
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
View this article only
Date: 1992-06-02 20:44:30 PST
Ah, well, it looks like it's time for Ye Old Carb Heat Revival Session.
<SNIP to pertinent section>
"Carb heat is part of the prelanding checklist for 152s, 172s, etc. Carb
heat is explicitly *not* part of the prelanding checklist in Piper
Cherokees -- the carburetor position on the engine compartment and its air
intake system are designed differently from those in Cessnas. In
Cherokees, carb heat is to be applied *only as required*. By putting carb
heat on in a Cherokee unnecessarily, you risk power loss and/or engine
damage."
-end googled article-
So, this was a recurring thread on rec.aviation TEN YEARS ago.
(gawd, isn't groups.google.com (ex DejaNews) something?)
-Jack Cunniff
Kalle
> the POH that they go from 10, 25 and 40 degrees. Do most people land
> with 25 degrees of flaps? That's what I do in the cessna. I really
> have to drag it in with 30 degrees.
>
>
Personally I am not very fond of the practice among pilots to use less than
full flaps. The slower you fly when you make the touch down the less wear on
the material. I know... now 2000 other pilots think I am an idiot congesting
the final with slow approach. I feel however that if I give the last notch
10-15 seconds before threshold I will not be in the way much longer than if
not. The problem of drag is easily solved with a bit steeper approach angle.
The only time I feel that less than full flaps is appropriate is with heavy
crosswind in order to give the ailerons more authority.
This is a technique that makes me happy. I am sure the other technique gets
some other pilots happy.
Regards
K-A Edén
S. Sherman
one. :-)
BTW, if you really want to get Piper Brain Overload, take a look at
this link someone sent me:
http://www.whittsflying.com/Pagec4Piper.htm
Someone mentioned I'd like the view in the pattern better. I never
thought of that. I was thinking of not being able to see as much of
the ground. I think the one door will be a pain in the butt though...
I'm looking forward to flying the pipers. They're nicer looking than
most of our 172. We have the Archer I for $68 and hour and I think
the Warrior is $58.
-Stacy
Dane Spearing <speari...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<spearingdane-79AC...@pith.uoregon.edu>...
Brian Wade
instructions in the Pilot's Operating Handbook.
BKW
Brian Wade
I'd like to suggest that you focus on the operating instructions and
checklists you read in the Pilot's Operating Handbook. Opinions
expressed on the Internet are not necessarily those of the aircraft
manufacturer :)
BKW
Dane Spearing
as per the POH. There are subtle differences between the operation of a
Cherokee and a C172 (such as only using carb heat when you have evidence
of carb icing).
A previous poster mentioned that the view in the pattern is better.
This is indeed quite true. And, surprisingly, ground visibility is
actually quite good. I certainly don't have any trouble picking out my
visual check points just because there is a wing under me.
-- Dane
James M. Knox
> Your club is asking you to operate the PA-28 contrary to the
> instructions in the Pilot's Operating Handbook.
Well, in this case, only "sort of." <G>
The POH says to use carb heat only when carb ice is suspected, and does not
recommend routine use of it simply on landing descent (unlike most
Cessna's). The primary reason is that the placement of the carb and
plumbing on most Cherokees, unlike a C-152 or C-172, is not as likely to
pick up carb ice.
However, in response to a law suit a few years ago, Piper sent out an
amended "recommendation" on the use of carb heat. It much more strongly
recommended the prophylactic use of carb heat - and would be in like with
what was described earlier.
In true lawyer weasel-wording, this was NOT issued as a mandatory update to
the POH, but as an "operation of aircraft" service bulletin (which makes it
legally non-existent, but valid CYA in court). It specifically did NOT
prohibit NOT using carb heat in this fashion. As wording only a lawyer
could love. Nor did it require inclusion of the notice into the POH...
-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721 jk...@trisoft.com
-----------------------------------------------