What's wrong with Cessnas?

Panope said:

Had a Cessna 172 for 5 years. ..... For some reason, I did not grow to love that plane.

Click to expand...

I flew a C172 a fair amount in Hawaii. It was okay but not great. I also flew a C182 a bit over there and didn't care for it at all. However I loved the C206 which I flew a lot on wheels (they're dogs on floats).

My wife and I took our honeymoon up the Inside Passage into SE Alaska and the Coast Range of BC in a C180 on floats. However, it was a C180 as re-engined by Kenmore Air Harbor. For reasons too lengthy to go into here, they wanted to be rid of the 0-470U engine (230hp) in all their C180s so they took the Continental IO-520 engine that was used in the 185 and 206, removed the fuel injection system, installed a modified carburetor from the 0-470 (fuel injection can be a pain in the a$s in float flying) and created a 270 hp (constant rating) engine that was given the designation 0-520KAH.

A forty-horsepower increase may not sound like much, but with seaplanes there's no such thing as too much power and any increase, even a small one, is a Good Thing.

For a small plane, that re-engined C180 is really a great machine.

What a great looking hangar! Plenty there to keep your attention!!

FlyWright said:

What a great looking hangar! Plenty there to keep your attention!!

Click to expand...

Thanks, FlyWright.

At the peak of my motorized contraption addiction no amount of planes were enough.

Times have changed and my recovery is progressing nicely one step at a time. Wanna buy a Pitts? Or an old Chivvy?

Steve

My Dad owned a C150 that my brother and I used for our flight training. Once we got certified he would let us use the plane anytime he wasn't using (which now that I look back is amazing). We kept it on a 1800 foot sod private strip with trees on three sides and power line on one approach. My brother and I would fly touch and goes at night and leave our car parked at one end of the runway with headlights on for guidance. We got to be really good at short field TOs and landings......mostly in daytime after Dad caught us doing the night stuff.

What's wrong with Cessnas?

When you do a turn the bloody wing blocks your view.

Whereas the fantastic Pipers give you a glorious view of your beautiful riveted white gleaming low drag tapered wing!

You never need to pump fuel from a high wing plane.

Steve

I note the nice looking V tail. Having spent CP time in both T and V tails what are your thoughts on flight characteristics of each?

Real men fly taildraggers, I owned five Maules of various models, not all at once of course, great machines. Much cheaper than owning a boat.

sunchaser said:

Steve

I note the nice looking V tail. Having spent CP time in both T and V tails what are your thoughts on flight characteristics of each?

Click to expand...

Sunchaser,

I have never flown a T tail aircraft so no comment on flight characteristics. I believe the T tail configuration on small, piston airplanes gained popularity (in the 70s and 80s) simply because it emulated the appearance of the tails of many Jet aircraft (that actually benefited functionally from this structurally disadvantaged arrangement).

I know it sounds unbelievable that plane manufacturers would make such a drastic design descision based entirely on aesthetics or some imagined functional improvement. However, the precedent for this type of action had been set by the nearly universal adaptation (and fantastic sales success) of swept vertical stabilizers (vertical part of tail). Swept tails have absolutely no functional benefit on an aircraft that cruise less than say, mach .6 or .7 (about 500 mph). The numerous small functional disadvantages of the swept tail were not enough to overcome the awesome power of human emotion - people thought those swept tails looked hot ****!!!

The V tail bonnaza is infamous for its marginal longitudinal stability (bonanza boogie). My belief is that this has little or nothing to do with the tail being V configured and everything to do with the tail being a bit too small (plane was designed for speed).

Steve

Panope said:

Sunchaser,

I have never flown a T tail aircraft so no comment on flight characteristics. I believe the T tail configuration on small, piston airplanes gained popularity (in the 70s and 80s) simply because it emulated the appearance of the tails of many Jet aircraft (that actually benefited functionally from this structurally disadvantaged arrangement).

I know it sounds unbelievable that plane manufacturers would make such a drastic design descision based entirely on aesthetics or some imagined functional improvement. However, the precedent for this type of action had been set by the nearly universal adaptation (and fantastic sales success) of swept vertical stabilizers (vertical part of tail). Swept tails have absolutely no functional benefit on an aircraft that cruise less than say, mach .6 or .7 (about 500 mph). The numerous small functional disadvantages of the swept tail were not enough to overcome the awesome power of human emotion - people thought those swept tails looked hot ****!!!

The V tail bonnaza is infamous for its marginal longitudinal stability (bonanza boogie). My belief is that this has little or nothing to do with the tail being V configured and everything to do with the tail being a bit too small (plane was designed for speed).

Steve

Click to expand...

Thanks Steve, my information other than short seat time, is based upon BIL who had both T and V tail Bs. His take is the V tail had a narrower CG than say the A36 T tail so passenger and baggage loading had to be carefully watched. Beechcraft's product manager, Larry Ball wrote several books detailing the Bonanzas and Barons. Lots of B data and every few years it seemed there was a small change in something whether engine size or baggage compartment.

My father had a late 50s V tail which we flew all over the place until he got "modern" and went with an RG (I believe it had the Robertson wing if that makes sense).

