Cessna vs. Piper
 

G'Day to all

This is the great debate of the sky.....just like Ford vs Holden for u land lovers.

Which is the better aircraft maker??
:confused:

I want to hear what u think about how they handle, performance, pilot satisfaction etc...

The floor is yours:cool:

Oh please....the reply is obvious...

(they dont call me piper girl for nothing :D )

Hate it when my students decide to fly in the 150. Then again maybe I just hate 150's, dont mind the 182 and upwards so much. But give me a Comanche any day. Please. Anyone??? :p

You're on dangerous ground there SKC - you just KNOW that our good ol' mate gaunty will want to put in his 2 cents worth! :D Tho, knowing him, it'll look more like 2 dollars worth! :p

Anyway, to answer the question for the record, Cessna Capt, neither! Just wait until you've flown a Beechcraft Super Kingair, coz you'll be wanting to change yer username for sure! :D

Hmmm I've owned a C185, great machine, and I currently own a Bonanza which I hardly ever get to fly because it lives in Oz and I'm in Singapore...I haven't even seen it in the flesh for over a year:(

But I hate Pipers...with the exception of the Cub.

Chuck.

Cessna vs Piper, who is the best manufacturer? Well how do you define that? Piper, in their manufacturing process, zinc chromate all their skins, even where you can't see. With Cessna it is a factory option. The interior finish of a Piper is usually superior to a Cessna. However it stops right there. Piper has structual Xwind limits on a lot of their aircraft due to the fact that they attach gear to main spars instead of secondary spars. Piper has sgnificant payload vs fuel load constraints. Model for equivalent model , Cessna produce a more capable and profitable aircraft. All Cessna's with the possible exception of the C177 Cardinal series will always please the accountant with their mission capability, and subsequent cost of maintenance. Compare a Cessna 206 vs a Cherokee Six, a C402 vs a Navajo, a Titan vs a Chieftain. even a 150 vs a Tomohawk or a c172 vs a Cherokee. Compare the used prices of the above, C206 = $200K +, PA32 = $ 85K PA23 Aztec $85K vs C310R $250K+, C404 $450K, PA31-350= $300K, C402 $250K, PA31-310 = $175K. These figures tell us something. If you want a better built plane for private non revenue, buy a Piper, cheap to buy but with lots of limitations that probably wont affect a private owner. If you need to make money with it, the resale figures are definitely spelling out something. You make money with range,payload and field performance, all cumulative. Why does a 20,000hr Titan command $1/2 Million and a low hour Chieftain $300K ?. Is there a more profitable aircraft flying than a C207? can you buy one for love or money? How easy is it to find a C206 or C210 to get some experience in? You can't coz they're all out making someone big bucks. Yes, Piper probably makes a better plane, but they can't please the bean counters.

Since Cessna have seven fan jets in their corporate fleet and piper has just one turbo-prop, a single at that, I don't think there is any contest...unless you are comparing relics. If that is the case why not compare the XK Falcon with the EJ Holden...Nah, thats history, lets not go there!

Mainframe:
I think your a little bit harsh to compere a Titan to a Chieftain after all the Titan is a much bigger machine. Are there any other piston twins the same size as a Titan.:mad:

The Chieftain is really to be compared to the 402C, if you fit the after market mods to each aircraft then they become very compared able in mission ability.

For instance a PA31-350 with a VG kit and Red Leg kit that has been put on a severe diet (and put new avionics in it) can carry 900kg over 200nm. A 402C in the same layout without the red legs can only carry 835 kg. They basically balance out, the PA31 feels like more of a truck but I feel the 402 is more of a pilots aircraft.... Now ya can't beat the 402 nose locker where you can put 10 tonne and it fits plus the wing lockers you never really need to worry about frieght in the cabin...

Now on the price a low hour PA31-350 for $300k show me I want to buy it now!!!!! I think you will find you have to spend closer to $500k plus for a goodie. Titans are coming down in $$$ as they all seem to have over 20,000 hours...

What about comparing the genuine Ford V Holden, Baron 58 v's C310R- same speed, same fuel flow, load wise the 310 with a VG kit eats the B58, engineers seem to hate Barons and pax seem to hate 310's so????? But I love Barons???

Now what about a what if... How about building a hybrid 402/PA31 or B58/310R mmm a 58 with a big nose locker!!!

