Whaddya call yourself?
Jay Honeck
predecessor to the Dakota. (It's identical to the Dakota, but with the
hershey-bar wing.) Piper only manufactured this model under this name for a
couple of years.
In speaking with a previous Pathfinder owner, it came to light that they
always used "Dakota" in/with their call-sign (as in "Dakota 56993") rather
than "Pathfinder", simply because most ATC personnel didn't know what the
heck a "Pathfinder" was.
So whaddya think? Is this kosher, or do you guys stick with the precise
moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Mike O'Malley
news:9M7v8.2026$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
it in the Skylane, the Arrow, the Warrior, the Archer, or the Skyhawk, they
always end up calling me "November xxx" or just "xxx"
Sometimes, they end up calling me either "Cherokee" or "Cessna". Its only
that rare occasion that they actually remember that this P28A is a Warrior
or a Cherokee or an Archer.
Never the less, that doesn't stop me from calling up as "Skylane 7480Q" or
"Archer 4145X" at least the first time. After that I'm relegated to
"November 80Q" This seems especially prevelant on the bigger
approach/center frequencies. Chicago Center will usually do it that way,
Champaign Approach will call you "Buttwipe 80Q" if you wanted I bet.
(Really; to make a rambling post even longer, a friend of mine called up
Champaign from 15 S in one of the school's archers. The local controller
all know our callsigns, and most even recognize our voices. Well, he got
this one back "Aircraft calling to the south, what was your name?" His
reply? "Well, my name is Dana, but I'm flying 46G" Rest of the flight,
right down to the taxi clearance was "Dana, turn left 270... Dana, you're
cleared to land 18" ect.)
--
Mike O'Malley
\--==[o]==--/
mailto:moma...@uiuc.edu
school: (xxx)390-4142
AIM id omalmi
"You can land anywhere... ONCE"
"You can only TIE the record for flying low"
Dave Katz
know about, since it doesn't really matter other than giving them a
rough idea of your capabilities. Otherwise, be prepared to do a lot
of explaining on frequency (though you will quickly shorten it to
something along the lines of, "It's like a Dakota...")
As an owner of a relatively uncommon airplane (a Cirrus) I have done a
lot of explaining, though there are enough of them now so that most
controllers have heard of them. Getting asked a bunch of questions by
the SFO tower controller while transitioning over the airport was
pretty unique.
Save your breath, and time on frequency...
JerryK
Piper, Dakota, etc. It is all relative speed and performance, and most GA
planes are pretty slow compared to the turbofan aircraft the airlines fly.
I use "twin Cessna" if I am flying a 310, 340 or 421. Performance of these
A/C are with in 25-30% or so and I am a slow roadbloack for an airliner.
jerry
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9M7v8.2026$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
SeeAndAvoid
During the 'long search', this type definetely was on my list, and I
remember thinking of being able to use a type name that isnt in
great numbers. The controllers who dont care what you are wont
ask you much beyond 'and whats that?'. Us that are pilots or,
God forbid, aviation enthusiasts, will strike up a conversation.
Well, except me, I know what a Pathfinder is, ahh, I'd probably
tie up the freq anyway. You'll educate several controllers along
the way.
Something I see on IFR flight plans is something in
the remarks (we dont get strips or flight plans on VFR filed
plans) denoting what it is if there is often confusion. And all
of those guys, remarks or not, are usually proud of what they
have and want to talk about it. Im getting to know a few
of them after working them on a regular basis, examples:
this really rare Baron, I think it was a BE56? Told me how
many of those types were left, which # his was, etc. Cirrus's,
as someone wrote, are still pretty rare, I think I've only talked
to one or two, both times at great length which the pilot was
more than happy to do. Some of the oddest types are
military, usually from other countries, and usually they arent
too talkative.
Chris
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9M7v8.2026$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
SeeAndAvoid
> (Really; to make a rambling post even longer, a friend of mine called up
> Champaign from 15 S in one of the school's archers. The local controller
> all know our callsigns, and most even recognize our voices. Well, he got
> this one back "Aircraft calling to the south, what was your name?" His
> reply? "Well, my name is Dana, but I'm flying 46G" Rest of the flight,
> right down to the taxi clearance was "Dana, turn left 270... Dana, you're
> cleared to land 18" ect.)
I'm on a first name basis with a couple pilots, and often they, or I,
dont even use callsigns or facility names. Only problem is the
other jokers on freq, thinking if they know your name and they
want something you'll give it to them, which I usually do anyway.
What I laugh about are the pilots who for some reason put their
name, and often phone number, in the remarks of the flight plan.
Thats on every strip and in the computer throughout the entire
flight. After saying the guys name I usually do him a favor and
let him in on to the gag, suggesting he not publish that info for
all to see. My favorite remarks entry yet was: "2 dogs that love
to fly". I think it was a twin cessna, probably pressurized, we
chatted all the way through the sector on that one, nice guy. I
didnt think he literally meant dogs, but he did, forgot the breed.
Chris
another rambler
Bob Noel
<jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> So, we've purchased a 1974 Piper Pathfinder, which is a PA28-235, the
> predecessor to the Dakota. (It's identical to the Dakota, but with the
> hershey-bar wing.) Piper only manufactured this model under this name
> for a
> couple of years.
