PA28 All Moving Tail
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Bledington
I would think that the reason why the opted for the `all moving horizontal stabaliser` is because it has more authority than the conventional elivator type system, and on a ac of this size it would be more practice than having a elivator on a aerofil. If you look at PA34 TB9/10/20/200/21 there all the same, mainly because the speeds involved arnt that high, therefore at slower speed greater deflection is require and possible with this system. and its probably cheaper to produce also. I hope this helped
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: S Warwickshire
The extra authority would allow a greater CG range - very helpful with 4-seaters.
Jodel changed the arrangement from the Ambassadeur to the Sicile, giving a worthwhile increase in CG envelope, and that fed through to the DR400.
Jodel changed the arrangement from the Ambassadeur to the Sicile, giving a worthwhile increase in CG envelope, and that fed through to the DR400.
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 6
From: Escapee from Ultima Thule
All of a/c design is a compromise, buffetted by conflicting demands eg efficiency, strength, simplicity, robustness, maintainability & cost. Even marketing & the lawyers gets a look in.
The final design choices are usually after an iterative process that merges on an acceptable compromise that can do the job adequately.
There are advantages and disadvantages to Piper's tailplane solution, just like there are for Cessna's chosen method. Whatever swayed Piper to choose an all-flying tailplane, they obviously thought it had benefits for Piper. Cessna felt otherwise. For Piper the deciding factor could have been something mundane such as perceived marketing ploy or something more technical.
The final design choices are usually after an iterative process that merges on an acceptable compromise that can do the job adequately.
There are advantages and disadvantages to Piper's tailplane solution, just like there are for Cessna's chosen method. Whatever swayed Piper to choose an all-flying tailplane, they obviously thought it had benefits for Piper. Cessna felt otherwise. For Piper the deciding factor could have been something mundane such as perceived marketing ploy or something more technical.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
No: John gets the prize, but not because a stabilator is a better concept for slow-moving aircraft ( 
). Rather, as he indicated (and as englishal seconded), it was simpler, and therefore cheaper, for Piper to manufacturer.
It is true that the use of stabilators is common in jet fighters, and so may have influenced Piper's marketing people ... but I doubt that this was a major factor. John Thorp and Fred Weick were the designers, and both men were known for prefering simplicity whenever possible (remember that the PA-28 had 400 fewer parts than the PA-22 that it replaced in Piper's line-up).
). Rather, as he indicated (and as englishal seconded), it was simpler, and therefore cheaper, for Piper to manufacturer. It is true that the use of stabilators is common in jet fighters, and so may have influenced Piper's marketing people ... but I doubt that this was a major factor. John Thorp and Fred Weick were the designers, and both men were known for prefering simplicity whenever possible (remember that the PA-28 had 400 fewer parts than the PA-22 that it replaced in Piper's line-up).
