survey...
 

Ops at altitude.... gives a survey aircraft a very benign life compared with training and bush charter. Its life up there is in the cruise and smooth, usually.:ok:

The problem has occured at low level..there has been the wing loss of a PA 32 on pipeline patrol. Had some 12K hours of belting thru turbulence in Texas ? and etc. The extreme life yielded an extreme result.

Could be others.

The wing loss of one near Moruya ??? over the ranges was due to severe turbulence.? Nasty. Wasnt a long lifed one...hours not great

Not the sort of rivet testing you want to do !! :eek:

The YLIL one was BZA, a venerable flying machine with (last time I looked) over 27,000 hours on the airframe - not quite 30,000 but getting there. And a refined and gentle old lady despite her years of punishment at the hands of generations of students.

BZA has had two mid airs. Indestructible!

My landings bear testament to that!!

Grumman Tiger central spar life 12000 hours, wing spar 12500 hours.

I've seen first hand the spars and they are _extremely_ solid - especially the central spar.

I wonder what caused Grumman/Gulfstream to give them such a life span.

A friend of mine just scrapped his Tiger due to corrosion in the spar, interesting to see that heavy tube, outside of Ultralight/LSA's what other aircraft out there use a tube for a spar?

Can anybody tell me if they have flown both the Hershey Bar wing and tapered wing of the same type and any handling differences that they noticed?

I just read this, I thought aging warriors were just old pilots, seems I am mistaken !!!!!!

Flown both wing types on PA28, PA28R and PA32Rs. Tapered flies better, roll is more stable possibly a little less responsive, seems to get a couple of knots more and glide further. Stall is very benign on tapered wings, can get more of a wing drop with slab wings. Could also be the age of the Slab vs tapered models though as the differences are small.

Generally agree with 43I's summary but the thing I recall most about the slab wing models were how precisely they could be flown, and how good they were on the bush strips, given a bit of inventiveness with the manual flaps. I can't claim to be a great Piper fan (PA24/30 excepted!) but a PA28-180C is a handy thing for winning spot landing competitions, and other exercises where a bit of precision is needed. The other recollection is how noisy they are but that's as much due to vintage as anything else.

The taper wing variations did buy speed but, to me, robbed the Cherokee of a bit of character. Mind you, I think the same about the C172 evolution path. I wasn't around in the heyday of the earlier models but it's just an opinion I formed after flying some of the older aircraft.

In fairness though, our club operated an Archer II for many years and, for what it did, it was a pretty efficient and trouble-free aeroplane.

Thread drift I know - what about Cheirftains and CASA's Ageing aircraft obsession?:confused:

Agree 100% with Tecmans comments regarding square wing piper, has a more honest, precise feel to it. I reckon late model Warriors are about the dullest aircraft Ive flown.
Interestingly I think early 172's are much the same, I figured that was because they are generally a lot lighter than their more recent models.

Jim Bede is responsible for most GA aircraft with tubular spars. Not a very structurally efficient design feature which is probably why it remains his hallmark and noone elses...

this may seem nuts but it works.

lie on the grass under the aeroplane and just look at it.
look all over it.

in the first 15 minutes you will start to notice things.
in the second fifteen minutes you will notice other things.
at the end of a final 15 minutes you will have a quite solid appreciation of the aeroplane.

you'd be amazed at what you pick up on just persisting in looking at it.

I once did precisely that with an A mod C402 at an airstrip on the northern coast of PNG dubbleyew eight, whilst waiting for my passengers to return. Middle of the PNG wet and under the a/c was the coolest place I could find!:ooh:

About all I can remember now (it was 22 years ago) is that it was 'educational.':hmm:

In my experience with the slab wings(Cherokee 140 and Arrow), it seemed impossible to hold the nosewheel off after touchdown like you might do on a soft field landing. In fact, the nose seems to come down almost with a thud despite full aft elevator. Almost always with only guys up front so CG could be a factor.

But, I flew an Archer the other day alone with its tapered wing. It did not seem difficult to hold the nosewheel off during the rollout. Anyone else notice this.

Yep definitely, that brings back more memories- the ones I flew (square and tapered) could be like that, the nose wheel strut does seem to have a lot of extension on them.
I never liked the way the warrior nosewheel would contact runway almost immediately after mains.

Almost all the small Pipers you will be on the forward limit of the CG with two on board such as training flights. The stabilator would run out of authority without significant trim close to touch down speed resulting in flat landings or the inability to stall the aircraft straight and level. An easy fix is to put 20kg or so in the baggage compartment which moved the CG rearward and made for much easier landings, including being able to hold the nosewheel off the ground. Most Seminole you actually go out of the forward limit with two on board and a decent amount of fuel. Limit the fuel and use rear ballast and it flies a lot more pleasantly.

Tubular Spars..
 

Thread drift: For those interested in tubular spars, The German Junkers Aircraft Manufacturer used them on the JU-86, JU-87, JU-90…lots of Google references..

Tried that ..... Fell asleep :(