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Having flown a lot of time in C210's and a bit in C206's, the best single engine aeroplane, without doubt, would have to be the Bonanza. On the multi-engine side of things I would say the Baron is so much more a pilots machine than a C310.

But I'll take a job flying just about anything (like so many of us).:)

Cessna v Piper :confused: :confused: :confused: :p


Of which of the three or four different resurrections of the Piper companies are you talking?
Piper did themselves in after the Lock Haven floods, oh, back in '72 I think it was.
They make a good MBA project on how not to do it.

A C310RII with a BE58 cabin entry, so the pax (or freight-loaders)don't have to climb up seven stories then crawl down between the seat rows, and again to get out, would be the ultimate light-loader.

C404 vs PA31-350? I don't think so. C411 vs Chieftain maybe..... C402 vs PA31-310 might be closer to the mark.

Jamair,

Is that a C310R mod or is it standard???

Also I reckon:-

C402B v PA31-310/325, Navajo wins.
C402C v PA31-350, close one.
C310R v BE58, load wise 310, pax wise B58.
C404 v ???
C421 v PA31-350P

There are many pros and cons for each type. Realistically though ya can't beat a PA31-350 with the VG kit and Red Leg kit, likewise a C402C with VG kit and or Scimitar Prop conversion.

C310R with VG kit can carry way more than a B58...

Question why doesn't a VG kit increase MTOW on a B58? is it to do with the wing? Again why does a VG kit give a C310R a large increase yet a C402B a small increase. By far the VG kits seem to be unbelieveable for the 402C and PA31 with around a 300lb increase.....

Oh I don't reckon ya can beat a C182 for good clean fun...

HA

The Never Ending Argument
 

What should have been/should be done, is build a Pressurised C404 with P & W PT6A-34's and a FL30 + ceiling, Winglets, 4 Bladed Q Tips, Interior would be crew of Pilot & Co-Pilot + 14 Pax High Density and 8 Pax Dual Club Corporate Configuration .....Fit it out with Dual Garmin GNS530's coupled to an S-TEC 60, WRX1000 Stormscope with RDR1300 Radar Interface, Pilot & Co-Pilot Sandel ST3400's , with Dual Caliper - 4 Piston Cleveland Braking System, Crew & Cargo Door, Top TAS of 265kts, TOD of 1000m at Sea Level, 500 lbs/hour fuel burn, 1000ltr capacity, purchase price under USD$1m......dream on.......it's what I refer to as the mythical aircraft

Jamair.....If my poor old failing memory doesn't crash completely, I do believe what you refer to is a Check This Out For It's Age.....ie; a Cessna 310 with Double Doors :D :D

AWE Nasa you were getting me all excited then.

Anyone checked out www.eclipseaviation.com what a machine...

HA

p.s. Whats the problem with wanting everything for nothing...

:eek:
Jeez, a gen-u-ine C320 Skynight with pax doors, well buggame as the choirboy said to the Anglican priest! That is an OLD aeroplane! There is a more recent example at AF doing survey work I think, but no double doors on that one.

There's one advertised as a fixer-upper project in the AvTrader - 'for a LAME', for only $50K - cost another $180K for 2 x TSIO-540's, $50K for a decent avionics stack, $20K + for P&I, $40K for some props.........

Where can I buy me one of those Nasa-birds...........:D

Agreed High Altitude ... if that Eclipse gets off the ground in the next year or two then all this arguing will be more like comparing horse drawn carts ... and the market will absolutely collapse for used PA31 / C421 / whatever piston twin takes your fancy ... what a weapon that thing is :D

NASA

Where do I send the deposit.

HH.

Sorry, in my haste I forgot to add, MUST BE FAR 25 CERTIFIED…..just for you gaunty :D :D

You would be surprised just how many times someone has described that exact same aircraft to me and said can you get me one just like that :eek: :eek: …..maybe it’s just me, but I can’t understand why someone hasn’t designed an aircraft with those parameters, or close to it.

Jamair….If memory serves, the aircraft you refer to at AF has not seen the dizzy heights for over 10 years!!!

HH….I can give you the account number for my Camen Island account if you like :D :D

HA…..Very nice aircraft I agree, and if it does come to fruition, it will put the new B58’s etc out of business, but will not fill the void created by the need to have a pax carrying aircraft over 6 bums…..

here's that dream cessna for you NASA Conquest

AH-HA, it finally happened; I got one up on Nasa!!!