As far as ATC cares, you are a cherokee. Sure, you are faster than
my 140, but not fast enough that ATC would care... heck, most won't
even notice.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me... )
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Ron Natalie
Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> So whaddya think? Is this kosher, or do you guys stick with the precise
> moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
You can still use Cherokee, but you are now entitled to drop the "POS"
prefix :-)
Ron Natalie
Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> So, we've purchased a 1974 Piper Pathfinder, which is a PA28-235, the
> predecessor to the Dakota. (It's identical to the Dakota, but with the
> hershey-bar wing.) Piper only manufactured this model under this name for a
> couple of years.
It's even more fun with the Navion. For normal calls everything is
fine, but when they need to put me in the computer, I've always found
it easier to volunteer the type code (which at least now since the
ICAO-ization is NAVI, before it was N145). Woe be it to the controller
who attempts to look it up. It's listed under Rockwell for arcane reasons,
which I guess now might more properly be listed under Boeing.
Paul Tomblin
>So, we've purchased a 1974 Piper Pathfinder, which is a PA28-235, the
>predecessor to the Dakota. (It's identical to the Dakota, but with the
>hershey-bar wing.) Piper only manufactured this model under this name for a
>couple of years.
Our club has a Warrior, two Archers, a Dakota and a Lance. I don't fly
the Lance, so I don't know about it, but I say "Cherokee" on call up on
any of the others. Do you think a controller who is trying to fit you in
with the 737s and DC-10s really cares if you have 180hp or 235hp? All he
cares about is that you're slow, and you look "Cherokee-ish" if he's a
tower controller looking out the window.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Q: Do you know what the death rate around here is?
A: One per person.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9M7v8.2026$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
The PA-28-235 was introduced in 1964 and was called "Cherokee 235". In 1973
it was renamed "Cherokee Charger", the following year it became "Cherokee
Pathfinder". Like most aircraft, it went through a variety of minor changes
over the years, but after fifteen years of production a late '70s "Cherokee
Pathfinder" wasn't very different from a mid '60s "Cherokee 235". The only
major change to the line was the semi-tapered wing in 1979, the designation
became PA-28-236 and the name was changed to "Dakota".
If I was in your place, I'd call myself "Cherokee".
B. Jensen
If you really want to save yourself a lot of hassle, just call it a Cherokee to
ATC. I know it's much more than a Warrior or Archer, but on the outside and at
a distance, it looks like a Cherokee to them and they know what a Cherokee is.
Most will "probably" know what a Dakota is, but I can guarantee you most of
them have no clue what a Pathfinder is.
BJ
Carl & Leslie Ellis
I fly a Taylorcraft F-19 (TF19). I doubt ATC would have a clue it's a
"Sportsman". I'll stick with Taylorcraft.
- Carl -
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
George R. Patterson III
Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> So whaddya think? Is this kosher, or do you guys stick with the precise
> moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
After hearing question marks from ATC in response to identifying my Maule
as an "MX-7-160", I checked the FAA list of IDs. The closest thing they
have in their list is "M-7", and that's what I use. At one time, I was
worried that controllers might expect my plane to perform like an M-7,
but one of the controllers who posts here assured me that they don't have
that sort of info. So, as far as ATC is concerned, I have a "Maule M-7."
George Patterson, N3162Q.
jm...@crosslink.net
-- Jay
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Jay and Teresa Masino __!__ _/
_/ jm...@crosslink.net ___(_)___ _/
_/http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Jeremy Huffman
> All he
> cares about is that you're slow, and you look "Cherokee-ish" if he's a
> tower controller looking out the window.
Its also nice to know that it looks "Cherokee-ish" when the controller
gives you a traffic alert - that way you are more certain you are
seeing the traffic he is telling you about.
Mike Weller
If it is a low wing Piper-looking airplane, it's a Cherokee. Works fine for
140s through 300s.
If it is a high wing Cessna-looking airplane it's a Cessna. Works fine for
120s through 210s.
Is anyone going to fly close enough to you to spill the beans that your
"supposed" Pathfinder is actually a Dogsitter-236?
Mike Weller
Jay Honeck
1973
> it was renamed "Cherokee Charger", the following year it became "Cherokee
> Pathfinder". Like most aircraft, it went through a variety of minor
changes
> over the years, but after fifteen years of production a late '70s
"Cherokee
> Pathfinder" wasn't very different from a mid '60s "Cherokee 235".
Steve, I don't believe this is true. The mid-60s 235s were quite different,
being quite a bit smaller, with five inches less passenger compartment, a
smaller elevator and (I think) wingspan -- and NO luggage compartment.
Basically a Cherokee 140 with a gigantic engine.
These changes to the line were by far the most significant; certainly more
of a "major change" than the conversion to the tapered wing, which was
largely a marketing department thing. (It looked cooler.)
I know the '67 (?) model we looked at was not even half as useful at the '74
we purchased, despite having the same engine. Without the aforementioned
modifications, there is simply no place to put stuff or people -- which
negates the positive effect of the larger six-cylinder O-540 engine, and
leaves the older bird essentially a two-place-plus-kids plane.
