Spa City forced landing

[gotyacovered]

Anyone hear/know anything...  All I heard was he was just off KHOT after a re-fuel on a long XC and no injuries.... Pic is from family, it landed in his neighborhood.

[RNC]

Looks like a fellow PA28.

The area around KHOT is notoriously devoid of cow pasture

[gotyacovered]

Looks like a fellow PA28.

The area around KHOT is notoriously devoid of cow pasture

you would not believe how tight of an area this is in... its in a neighborhood, in the middle of town. incredible nobody was hurt, let alone all lives were spared and no property damage to speak of...

[gotyacovered]

Looks like a fellow PA28.

speaking of a PA-28... i undertand they went to the tapered wing circa 1972... how can you tell if you dont have pics? enlighten me.

[RNC]

79 on the 6 cylinder models, not sure on the 4 cylinders.  There were also fuel tank changes between the old and new on the 6 cylinders, went from 4 tanks to 2.

The old wing is a perfect rectangle, hence the name "Hershey bar".  The new one tapers narrower toward the wing tips.

Neither is necessarily better.  Tapered models are less affected by turbulence, Hershey bar models are easier to land, more ground effect.  Tapered is a couple knots faster maybe, but it's very minor.  Piper did a lot of those things for looks/marketing, like trying out a T tail on the Saratoga predecessor that looked spiffy but wasn't better than the standard tail...

[gotyacovered]

79 on the 6 cylinder models, not sure on the 4 cylinders.

The old wing is a perfect rectangle, hence the name "Hershey bar".  The new one tapers narrower toward the wing tips.

Neither is necessarily better.  Tapered models are less affected by turbulence, Hershey bar models are easier to land, more ground effect.  Tapered is a couple knots faster maybe, but it's very minor.  Piper did a lot of those things for looks/marketing, like trying out a T tail that looked spiffy but wasn't better than the standard tail...

cousin scott... 1969 PA-28-180 owner (Hershey bar wings) claims a 6kts gain with the tapered wing... i now have pics and still cant tell... just text'd them to you.... thoughts?

[RNC]

Sounds about right.

You'll need your slide rule, Piper put airspeed gauges in the 180s in mph rather than knots, more of that marketing, lol.

See...

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/PIPER-CHEROKEE-180/1975-PIPER-CHEROKEE-180/1284011.htm

Note thinner wings with a longer span and some taper on the back, vs...

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/PIPER-CHEROKEE-180/1968-PIPER-CHEROKEE-180/1274079.htm

Shorter, fatter wings with no taper.

[gotyacovered]

Sounds about right.

You'll need your slide rule, Piper put airspeed gauges in the 180s in mph rather than knots, more of that marketing, lol.

pre-70 cessnas did that too... mines still in mph.

[RNC]

See edit for comparison.

From the wiki on Cherokees, quoting a piper engineer...

The documented takeoff distance, cruise speed, and landing distance of Cherokees of the same horsepower with different wing types is very similar and some of the differences that do exist in later taper-wing models can be attributed to better fairings and seals rather than the different wing design. The Hershey Bar wing design is not markedly inferior to the tapered design, and in some ways is quite advantageous. As Piper Cherokee designer John Thorp says: "Tapered wings tend to stall outboard, reducing aileron effectiveness and increasing the likelihood of a rolloff into a spin." [21]
As Peter Garrison further explains: "To prevent tip stall, designers have resorted to providing the outboard portions of tapered wings with more cambered airfoil sections, drooped or enlarged leading edges, fixed or automatic leading edge slots or slats, and, most commonly, wing twist or "washout". The trouble with these fixes is that they all increase the drag, canceling whatever benefit the tapered wing was supposed to deliver in the first place."[21]

[gotyacovered]

Ran outta go juice

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130701X90424&key=1

[RNC]

Nice watch cheaper than new airplane.

[Flying Razorback]

It's about that time you start thinking, "I guess Av Gas really isn't that expensive after all..."

[RNC]

Yeah, on that topic, I don't get the people who religiously seek out the cheapest fuel.

By the time you fly an approach into Burnt Scrotum, NM to get that 4.95 avgas and then climb back out you've burned the 30 cents you saved anyways.

I mean, I don't pay 8 or 9 bucks on top of a landing fee at bravo fields, but I'm not flying out of my way for the difference between 5.50 and 6.25 either.

[Flying Razorback]

Yeah, on that topic, I don't get the people who religiously seek out the cheapest fuel.

By the time you fly an approach into Burnt Scrotum, NM to get that 4.95 avgas and then climb back out you've burned the 30 cents you saved anyways.

I mean, I don't pay 8 or 9 bucks on top of a landing fee at bravo fields, but I'm not flying out of my way for the difference between 5.50 and 6.25 either.

That makes sense.  In the C-130 we're not as gnats-ass on our fuel planning because we have a pretty tight range of fuel burn at all cruise altitudes.  But because we share a Major Command with all mobility assets we have to track our stuff and have it planned to the smallest bit.  With a C-17 or C-5 they'll have them planned down a miniscule amount, but then they're Aux Power Unit burns more fuel during ground ops than I do in an entire sortie.  If they get leveled in a climb or make a deviation around weather, there goes thousands and thousands of pounds of fuel and all that planning out the window.

I've also seen guys choose different climb speeds for the same reason but not consider the amount of time it's taking them to get up versus the benefit of the winds at altitude they'll get later.  If you're going to get a lot of benefit, then get up higher, quicker and burn a little more fuel in the climb profile part of flight.  If you're going to get there and not get enough to make up for that then a range climb would be better to get to altitude.