The C320 at AF might not be there now, but it sure was in 1999, along with its stablemate a V35 Bonza. It was parked in the last row next to the Hempels crowd.

How would a B350 shape up in comparison to the Nasa-Bird? Too thirsty?

The Eclipse would sure fill the BE58 role - as would perhaps a TBM700 and even the Meridian, and the Campervan will probably be the eventual PA31/C400 replacement. PC12 et al will be the corporate choice to replace the C90/B200.

Still can't convince any Aust financier that a new single turbine is a better pick than a 20 year old piston twin or an antique Kingair/Cheyenne..... ah well.:rolleyes:

Throttle
You beat me to it. Conquest 11 a legend in its own time.

I think I still hold the record for Perth-Coolangatta FL 330-350 (avge wind +35) non stop at 6+10 arriving over Cooly with fuel for Sydney with reserves intact. B200 can't get even moderately close to that.
I have even been westbound Syd Per non stop many times going easy.
In practical terms there is no such thing as long range v high speed cruise, 290 KTAS any way you wanna do it.
Only problem was I had too many cups of coffee the toot was too far down the back and I ran out of coffee jars.:D

nasa
They already built the aircraft you describe and its called a Conquest 11. They really did try the PT6s on it, but could not get any where near the performance or payload range they were looking for and in any event the Garrett is a much much better more efficient engine. Why you would want to torture the air by making it go around no less than 3 x 180s before you let it out to play escapes me just for the moment.:D


King Air B200 = Dinosaur :cool:
C-90 = only just post Big Bang.:p

Gaunty,

Once flew Mackay - Brisbane (early hours of the morning) in a C441 carrying Dubbo + sixty as an alternate. Dubbo went bad and ATC advised just two available alternates - one required a passport and the other was Hobart.

The replan (Hobart) was a non-event with the C441 capabilities. Great aeroplane in its day. Now did I ever tell you what a great aeroplane the Citation Ultra is...

Bluehauler

No need thanks I already know.:D I like your toy collection.

The Conquest is indeed legendary and yes have carried AKL on one occasion and another occasion when attempting to 'recover' someone from Minnie Creek ex Perth in the teeth of an oncoming Cyclone which had already crossed the coast North of Carnarvon needed to and could carry Alice out of Perth as the alternate for the return to Perth.
Needless to say we managed to 'get in' to Perth.:D

Just love having all that fuel.

They stopped the Conquest when they stopped piston production but mostly because it was too good and was bleeding the Citation sales. It had been intended for the private operator who wasn't up to the Citation and over 300- 400 miles it was neck and neck with the Conquest eating the Citation on fuel, it was also cutting across their FAR 25 philosophy for that form of transport.

It took us a long time to get the type accepted in Australia because the "experts" were applying B200 speeds and FF to the fuel capacity and deciding it wouldn't go anywhere with a load.:rolleyes:
But we got there and in the west it was THE FIFO type and the WA RFDS were the first to break away and I think they wish they could buy some more new ones. There was a long queue overseas for theirs when they changed them out.

My only regret in life is that I couldn't save my pennies fast enough to buy one of them or can't save them fast enough to buy a really nice young un before it's too late and they all get too old and high time.

They are the perfect aircraft for a private operator who wants speed, range and economics. mrs gaunty and the kids non stop almost anywhere in Oz or tanker fuel to out of the way spots and quick enough to stop the "are we there yet" from the back.

I am sitting here looking at the HP turbine wheel from one of the engines I use as a paperweight and the red dust packed in it, with the blade tips eroded by the soot not the dust and think about all of the really great times we spent a metre or so from each other. Although I wasn't spinning at nearly 40,000 rpm, close to at times but not quite.:D Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

Now if I save really hard that Ultra is looking good but it is the Sovereign that has got me really turned on now.