Larry Dighera
<jjhonec...@mchsi.com> (Jay Honeck) wrote in Message ID
<9M7v8.2026$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
>So, we've purchased a 1974 Piper Pathfinder, which is a PA28-235, the
>predecessor to the Dakota. (It's identical to the Dakota, but with the
>hershey-bar wing.) Piper only manufactured this model under this name for a
>couple of years.
I'm happy to hear you saw the light.
>In speaking with a previous Pathfinder owner, it came to light that they
>always used "Dakota" in/with their call-sign (as in "Dakota 56993") rather
>than "Pathfinder", simply because most ATC personnel didn't know what the
>heck a "Pathfinder" was.
>
>So whaddya think? Is this kosher, or do you guys stick with the precise
>moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
You're a 'PA28B.' But, I found that 'Cherokee' was most widely
accepted by ATC.
But, when you out perform the Bonanza attempting to overtake you, they
get suspicious. :-)
Larry Dighera
From the Blue Book:
Piper first manufactured the PA-28-235 and PA28-235-B in 1964 through
1967. The length of those aircraft is 23' 8" (cramped rear passenger
leg room). Recommended cruise speed is 136 knots, service ceiling of
14,500', and a gross weight of 2,900 lbs and empty weight of 1,435
lbs, or 1,465 lbs useable (30 lbs more than its empty weight!).
The PA-28-235(C,D,E,F) Cherokees were manufactured from 1968 to 1972.
The length of those aircraft is 23' 7" (cramped rear passenger leg
room). All else is similar to the PA-28-235s manufactured earlier
except takeoff and landing distances increased about 130' to 320'.
In 1973 & 1974 the name of the PA-28-235 was changed to the Charger,
and from 1975 to 1977 it was called the Pathfinder. All PA-28s
manufactured in 1973 onward added 6" to the fuselage length making
them 24' 1". This made the rear seating considerably more
comfortable.
The Charger's gross weight was increased 100 lbs to 3,000 lbs which
resulted in slightly longer takeoff and landing rolls; the service
ceiling was reduced to 12,000', and the recommended cruise speed was
reduced 2 knots to 134 knots.
To overcome these reduced performance specifications, Piper reduced
the standard fuel tanks from 84 gallons to 62 gallons and called it
the Pathfinder. That resulted in improved performance over the
Charger in service ceiling (13,500'), but reduced recommend cruise
speed to 126 knots (for some reason).
So, while the Charger and Pathfinder offer more rear seat leg-room,
they sacrifice some performance.
The first PA-28-236 Dakota was manufactured in 1979, and production
continued through 1994. The length of these is 24' 8", or 11" longer
than the first PA-28-235s and 7" longer than the PA-28s manufactured
between 1973-1977. Recommend cruise speed was increased to 143 knots
and the service ceiling was increased to 17,500'.
There was also a 200 HP Turbo Dakota (PA-28-201T) manufactured for
only one year in 1979 with a service ceiling of 20,000' and
recommended cruise speed of 154 knots, and a length of 25' (or 1' 4"
more than the first PA-28-235).
Dan Luke
[snip]
> What I laugh about are the pilots who for some reason put their
> name, and often phone number, in the remarks of the flight plan.
> Thats on every strip and in the computer throughout the entire
> flight.
DUATS probably did it without the pilots' knowledge. I forget how it
happens; something in the setup, I think.
--
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Dan Luke
> So whaddya think? Is this kosher, or do you guys stick with the
precise
> moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
I've given up using "Cutlass" because:
Controllers can't remember it and end up saying "Cardinal".
Some military flights have the callsign "Cutlass ----".
Some controllers mis-hear it as "Douglas".
It's not important, anyway.
Just use "Cherokee". (Even though "Pathfinder" is cooler!)
Jim Fisher
> moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
You paid the money for the plane and the salaries of the ATC guy. If you
wanna call it a Pathfinder then, by golly, call it a Pathfinder and do it
proudly!
--
Jim Fisher
Cherokee 180
www.EAAChapter615.org
Warren Jones
I appreciate the salary so much that if you call yourself "Pathfinder", by
golly, I will too. :-)
I won't forget, either. When you check in, if I don't know what you are, I
will jot it down in the "remarks" section of your flight progress strip. I
haven't worked a Pathfinder yet that has called himself that, but I do it
all the time with the PA32 types, for example. Never know if those are
gonna be "Cherokee", "Lance" or "Saratoga". Whatever they call themselves,
I write it down in shorthand on the strip. Like "Lan" or "Sara" etc. Then
I don't forget. If I'm not busy, you'll get a barrage of airplane-type
questions that will add "Pathfinder" to my mental airplane database. Trust
me, it's for a good cause :-).
I rarely use "November" unless that's all the pilot will give me to work
with. The reason is tactical. For one thing, I find that you pilots
usually respond to my calls the*first* time when I call you what you call
yourself., like "Pathfinder", instead of just another "November" in a sea of
Novembers. I work a whole bunch of airplanes, and anything I can do to keep
from having to repeat a transmission gives me another leg up on my traffic.
Secondly, every little blip that I take a hand-off on at Center looks
exactly alike. I never see you guys except electronically. I correlate
what kind of airplane you are (by what you call yourself) with your
data-block, and then add it to my mental traffic picture. That helps me
visualize what you can do to help me keep you separated, and keeps me from
being surprised. I hate surprises...