For the purposes of discussion, it might help to refer to the Bonanza tails as V tail and conventional tail. A T tail describes a tailfeather configuration not incorporated in the Bonanza line.

V Tail



Conventional Tail:



T Tail:

Sunchaser,

FlyWright's post perfectly describes how I failed to answer your question. I'll try again, this time assuming that you meant "conventional" tail instead of "T" tail.


-Model 35 was built between 1947 and 1982. All had V-tails, but cordwise dimension of the tail surfaces grew has horsepower and weight was increased over the years. Also, the angle formed by the tail (the V) was increased at some point. All the V tail aircraft share the same fuselage and wing dimensions.

-Model 33 (1959 to 1994) was virtually the same as the 35 but with a conventional tail. The consensus is that at similar weight and horsepower, there is little difference in flying qualities between the two. The V tail might do "the boogie" a touch more and might be a tad faster. The conventional tail has a slightly larger CG envelope.

-Model 36 (1968 to present) featured a longer fuselage that added considerably to the longitudinal stability. It still wiggles in turbulence but not nearly as much as any of the short fuselage models.

For comparisons of tail types, it is best to use the 35 and 33. The 36's longer fuselage affects things far more than tail type - making it a poor comparable.

Unfortunately, Beech did not build the best (in my opinion) Bonanza. That would be a conventional, STRAIT tailed version. They had all the nessecarry pieces in production on other planes but thier marketing department demanded the "jet like" SWEPT tail for the 1959 model 33 (the Boeing 707 had just come on line and the world was going bonkers over jets and rockets. Consider the uselessness of tail fins on cars of the period).

Here's a Beech T 34 sporting a proper tail

Soloed in a C-140, and they remain my fav.

Mooney M20 for me. Great combination of speed and efficiency, and not near as small as people make them out to be. They are a bit of a task to get into, especially as I keep adding on the years to my body.

jacks88 said:

Mooney M20 for me. Great combination of speed and efficiency, and not near as small as people make them out to be. They are a bit of a task to get into, especially as I keep adding on the years to my body.

Click to expand...

Loved those planes, Jacks88! I used to pick up 201s and 231s from the factory in the late 70s/early 80s and deliver them to our dealership near Phoenix, AZ. Each plane was equipped to the gills with autopilot and radios, including the KNS880 Rnav. That was the old one where you made a waypoint based upon a VOR's radial/distance and could run straight line direct courses to your destination. A far cry from our mapping GPS today, but cutting edge at the time. They were great airplanes...very efficient and FAST!!! The Ray Lopresti aerodynamic design enhancements were significant!

I always loved the semi-reclined flying position on that plane. Once I slipped into it, it fit like a glove. Tough plane to join the Mile High Club in though!

Brian Harward said:

Real men fly taildraggers, I owned five Maules of various models, not all at once of course, great machines. Much cheaper than owning a boat.

Click to expand...

Real men fly helicopters....

Sightseers and travelers fly airplanes...well...some bush pilots earn their wings if they stay out of low passes and stop scaring the helo guys...

If it makes you feel better about yourself, keep telling yourself that.

I've known "real men" who fly and real men who never stepped foot on a plane or helicopter. It's not the aircraft that makes the man.

I once had dreams of swapping the Mooney for a Cessna 337. I remember watching some video of a Maule being flown out of a hanger, cool stuff.

I taught myself to fly in ultralights. I got my license in Cessnas so I bought a 172. But every once in a while I would rent a Grumman Cheetah. That was a fun plane to fly.

1965; LIFE magazine had a $5 coupon for an introductory flight. I went to the local seaplane base, scared myself to death & was hooked. Flew the C172 on floats all up & down the Seattle/PNW coast until deployed. came back in due time & got back to flying. Loved the D18 Beech; veeery educational plane to fly at times. Lots of Citabria time. American Yankees & Grumman variants ere fun as well. Favorite planes? The Rockwell twin engine Commanders; 500, 560 Piston engine & 680 thru 1000 series turbines.

Those Grumman singles were a kick in the pants. I started with the TR2/Yankee but got to fly the Traveler, Cheetah and Tiger. Loved the Tiger!

Learned to fly and soloed in a 152.

I've has the good fortune to have flown paper pipers, radial beavers, an old twin piper and got a little stick time in a Frisbee (Hughes 300c).

With the exception of the piper and the 152, all were owned by my leo agency. Loved every minute of it, but job and family got in the way.

Learned to fly in a 172. Great plane. Did my xcounties in an Piper Archer III. Was a lot of fun and got you there quickly.

Piper Cherokee, 180, c172, c182, skylane, c182rg, c310, Piper arrow, Seneca, Cherokee 6(260 & 300), lance and one memorable flight, my last flight as PIC, in a brand new Cirrus from STT to Anegada BVI. I might have forgotten a few, owned only the Cherokee 6s, Seneca, and Lance. Really enjoyed that Lance. Talk about a truck, used to fly in and out of a grass strip with loads of bluestone pavers and shrubs. Don't ask! never an anchor though!

Nothing wrong with Cessna's. I've flown most of the singles with the 206 probably the favorite and most of the 400 series twins with the 406 my favorite Cessna twin. The 414 was a nice little machine if you only had 3 or 4 passengers but could have used a bit more horsepower.