Citation X cabin, straight wing, trailing link, M0.78, full seats 2300nm out of anywhere your B200 will go.
http://sovereign.cessna.com/wallpape...r_photo_01.jpg
This is going to be the next "Conquest" and you should be campaigning for one in your toybox.:D

BIK
PLeeeeese let me have some fun at least for a little while, you are of course correct, but it does it much more discreetly than the podunk PT6 don't you think.:D

talking of light aircraft who cares they both have wings and fly with designs over 40 years old bring on some new stuff cheers:D

BIK-116.8

Hmmmmm the aircraft for that project would have to be the Citation X. M0.92 and around 3400nm. 25% overweight maybe 4000nm


The Sovereign is still in flight test but has according to the Cessna Payload /Range profile around 2800nm tanks full (maybe 3500nm overload). Sovereign Payload/Range profile

Single pilot. NO as far as I am aware, although personally I can not see any reason from a workload point of view for any of them including the Citation X and I guess that really applies to ALL of the modern aircraft given that the all of the appropriate knobs, levers and screens can be reached by the pilot.

I think the problem would be whether the individual countries would allow a slightly mad pirate in their airspace, single pilot. There are too many political and bulls hit agenda

Viz our own beloved DCA in the past.
Question if you can fly the C500/550 SP then why not any of the 500 series, then if not any of the C500 series why not the 600 series.

Two blokes operate the B744 and one of them (the Capt.:p) is really only there to keep the other awake.:D, bit like the single pilot cockpit with the dog kennel where the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.:D


There are some old B52s around, now that would be fun load up the bomb bays with fuel and you might just get all the way around.:eek:

nasa. "......with those parameters, or close to it."

Or close to it? Cessna did! It's called the Cessna 425 Conquest I. Bloody nice aircraft - and lovely derated PT6's - not those noisy things Gaunty likes.:D

how do these cessna twins compare to the piper twins like the seminole, seneca, twin comanche etc...

and wot about the cessna caravan??

:)

Fine Tuning The Fine Tuned
 

Now, Now Girls…..Conquest II with 2 +14……pleeeaaaassssseeeee…..the bloody thing is only certified for 11, from memory……Yes it goes like a cut cat, but will not pull out of 1000 m with 16 up…..Plus, to buy a second hand one with –10U’s in it is around the USD$1.5m :(

Now for those lovely Garrets, or is it Allied Signal, or Honeywell, can never keep up…..Anything below a –10U-514 (mod standard notwithstanding), and note I say a –10U and not –10UA, which I’m led to believe is a –3U with the Hot Section modified to –10U specs, has connection points for the rubbish bin located just aft of the exhaust…..that’s there to catch those pesky little engine parts that keep falling out :D :D …..Then of course, to do the Hot Section, usually in tune with the Gear Box Inspection, one has to pull the Gear Box to get to the Hot Section…..Give me a good old PT6A any day…..cupla hours and you have them split at the “C” Flange and you can play with all the lovely innards :D ….but having said that, the PT6 cannot pull the HP at the fuel flow that a TPE331 can, but they do it with so much extra noise :eek: :eek:

Put a cupla –10U’s or better in the Conquest, a 3’ plug, winglets, VG’s, decent avionics, and you come close, but the big hitter is the ability to get in & out of 1000 m at MTOW…that’s what everyone wants, to be able to get in & out of around 1000m with 14 pax and travel between 400 – 600 nm, with holding.

Jamair…..Far be it for me to doubt what you say, but in 1999, I’m sure the 320 was parked outside of Wobblies hangar looking as forlorn as it had for the previous decade…..You sure it was a 320 and not the Twin Bonanza :confused: …..Do you recall the call sign.

Bik…..Nice, but is more expensive than the Garmin gear and as such would start to put the purchase price of the Mythical Aircraft out of reach :D

NASA - Price tag aside isn't the King Air 350 close to the mythical beast??? full fuel, max paxload, fast, strip length???

Have you ever seen the Caribou with the turbines what a beast!!!

:cool: nasa some would no doubt attest that I am (getting) old and blind, but I parked up alongside the thing in November 1999 and while the Sparrow was getting a prop dressing I climbed (and climbed) up to have a sticky. The door was locked with an external Lockwood padlock through a hasp and staple (true story) but while I was there the operator came over and opened up shop for me. It really was the C320 - gutted out for the bloody great big camera inside, but a C320 nonetheless. I actually took digital pix but I dunno how to put em up here like the clever chaps & chapettes with all the previous drool material.

Is that old short-nose baby-poo brown & white C310 still sitting on the grass up at CDR, quietly haemorrhaging POLs? How about -FWG?