Regards,
Chip, ZTL
"Jim Fisher" <Spammoff...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:Z%ov8.112830$gA5.8...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Tina Marie
>moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
I fly a Tripacer. For some reason, about 25% of controllers mis-hear
this as "Citation". While it gets me great service, it makes for a
lot of excess chatter as I try to get it straightened out.
I've tried a few things. "PA-22" always has to be repeated - they
seem to parse it as part of my tail number, not a type, on initial callup.
"Pacer" worked for a while, but I got chewed out twice by towers who
saw the nosewheel and said I shouldn't call myself a PA-20 when I'm
really a PA-22. So I stopped. Now, I always call up as "Piper 3653P",
and when asked for the type I say "PA-22 Tripacer". I haven't had
any trouble with that.
So, my advice? Try stuff, and figure out what seems to work, and
stick wth it.
Tina Marie
--
Sometimes I think the Game of Life (tm) is missing a few pieces and one of
the dice is lost under the refrigerator. -- PapaBear, in alt.poly.
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina
Paul Tomblin
>I rarely use "November" unless that's all the pilot will give me to work
>with. The reason is tactical. For one thing, I find that you pilots
Coming back from Canada, I tend to use "Cherokee November 38290" a lot
until I get back out of the "November" habit. Canadian controllers can
get shirty if you leave off the "November".
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
If Microsoft made your letter box, all some one would have to do is write
"Burn the house down" on a piece of paper and post it through the door,
and your house would go up in flames. - David Ruck
Warren Jones
"Paul Tomblin" <ptom...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:a9lb4h$nnh$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, "Warren Jones" <gu...@mindspring.com> said:
> >I rarely use "November" unless that's all the pilot will give me to work
> >with. The reason is tactical. For one thing, I find that you pilots
>
> Coming back from Canada, I tend to use "Cherokee November 38290" a lot
> until I get back out of the "November" habit. Canadian controllers can
> get shirty if you leave off the "November".
>
>
Hmmm, not very sporting of them. I drop the "Charlie" off of their
callsigns as soon as I can. Cherokee C-FJWG becomes "Cherokee Juliet
Whiskey Golf" right quick. I don't understand why our friends to the north
would get shirty at all over using "November". Can they not drop the
"Charlie" up there as well? I've worked civil-registered Mexican, British,
and German planes (that I can remember). They never seem disconcerted when
I drop the X-Ray, Golf, Delta prefixes etc. Are abbreviated callsigns not
done in the Great White North?
Regards,
Chip, ZTL
Steven P. McNicoll
"Tina Marie" <ti...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:B75AA7518299C649.33E78944...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> I fly a Tripacer. For some reason, about 25% of controllers mis-hear
> this as "Citation".
>
Well, since they have similar performance, that shouldn't cause any problem.
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>In article <9M7v8.2026$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
>Jay Honeck <jjhonec...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>So whaddya think? Is this kosher, or do you guys stick with the precise
>>moniker of your bird when calling ATC?
>
>I fly a Tripacer. For some reason, about 25% of controllers mis-hear
>this as "Citation". While it gets me great service, it makes for a
>lot of excess chatter as I try to get it straightened out.
Tina--
At least you're getting upgraded! I get downgraded. I call in as
"Skylane 6594M" and often get referred to as a Skyhawk. Or called out
as traffic to another aircraft as "a 172". Sometimes I want to
comment on how my airspeed and climb rate are about 40% better than a
Skyhawk. But I don't. :)
--Ron
Jay Honeck
> To overcome these reduced performance specifications, Piper reduced
> the standard fuel tanks from 84 gallons to 62 gallons and called it
> the Pathfinder. That resulted in improved performance over the
> Charger in service ceiling (13,500'), but reduced recommend cruise
> speed to 126 knots (for some reason).
Ours has the "optional" (but almost universal) tip tanks, raising the fuel
capacity back up to 84 gallons. The 12K' service ceiling is strangely low
on the Pathfinder, especially given its outstanding climb performance.
Admittedly we were light in our test flights, but we maintained 1,000 fpm
climb directly to 8,000 feet. I find it hard to believe that it's going to
magically (and suddenly) poop out in another 4,000 feet!
Now our airframe has all the speed mods available for it, but I don't think
that makes much difference in ultimate ceiling. I've talked to a former
owner of this very plane, who says he flew it routinely at 15,000 feet
effortlessly -- so go figure. Something ain't right in the Blue Book?
> So, while the Charger and Pathfinder offer more rear seat leg-room,
> they sacrifice some performance.
With the speed mods, ours trues out at around 147 knots. We were hitting
the yellow arc while maintaining a 1,000 fpm climb rate!
> The first PA-28-236 Dakota was manufactured in 1979, and production
> continued through 1994. The length of these is 24' 8", or 11" longer
> than the first PA-28-235s and 7" longer than the PA-28s manufactured
> between 1973-1977. Recommend cruise speed was increased to 143 knots
> and the service ceiling was increased to 17,500'.
That's interesting. What changed that the Dakota was lengthened another 7"?
I've seen Dakotas, and they don't look any different than the Pathfinder,
inside the cabin anyway.
> There was also a 200 HP Turbo Dakota (PA-28-201T) manufactured for
> only one year in 1979 with a service ceiling of 20,000' and
> recommended cruise speed of 154 knots, and a length of 25' (or 1' 4"
> more than the first PA-28-235).
