The PA 28- A warning
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
From: Central London
The PA 28- A warning
Just a little warning as someone who has over a 1,000 hours on this little aircraft. There are PA 28's and PA 28's. Just like the 172 and 182 they are not all the same.
Just because you can fly one does not mean you will not come to grief in another.
Some older versions will carry four people.Others are lucky with two.
The very few PA-28 160's still on the UK register dating from the early sixties are the exceptions.
The recent accident on the Isle of Wight is a reminder:
This from On-MarkBob
The 140 Cherokee had a shorter fuselage and a different wing. It actually started life as the Thorpe Sky Scooter and was a two seater. Piper initially made the PA 160 a full four seater, the wing was diferent again, having no 'wash out'. When the PA 28-140 was concieved it was a 2+2 having a limit of only 200lbs on the rear seats, and a wing with 'wash out'. How many times have you seen 4 adults climb out of one? The aircraft was certified in two categories 'Normal' and 'Utility'. I've forgotton which one is which but I think that you could only spin it in the 'Utility' category with no load in the back
Just because you can fly one does not mean you will not come to grief in another.
Some older versions will carry four people.Others are lucky with two.
The very few PA-28 160's still on the UK register dating from the early sixties are the exceptions.
The recent accident on the Isle of Wight is a reminder:
This from On-MarkBob
The 140 Cherokee had a shorter fuselage and a different wing. It actually started life as the Thorpe Sky Scooter and was a two seater. Piper initially made the PA 160 a full four seater, the wing was diferent again, having no 'wash out'. When the PA 28-140 was concieved it was a 2+2 having a limit of only 200lbs on the rear seats, and a wing with 'wash out'. How many times have you seen 4 adults climb out of one? The aircraft was certified in two categories 'Normal' and 'Utility'. I've forgotton which one is which but I think that you could only spin it in the 'Utility' category with no load in the back
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
From: THE NORTH
Yes I think most of us PA28 fans/flyers do !
Phil - The original wing has little or no washout ie. the PA28-140, 160, 180.
The later versions (However they did overlap the models by a few years!) the PA28-151, 161, 181 all have a different wing constructed with a two piece main spar and a fair bit of washout.
I regularly fly four up in a 140 with careful w & B consideration, only short flights are possible with a safe diversion allowance.
If I need to fly four up and further I take a Warrior (161) which can hold nearly four hours fuel and four real people.
JL..........
Phil - The original wing has little or no washout ie. the PA28-140, 160, 180.
The later versions (However they did overlap the models by a few years!) the PA28-151, 161, 181 all have a different wing constructed with a two piece main spar and a fair bit of washout.
I regularly fly four up in a 140 with careful w & B consideration, only short flights are possible with a safe diversion allowance.
If I need to fly four up and further I take a Warrior (161) which can hold nearly four hours fuel and four real people.
JL..........
Last edited by JUST-local; 21st August 2007 at 22:04. Reason: Many typo/spelling errors!
Fly Conventional Gear
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
From: Winchester
Some older versions will carry four people.Others are lucky with two.
The very few PA-28 160's still on the UK register dating from the early sixties are the exceptions.
The very few PA-28 160's still on the UK register dating from the early sixties are the exceptions.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,400
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Four hours and four up in a PA28-161?
They must be very light people. When we did the calculations, we found that because of its greater zero fuel weight, the Warrior doesn't offer much of an advantage over the Cherokee 140. Although it does have rather more interior space.
They must be very light people. When we did the calculations, we found that because of its greater zero fuel weight, the Warrior doesn't offer much of an advantage over the Cherokee 140. Although it does have rather more interior space.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
From: THE NORTH
Yes that right four up and "up to" four hours.
The aircraft I take on such a trip has a mtom of 2440lbs and a basic of less than 1530lbs and the figures come in most of the time.
Some well most of the other Warriors I have used have a mtom of 2325lbs which as mentioned does not really allow for any more useful load than a 140 or similar given the increase in basic weight.
JL.......
The aircraft I take on such a trip has a mtom of 2440lbs and a basic of less than 1530lbs and the figures come in most of the time.
Some well most of the other Warriors I have used have a mtom of 2325lbs which as mentioned does not really allow for any more useful load than a 140 or similar given the increase in basic weight.
JL.......
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
You know what...... I would be very wary of taking loading to the line just because you have one aircraft that has a slightly different MAUW to another. Not to mention that I will bet you a months supply of beer that if you weighed the aircraft prior to flight you find the actual weight very different from the load sheet unless the aicraft had a weight and balance done the day before. Most W&B sheets are way out of date and without exception every aircraft goes up in weight every time it is weighed. Fabrics take on moisture etc.
Just because you have a higher MTOW does not mean you have any extra performance.
A wise man gives himself a good margin for error..................
I personally will not fly any Cherokee 4 up regardless of the fuel load and with a Warrior I would be looking at around 2 hrs fuel.