Cheers!

BIK,

Does it have an interface hookin for a http://www.scea.com/games/

or dvd player???

BIK. Well, nasa did say: "......with those parameters, or close to it."

nasa is prone to dreaming spells and I thought the lovely little Connquest 1 came rather close - even if it won't legally accommodate nasa's caste of thousands.

Bums in the nose locker of a Cessna 400 series. What a great idea....... I remember a passenger in the pod of a Cessna 185....... but that's another story altogether.

What nasa wants is a Reims Cessna 406 (or whatever it's called), pressurised, with lovely -34's. I seem to recall that had a modified Titan fuselage.

Or a pressurised Bandit with bigger donks. Think that already exists, shorter fuselage - an Embraer Xingu?

Or Blue Haulers lovely King Air 350!

nasa. How about a Britten Norman BN2A MkIII Trislander Bongo Van? I heard some nut was thinking of adding two turbines (or was it V8's) to the Trislander fuselages rotting away in Australia somewhere. Be right up your alley!:D :D

I still think a BN2A Mk III Trislander with a couple of overwing mounted JT15's would do nasa's job...........

I'll Say This Slow & Loud For torres!!!!
 

torres.....IT'S NOT PRESSURISED :D :D :D

i'm sure torres can hold his breath

:cool:

Bik. Have you ever considered another line of work? Seriously Funny mate! This is one of the more entertaining threads there has been for a while.:D :D

BIK

Geez I'd forgotten all about the YAK 40 now that was an aeroplane and it would do ALL of the things of which nasa dreams.
I've had the pleasure of one and all other things being equal was quite an impressive machine being designed as it was for pretty rugged use in downtown Siberia and Novosibirsk.:D
Not only that but the local garage mechanic in Quilpie can fix it with a crow bar and an axe.

Irrespective of which aircraft you choose as the ideal machine, those types above 5,700 kg have distinct limitations brought about by CASA regulations and CAO 20.7.1b.

Firstly an aircraft above 5,700 kg may only plan to a destination at night which has an approved instrument approach procedure and for which the aircraft is appropriately equipped and the pilot is qualified. (Jepps AU-602 para 1.9.1.) However there is nothing to stop the aircraft departing such an aerodrome. If you move from a B200 to a B350 this requirement becomes an impediment. And yet both aircraft are very similar and operate in the same performance category and similar speeds!

Secondly for those aircraft engaged in charter or RPT operations the landing distance required shall be equal to or better than 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop. (CAO 20.7.1b para 11.1.)

Given take-off at MTOW and landing at MLW for type, sea-level at 35 degrees celsius, flaps approach for take-off and down for landing, the following figures apply:

B350 4154 ft and 2750 ft (4592 ft factored 1.67)
C560 3710 ft and 2970 ft (4960 ft factored 1.67)

Some may suggest that the factoring is to allow for failure of prop reverse/thrust reversers but the AFM's are based on use of brakes alone! Two perfectly good aircraft hamstrung by government regulations!

BIK,

Both aircraft will uplift a tonne or more of pax and bags plus around four hours fuel. Piedmont faxed specs on a ‘99 model B350 recently with 1560 hrs total time for $USD 3.5 million. If you were paying $5.5 mil for a new one Raytheon would need to toss in a lot of extras such as maintenance and spares for a couple of years!

Gaunty,

Thanks for the complement on the stable. I am working on a Sovereign with an Excel as a fall-back but we have other priorities and a lot of bean counters to convince!

Piper s@%ts all over cessna
 

Having done training in piper cherokees and then flying cessna for my instructor rating, there is no doubt about the fact that Piper aircraft are far and away the better aircraft.

The cessna is shocking in the circuit, the runway is visible on some occasions and when out there flying around at common altitudes of 3000ft, when do you ever want to look down to see another aircraft.

Piper perform better, look better, and in my experience are much more reliable. Cessna are justa means of getting the hours up and dont exite me in the least. The one exception to this is the C210 which is a lovely aircraft.:D

Boo to Cessna which is the worst aircraft i have ever had to experience

go the Piper

Regards and sorry to all those loser cessna fans i have offended

May the sky be blue and the runway long!

Geebar:p

I like them both. Cessna's are much better for the bush. Has anyone out there tried to taxi a modern Piper single between gate post's?