I've heard this engine installation is to be avoided at all costs. Lower
horsepower, higher stress, shorter TBO...
Jay Honeck
> golly, I will too. :-)
Thanks for your insight, Warren!
As a controller, you get to be the ultimate arbiter of a question posted
earlier in this thread:
Does the speed difference of our Pathfinder (147 knots) versus a Cherokee
140 (110 knots) matter a hoot to you guys? Does knowing I'm a "Pathfinder"
versus a "Cherokee" help you with spacing, or is it an inconsequential
difference in speed?
33% faster SOUNDS like a lot to me -- but does it matter when you're looking
at other "blips" going three times faster?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Steve, I don't believe this is true. The mid-60s 235s were quite
> different, being quite a bit smaller, with five inches less passenger
> compartment,
>
I've never been in a PA-28-235 of any year, I'm going only by the "Standard
Catalog of Piper Single Engine Aircraft" compiled by Jim Cavanaugh. It
gives a length of 284 9/16" for a 1964-65 Cherokee 235 and 24' 1.08" for a
1977 Cherokee Pathfinder. The difference is only 4 1/2" and judging by the
photos the later model's spinner accounts for most of that, if not all. If
there's a longer passenger compartment in the Cherokee Pathfinder it doesn't
appear to have been achieved by lengthening the fuselage. The Notes section
for the 1974-76 Cherokee Pathfinder states, "The Cherokee Pathfinder,
introduced in 1974, was a Cherokee Charger with only minor changes."
Perhaps the rear cabin bulkhead was moved aft at some point, but if it had
been you'd think that would have been considered noteworthy.
>
> a smaller elevator
>
According to the same source, the stabilator of the 1964 Cherokee 235 had
span of 130" and chord of 30". Those dimensions remained the same through
the 1972 Cherokee 235. The stabilator span of the 1973 Cherokee Charger was
increased by 24.6" to 12' 10.6", chord remained the same, and the 1977
Cherokee Pathfinder had the same dimensions.
I paged through the book to check other members of the PA-28 family, they
all got the bigger stabilator in 1973.
>
> and (I think) wingspan
>
Wingspan was unchanged from 1964 through 1977.
>
> -- and NO luggage compartment.
> Basically a Cherokee 140 with a gigantic engine.
>
The same reference indicates every PA-28-235 built had one baggage door, it
had to open to some kind of baggage compartment. It also indicates the
PA-28-140 had a baggage door. I've flown a few Cherokee 140s, I can confirm
they had a baggage door on the right side and a baggage area behind the
seat.
>
> These changes to the line were by far the most significant; certainly more
> of a "major change" than the conversion to the tapered wing, which was
> largely a marketing department thing. (It looked cooler.)
>
Tails are swept, rear windows are added, wingtips and gear pants are changed
for purely marketing reasons, often to the detriment of the airplane. The
semi-tapered wing was a significant change, especially the early ones that
had Friese ailerons.
>
> I know the '67 (?) model we looked at was not even half as useful at the
> '74 we purchased, despite having the same engine. Without the
aforementioned
> modifications, there is simply no place to put stuff or people -- which
> negates the positive effect of the larger six-cylinder O-540 engine, and
> leaves the older bird essentially a two-place-plus-kids plane.
>
Well, you've looked at both and I've seen neither, so I can't dispute that.
There was a 100 pound increase in gross weight between 1967 and 1974, but as
the average empty weight increased by 130 pounds it seems the older one
would be able to haul a bit more stuff than the newer.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:fpurbukohvabqb9su...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>
> You're a 'PA28B.'
>
That should be P28B.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3cbe9cba....@news.west.cox.net...
>
> At least you're getting upgraded! I get downgraded. I call in as
> "Skylane 6594M" and often get referred to as a Skyhawk. Or called out
> as traffic to another aircraft as "a 172". Sometimes I want to
> comment on how my airspeed and climb rate are about 40% better than a
> Skyhawk. But I don't. :)
>
40% better? Standard aircraft?
Larry Dighera
>Thanks, Larry, for the info.
You're welcome. I originally posted a follow up article to your
"Landing Procedures for Skylanes?" message thread on February 12th,
(Message-ID: <15li6ukgamtgo4knh...@4ax.com>) with this
information.
>My comments are interspersed, below...
>
>> To overcome these reduced performance specifications, Piper reduced
>> the standard fuel tanks from 84 gallons to 62 gallons and called it
>> the Pathfinder. That resulted in improved performance over the
>> Charger in service ceiling (13,500'), but reduced recommend cruise
>> speed to 126 knots (for some reason).
>
>Ours has the "optional" (but almost universal) tip tanks, raising the fuel
>capacity back up to 84 gallons. The 12K' service ceiling is strangely low
>on the Pathfinder, especially given its outstanding climb performance.
The service ceiling was probably reduced by the addition of the
tip-tank option. But, that doesn't really explain what caused it to
be reduced originally. What are the empty and gross weights of your
particular aircraft? The way I remember it, mine was 1,479 lbs empty
and 1,321 lbs useful, for 2,800 lbs gross weight.
