CAP Pilot Wings

[Thrashed]

While the high-wing / low-wing discussion is futile, it is interesting to note that Cessna built more C172's (43,000+) than the entire Piper PA-28 series aircraft (32,000).  That's the entire PA-28 series: 140, 151, 161, 180, R180, R200, 201, 235, 236.  If you use Cessna's other 4-place aircraft (C177, C182) without the C172, it would still outnumber the PA-28 series.  Even the Cessna 150/152 by itself outnumbers the whole PA-28 line.  Only 2,500 PA-38's were built, so that doesn't add much into it. Cessna is a historical aircraft with a great history (like Piper). 

I don't really have a preference.  I've flown every model listed above.  I have more Cessna time because there is more Cessna time to be had.  I did most of my training in Cessnas from my private in a C152 to the multi in the C310.  I like flying Pipers too; mostly because it's different than a Cessna.  I like variety.

[flyguy06]

How do these threads get off topic do easily?


As was said befoe, find an IP and get signed off to solo. Too easy and its cheap too.

[Hawk200]

How do these threads get off topic do easily?


As was said befoe, find an IP and get signed off to solo. Too easy and its cheap too.

Usually, the topic gets covered, then it meanders from there.

[raivo]

How do these threads get off topic do easily?

Welcome to the Internet!

[Thrashed]

The question of the thread was answered in the first reply to the thread.  Should it be closed now?  Who really cares?  The author of the thread brought up the issue of high vs. low wing.  Let the thread go where it wants. 

[DG]

Well I'll just find an IP in my area, the last SM I contacted didn't have the time. Anyway, the wings are not necessary, I know that I can fly a plane either way. Also the thing is I fly a Piper Archer (low wing), and transitioning to a Cessna is a downgrade.

More proof.

Flying an airplane must be easy.

So many idiots are doing it.

[MSgt Van]

"and transitioning to a Cessna is a downgrade."

***original reply deleted. Almost lost my non-military bearing for a minute!***

[NYArcherFG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

[NYArcherFG]

I couldn't agree more, but the young man who started this thread apparently has the idea that if you aren't flying a low wing, you are somehow inferior or that the aircraft is inferior.  I was trying to convince him that such was not a good position to take: especially given his relatively short tenure in the flying game.

I will now go back to my other pursuits.

Sir, thats not true. You don't know what I'm thinking, and I assure you I do not believe that a high wing is inferior to a low wing, I'm just stating the facts. I didn't get into a cockpit yesterday, I've been flying in GA since before I knew how to walk.

[SarDragon]

Dude, an airplane's an airplane. Some are good for one purpose, and some are good for a different purpose. CAP flies Cessnas because of their superior downward visibility. If you want to fly for CAP, get used to it; I think our fleet is >95% high wing. If it offends you so much to fly high wing a/c, go find another place to fly, and quit whining.

Here's your cheese:

[flyguy06]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

1. Cessnas have dihedral as well
2. A Cessna 182 and a Cessna 206 have  ahigher payload than an Archer
3. A Cessna 182 has a higher cruise speed than an Archer
4. All 172's built after 1979 come with 180hp engines. Only older 172's do not
5. A Cessna 182 is extrememly roomier
6. Has no bearing on anything
7. what is the legal crosswind component? POH's give demonstrated crosswind components. In other words, the test pilot took it up and tested in the specified crosswind. Doesnt mean it wont take more, It just means that is what was demonstrated during testing. they put that there for liability purposes.

[DG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

It is so true, that it bears repeating.

Learning to fly an airplane is easy today.

It must be easy; so many idiots can do it.

Such as this young, inexperienced cadet.

In spite of all our efforts to communicate with him, he just doesn't get it.

Maybe he will come to begin to get it, over time, with experience.  All we can do is hope.

[davidsinn]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

1. Cessnas have dihedral as well
2. A Cessna 182 and a Cessna 206 have  ahigher payload than an Archer
3. A Cessna 182 has a higher cruise speed than an Archer
4. All 172's built after 1979 come with 180hp engines. Only older 172's do not
5. A Cessna 182 is extrememly roomier
6. Has no bearing on anything
7. what is the legal crosswind component? POH's give demonstrated crosswind components. In other words, the test pilot took it up and tested in the specified crosswind. Doesnt mean it wont take more, It just means that is what was demonstrated during testing. they put that there for liability purposes.