>Admittedly we were light in our test flights, but we maintained 1,000 fpm
>climb directly to 8,000 feet. I find it hard to believe that it's going to
>magically (and suddenly) poop out in another 4,000 feet!
Agreed. At ~600 lbs under gross, my PA28-235 would climb to 14,500'
with the VSI at ~400 to ~500 FPM.
>Now our airframe has all the speed mods available for it, but I don't think
>that makes much difference in ultimate ceiling.
The speed-mods could significantly raise the service ceiling, as they
reduce drag, thus making the power which was formarly used to make the
slipstream more turblent avilable for climb. There is drooped leading
edge STOL cuff that I would expect to have that effect too.
(I did a rather complete study of the modifications avilable for the
PA28-235 a in 2000. Because it's in WordPerfect format, I can't post
it here, but would be happy to e-mail it to anyone requesting a copy.)
>I've talked to a former
>owner of this very plane, who says he flew it routinely at 15,000 feet
>effortlessly -- so go figure. Something ain't right in the Blue Book?
The blue Blue Book specifications are a rough distilation and contain
many compromises. That said, I haven't found any more complete source
for so many different aircraft types. Of course, the Type Certificate
certification information is on-line (too busy to look up the URL
now).
>> So, while the Charger and Pathfinder offer more rear seat leg-room,
>> they sacrifice some performance.
>
>With the speed mods, ours trues out at around 147 knots. We were hitting
>the yellow arc while maintaining a 1,000 fpm climb rate!
My 1964 PA28-235 would indicate about 130+ knots. It looks like those
speed mods are working.
>> The first PA-28-236 Dakota was manufactured in 1979, and production
>> continued through 1994. The length of these is 24' 8", or 11" longer
>> than the first PA-28-235s and 7" longer than the PA-28s manufactured
>> between 1973-1977. Recommend cruise speed was increased to 143 knots
>> and the service ceiling was increased to 17,500'.
>
>That's interesting. What changed that the Dakota was lengthened another 7"?
>I've seen Dakotas, and they don't look any different than the Pathfinder,
>inside the cabin anyway.
The specification may be in error. I just quoted the Blue Book
verbatum. Perhaps someone who owns one can contribute another data
point, or the Type Certificate could be consulted.
>> There was also a 200 HP Turbo Dakota (PA-28-201T) manufactured for
>> only one year in 1979 with a service ceiling of 20,000' and
>> recommended cruise speed of 154 knots, and a length of 25' (or 1' 4"
>> more than the first PA-28-235).
>
>I've heard this engine installation is to be avoided at all costs. Lower
>horsepower, higher stress, shorter TBO...
Roger. But, just imagin the rate of climb achieveable at high
elevation airports on a hot day. :-)
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Does the speed difference of our Pathfinder (147 knots) versus a Cherokee
> 140 (110 knots) matter a hoot to you guys? Does knowing I'm a
"Pathfinder"
> versus a "Cherokee" help you with spacing, or is it an inconsequential
> difference in speed?
>
> 33% faster SOUNDS like a lot to me -- but does it matter when you're
looking
> at other "blips" going three times faster?
>
But these aircraft shouldn't be filed with the same type designator. The
PA-28-140 through PA-28-181 should be filed P28A, the PA-28-201T, -235,
and -236 should be filed as P28B. Also, the filed TAS does appear on
enroute strips.
Larry Dighera
>Thanks, Larry, for the info.
You're welcome. I originally posted a follow up article to your
"Landing Procedures for Skylanes?" message thread on February 12th,
(Message-ID: <15li6ukgamtgo4knh...@4ax.com>) with this
information.
>My comments are interspersed, below...
>
>> To overcome these reduced performance specifications, Piper reduced
>> the standard fuel tanks from 84 gallons to 62 gallons and called it
>> the Pathfinder. That resulted in improved performance over the
>> Charger in service ceiling (13,500'), but reduced recommend cruise
>> speed to 126 knots (for some reason).
>
>Ours has the "optional" (but almost universal) tip tanks, raising the fuel
>capacity back up to 84 gallons. The 12K' service ceiling is strangely low
>on the Pathfinder, especially given its outstanding climb performance.
The service ceiling was probably reduced by the addition of the
tip-tank option. But, that doesn't really explain what caused it to
be reduced originally. What are the empty and gross weights of your
particular aircraft? The way I remember it, mine was 1,479 lbs empty
and 1,321 lbs useful, for 2,800 lbs gross weight.
>Admittedly we were light in our test flights, but we maintained 1,000 fpm
>climb directly to 8,000 feet. I find it hard to believe that it's going to
>magically (and suddenly) poop out in another 4,000 feet!
Agreed. At ~600 lbs under gross, my PA28-235 would climb to 14,500'
with the VSI at ~400 to ~500 FPM.
>Now our airframe has all the speed mods available for it, but I don't think
>that makes much difference in ultimate ceiling.
The speed-mods could significantly raise the service ceiling, as they
reduce drag, thus making the power which was formerly used to make the
slipstream more turbulent available for climb. There is drooped
leading edge STOL cuff that I would expect to have that effect too.
(I did a rather complete study of the modifications available for the
PA28-235 a in 2000. Because it's in WordPerfect format, I can't post
it here, but would be happy to e-mail it to anyone requesting a copy.)