Cessnas have less dihedral because the CG is below the CL which also leads to a more efficient use of lift because the lift vector on each wing is closer to being parallel with the gravity vector.

[NYArcherFG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.





1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

It is so true, that it bears repeating.

Learning to fly an airplane is easy today.

It must be easy; so many idiots can do it.

Such as this young, inexperienced cadet.

In spite of all our efforts to communicate with him, he just doesn't get it.

Maybe he will come to begin to get it, over time, with experience.  All we can do is hope.

My father laughed when he saw this. You should talk to him one day, he has logged over 19,000 hours. We own a 1982 Piper Archer and a 1999 Seneca V. Views pretty good from FL200 

[Gunner C]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

[NYArcherFG]

Excuse me I think that this should be a professional discussion. If you are a senior member and would like to insult me, a cadet , you should probably consider you are supposed to act more maturely. I NEVER started this post to discuss whether a Skyhawk is better or worse of an aircraft than an Archer. I've been in hangars for hours discussing this topic, and its is age old, their is no right or wrong answer.

And DG YOU are the real idiot, you're obviously not a pilot, (or Chaplain staff)

Its not even an argument that a Cessna is a downgrade.

1.My airplane has dihedral wings which are more stable than a Cessna's wings, this is a fact which can be proven by physics.
2.My airplane has a higher useable payload.
3.My airplane has a faster cruise speed.
4.My airplane has a 180HP engine, unlike a C172 which is 160HP, unless their is a conversion kit. 
5.My airplane is larger, and much more comfortable.
6.My airplane has a stabilator, not an elevator which equates to better control respone. (That's why the military uses a stabilator on fighter aircraft)
7. My airplane can legally fly in higher crosswind components, and performes MUCH better in high winds.



Have a Nice Day!

1. Cessnas have dihedral as well
2. A Cessna 182 and a Cessna 206 have  ahigher payload than an Archer
3. A Cessna 182 has a higher cruise speed than an Archer
4. All 172's built after 1979 come with 180hp engines. Only older 172's do not
5. A Cessna 182 is extrememly roomier
6. Has no bearing on anything
7. what is the legal crosswind component? POH's give demonstrated crosswind components. In other words, the test pilot took it up and tested in the specified crosswind. Doesnt mean it wont take more, It just means that is what was demonstrated during testing. they put that there for liability purposes.

1.Much less of an angular difference.
2.A Cessna 182 has 50 more Horsepower, and a Cessna 206 is more than 100HP more powerful. Neither of these 2 aircraft are comparable to a Piper Archer.
3.A Cessna is not comparable to a piper Archer, as stated above.
4.I don't care, and many CAP Cessna's are pre 1979.
5.Its extremely not "extrememly"
6.Maybe not to you, but it does make a difference to pilots. (maybe a reason exists why the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels have stabilators)
7.Obviously aircraft can take more wind then is written on the POH, but for some reason the FAA is more comfortable with saying a Piper Archer can handle more wind than a C172. hmmm.....

[davidsinn]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Stabilators were developed for control in trans and supersonic regimes. I doubt an Archer can go that fast.

[NYArcherFG]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Yes I have seen an A-10. The aircraft you speak of is a ground support aircraft, not a fighter. Hence, A-10, not F-10, which is very slow and obtrusive. I really dont care how old you are, and I didn't call anyone an "idiot", until I had to defend myself.

[DG]

My father laughed when he saw this. You should talk to him one day, he has logged over 19,000 hours. We own a 1982 Piper Archer and a 1999 Seneca V. Views pretty good from FL200 

YOU should talk to him one day.  And listen.

You will find he is saying the same things we have been trying to get through to you.

[davidsinn]

Good for you and "Daddy."

BTW, stabilators on fighters?  Ever seen an A-10?

There's several of us here who have been flying in GA probably since before your daddy could walk.  You sound like a spoiled rich kid. 

(The rest is deleted due to being an officer and a gentleman)

Yes I have seen an A-10. The aircraft you speak of is a ground support aircraft, not a fighter. Hence, A-10, not F-10, which is very slow and obtrusive. I really dont care how old you are, and I didn't call anyone an "idiot", until I had to defend myself.

An A-10 is a very maneuverable aircraft. It will turn circles around an F-15 at slow speeds. An A-10 will still do double what your Archer will for speed.