>I've talked to a former
>owner of this very plane, who says he flew it routinely at 15,000 feet
>effortlessly -- so go figure. Something ain't right in the Blue Book?
The Blue Book specifications are a rough distillation and contain many
compromises. That said, I haven't found any more complete source for
so many different aircraft types. Of course, the Type Certificate
certification information is on-line (too busy to look up the URL
now).
>> So, while the Charger and Pathfinder offer more rear seat leg-room,
>> they sacrifice some performance.
>
>With the speed mods, ours trues out at around 147 knots. We were hitting
>the yellow arc while maintaining a 1,000 fpm climb rate!
My 1964 PA28-235 would indicate about 130+ knots. It looks like those
speed mods are working.
>> The first PA-28-236 Dakota was manufactured in 1979, and production
>> continued through 1994. The length of these is 24' 8", or 11" longer
>> than the first PA-28-235s and 7" longer than the PA-28s manufactured
>> between 1973-1977. Recommend cruise speed was increased to 143 knots
>> and the service ceiling was increased to 17,500'.
>
>That's interesting. What changed that the Dakota was lengthened another 7"?
>I've seen Dakotas, and they don't look any different than the Pathfinder,
>inside the cabin anyway.
The specification may be in error. I just quoted the Blue Book
verbatim. Perhaps someone who owns one can contribute another data
point, or the Type Certificate could be consulted.
>> There was also a 200 HP Turbo Dakota (PA-28-201T) manufactured for
>> only one year in 1979 with a service ceiling of 20,000' and
>> recommended cruise speed of 154 knots, and a length of 25' (or 1' 4"
>> more than the first PA-28-235).
>
>I've heard this engine installation is to be avoided at all costs. Lower
>horsepower, higher stress, shorter TBO...
Roger. But, just imagine the rate of climb achievable at high
Steven P. McNicoll
> until I get back out of the "November" habit. Canadian controllers can
> get shirty if you leave off the "November".
>
I wonder why that is? Any aircraft using numerals should be recognized as
American.
Warren Jones
> > I appreciate the salary so much that if you call yourself "Pathfinder",
by
> > golly, I will too. :-)
>
> Thanks for your insight, Warren!
>
> As a controller, you get to be the ultimate arbiter of a question posted
> earlier in this thread:
>
> Does the speed difference of our Pathfinder (147 knots) versus a Cherokee
> 140 (110 knots) matter a hoot to you guys? Does knowing I'm a
"Pathfinder"
> versus a "Cherokee" help you with spacing, or is it an inconsequential
> difference in speed?
Can't speak for the terminal types, but the difference between 147 kts and
110 kts does matter on occasion in the Center enroute environment. It
really depends on ALL of the particulars in any given situation. Other
variables, like winds aloft, direction of flight, angle of convergence with
traffic or on a fix etc etc play into the separation equation in such a way
that a 30-40 knot speed difference can be insignificant. All things being
equal though, we usually turn the slow traffic behind the faster traffic,
run the faster guy in first etc.
Like Steven said, you should be filing as a P28B instead of a P28A, which is
a clue to me when I look at your strip that you are not the average
Cherokee. Still, knowing that you are a Pathfinder instead of a Cherokee
wont help me a bit unless I know what a Pathfinder is. Many Center
controllers don't even know that a Cherokee is a low-wing. Sad but true.
We have a lot of Center ATC people who are good at separating data-blocks
but don't have a clue about airplanes or even aviation. Center people never
see the actual airplanes, so they can go a whole career without a clue.
I can get your speed from read-out on the data block, or the flight progress
strip if I want to see your filed TAS, and in that context, the "Pathfinder"
moniker doesn't matter a hoot. I'd still use it.
Chip, ZTL
John Clear
Warren Jones <gu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I rarely use "November" unless that's all the pilot will give me to work
>with. The reason is tactical. For one thing, I find that you pilots
>usually respond to my calls the*first* time when I call you what you call
>yourself., like "Pathfinder", instead of just another "November" in a sea of
>Novembers. I work a whole bunch of airplanes, and anything I can do to keep
>from having to repeat a transmission gives me another leg up on my traffic.
This doesnt work if ATC messes up the type though. OAK tower got
pissy with me one day when I kept missing my calls. I had called
in as Cherokee 12345, but they kept calling me Arrow 345, so I
heard 'Arrow' and tuned out the rest. Even after responding with
Cherokee 345 after I finally heard them calling me, they kept
calling me an Arrow. I was in an Archer or Warrior, so not sure
why they decided I was an Arrow. I had been talking to Bay before
being handed off to OAK, so I'm not sure how much info is passed
from approach to the tower (I was only transitioning OAK's airspace
if that matters).
John
--
John Clear - j...@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~jac
Ron Natalie
John Clear wrote:
> This doesnt work if ATC messes up the type though. OAK tower got
> pissy with me one day when I kept missing my calls. I had called
> in as Cherokee 12345, but they kept calling me Arrow 345, so I
> heard 'Arrow' and tuned out the rest
Baltimore appraoch regularly turned our Navion into a Navaho.
One time they turned us into some variang of a twin cessna.
Jay Honeck
> PA28-235 a in 2000. Because it's in WordPerfect format, I can't post
> it here, but would be happy to e-mail it to anyone requesting a copy.)
Larry, I would be very interested in seeing that!
Please email it to: JJHo...@mchsi.com
Thanks!
JerryK
you. When I was bringing my twin home from buying it I got a dose of
reality. I was climbing out of Amarillo and feeling pretty impressive,
after all I was climbing at 140 knots at 1000 fpm. Then departure comes one
an says "Twin Cessna 80G, turn right 10 degrees for spacing, faster traffic
behind" I turn and a Lear goes blowing by and disappears. He was probably
doing 250 knots at 5000 fpm.
jerry
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3cbe9cba....@news.west.cox.net...
Jay Honeck
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
> Your still a moving roadblock when they are trying to get a Lear out
Ron Rapp
Of comparable vintage, yes. My '75 Skylane will run about 140 knots.
The mid-70's Skyhawks I've flown don't do much better than 100 knots
or so unless they've got the 180 hp upgrade or some speed mods.
Probably didn't help that they were all flight school airplanes with
the wheel fairings removed... :)
--Ron
Eugene A. Pallat
>At least you're getting upgraded! I get downgraded. I call in as
>"Skylane 6594M" and often get referred to as a Skyhawk. Or called out
>as traffic to another aircraft as "a 172".
>
A former Marine pilot related this one to me. He was flying to
Pensacola. Columbus (Ohio) approach asked him his aircraft type and he
said "A4 Skyhawk." He had already given his aircraft number with the
military prefix. Thinking it was a "Cessna" Skyhawk, approach asked him
to maintain 120 kts. The A4 flies like a cast iron Frisbee at 120.
They also started vecoring him all over the place and the airport
traffic at the time was zip. They even told a Citation pilot to do his
approach at 90 kts.. Needless to say, he was not amused.
Gene Pallat
jm...@crosslink.net
Cherokee N56993. For both ATC and non-controlled pattern calls.
-- Jay
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Jay and Teresa Masino __!__ _/
_/ jm...@crosslink.net ___(_)___ _/
_/http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Steven P. McNicoll
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
>
> Of comparable vintage, yes. My '75 Skylane will run about 140 knots.
> The mid-70's Skyhawks I've flown don't do much better than 100 knots
> or so unless they've got the 180 hp upgrade or some speed mods.
> Probably didn't help that they were all flight school airplanes with
> the wheel fairings removed... :)
>
The mid-'70s Skyhawks I've flown performed significantly better than that.
The 1975 "Flying Annual & Pilot's Buying Guide" provides the following
figures for these aircraft at gross weight at sea level on a standard 59F
day:
Cessna Skyhawk
75% cruise 120 kts
55% cruise 103 kts
Climb rate 645 fpm
Cessna Skylane
75% cruise 143 kts
55% cruise 131 kts
Climb rate 890 fpm
The Skylane's cruise speed is just 19% greater than the Skyhawk's at 75%
power and 27% better at 55%, but it's rate of climb is 38% better.
Newps
>
>
> Cessna Skyhawk
>
> 75% cruise 120 kts
> 55% cruise 103 kts
> Climb rate 645 fpm
>
> Cessna Skylane
>
> 75% cruise 143 kts
> 55% cruise 131 kts
> Climb rate 890 fpm
>
> The Skylane's cruise speed is just 19% greater than the Skyhawk's at 75%
> power and 27% better at 55%, but it's rate of climb is 38% better.
Typical response from somebody who has only flown the book. No way a mid 70's
or earlier Hawk gets anywhere near 120 knots. You're lucky to get 105.
RossPilot
>or earlier Hawk gets anywhere near 120 knots. You're lucky to get 105.
That's exactly what I flight plan for . . . 105.
Watching the GPS groundspeed readout,
I am usually right there.
Michael
> They also started vecoring him all over the place and the airport
> traffic at the time was zip. They even told a Citation pilot to do his
> approach at 90 kts.. Needless to say, he was not amused.
Don't know what it is about Pensacola, but I had that kind of
experience there too. I told them I was a Twin Comanche, but they
still asked me to slow to 80 kts on the approach (my blue line is 91
kts, and I normally fly approaches at 100 kts, like the book
recommends).
But what really ticks me was WHY they asked for this. I was being
vectored for the ILS and there was an MU-2 in front of me. Doesn't
the MU-2 approach at something like 150 kts?
Michael
Dan Luke
> Don't know what it is about Pensacola, but I had that kind of
> experience there too. I told them I was a Twin Comanche, but they
> still asked me to slow to 80 kts on the approach (my blue line is 91
> kts, and I normally fly approaches at 100 kts, like the book
> recommends).
>
> But what really ticks me was WHY they asked for this. I was being
> vectored for the ILS and there was an MU-2 in front of me. Doesn't
> the MU-2 approach at something like 150 kts?
Don't know what it is about Pensacola, either, but it is my least
favorite civilian ATC facility. Even their radios are crappy.
--
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Steven P. McNicoll
"Newps" <scn...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CC57A01...@attbi.com...
>
> Typical response from somebody who has only flown the book. No way a mid
> 70's or earlier Hawk gets anywhere near 120 knots. You're lucky to get
105.
>
The way to do it is to properly fly it. I logged a fair number of hours in
a 172M back in '75, never had a problem matching book speeds. If you
couldn't the problem was in your flying skills.