As a point the Cherokee I teach in has a placard for the maximum weight on the rear seat of around 180lbs(I will go and check the exact figure in a bit).
If you want to carry more passengers get a more powerful aircraft, not put other peoples lives at risk with creative accounting.......
Just because you have a higher MTOW does not mean you have any extra performance.
A wise man gives himself a good margin for error..................
I personally will not fly any Cherokee 4 up regardless of the fuel load and with a Warrior I would be looking at around 2 hrs fuel.
As a point the Cherokee I teach in has a placard for the maximum weight on the rear seat of around 180lbs(I will go and check the exact figure in a bit).
If you want to carry more passengers get a more powerful aircraft, not put other peoples lives at risk with creative accounting.......
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
From: THE NORTH
I am disappointed with some of the responses so far.
You must have a recent w&b report anyway! (dated Nov. 2004 on the 161 I use) if the aircraft is being operated in accordance with the flight manual/ c of a, factor the temp and level and then add the caa factor for take off and landing from the safety sense leaflet, if you are also within your personal limits you go!
I consider myself cautious and like to have considered all of the available information before every flight and would not fly if anyone was at a greater risk than normal.
I don't think creative accounting, extra power, wise men or putting people’s lives at risk has anything to do with it. I was just stating a few facts regarding the capabilities of the PA28 they pose no abnormal level of danger when operated by the book.
You must have a recent w&b report anyway! (dated Nov. 2004 on the 161 I use) if the aircraft is being operated in accordance with the flight manual/ c of a, factor the temp and level and then add the caa factor for take off and landing from the safety sense leaflet, if you are also within your personal limits you go!
I consider myself cautious and like to have considered all of the available information before every flight and would not fly if anyone was at a greater risk than normal.
I don't think creative accounting, extra power, wise men or putting people’s lives at risk has anything to do with it. I was just stating a few facts regarding the capabilities of the PA28 they pose no abnormal level of danger when operated by the book.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
You think Nov 2004 is current?
I will bet you that the aircraft as it stands on the tarmac at this moment accounting for fuel is heavier than you think.
When an aircraft is weighed it is stripped to the bare minima as required on the MEL. When it actually goes flying it has people in clothes, headsets, GPS, maps, flight bags, flight guides you name it the crap that gets put in an aircraft is endless.
When I was newly qualified I had such a demonstration made to me by an Instructor in a 152. We weighed ourselves and all the extras that were in the aircraft and my W&B was more than 40lbs out on a 152.
I teach the same to my own students these days and the look of suprise on people face when they do a REAL W&B is a delight.
I am not saying you are not heading in the right direction, I am just trying to point out that you should not be so cut and dried in your thinking. As an Instructor I would question your calcs claimed in an earlier post and ask you to produce a full schedule that would convince me to take 4 adults and 4hrs fuel in a warrior.
I will bet you that the aircraft as it stands on the tarmac at this moment accounting for fuel is heavier than you think.
When an aircraft is weighed it is stripped to the bare minima as required on the MEL. When it actually goes flying it has people in clothes, headsets, GPS, maps, flight bags, flight guides you name it the crap that gets put in an aircraft is endless.
When I was newly qualified I had such a demonstration made to me by an Instructor in a 152. We weighed ourselves and all the extras that were in the aircraft and my W&B was more than 40lbs out on a 152.
I teach the same to my own students these days and the look of suprise on people face when they do a REAL W&B is a delight.
I am not saying you are not heading in the right direction, I am just trying to point out that you should not be so cut and dried in your thinking. As an Instructor I would question your calcs claimed in an earlier post and ask you to produce a full schedule that would convince me to take 4 adults and 4hrs fuel in a warrior.
Fly Conventional Gear
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
From: Winchester
I once worked out that in my club's well equipped Warrior III with four 80KG adults and no additional stuff it could hold 10 US gals of fuel up to max take-off weight, not really enough to go anywhere really.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
From: london
In terms of load carrying, there often isn't much difference betwen a warrior and a lightly equiped cherokee 140; for instance, our club warrior was 2325lb mauw, empty 1550lb = 775lb useful load. My old cherokee 2150lb mauw, empty 1400lb = 750lb.
Any way you cut it, it was never more that 3 svelte adults or 2 adults and two kiddies and modest fuel.
An archer II by comparison(Which I happen to have bought by way of an upgrade) is 2550 mauw, 1600lb empty = 950lb load. Still only 2 ordinary adults, two kiddies, luggage and a decent fuel load. Archer III's can come up heavier, so as ever read the w&b.
Curiously, my old 140 loaded with two big blokes in pi and pii and a full fuel load was very close to being out of the w&b envelope, due to forward c of g, whereas the warrior and archer have no such probs.
Any way you cut it, it was never more that 3 svelte adults or 2 adults and two kiddies and modest fuel.
An archer II by comparison(Which I happen to have bought by way of an upgrade) is 2550 mauw, 1600lb empty = 950lb load. Still only 2 ordinary adults, two kiddies, luggage and a decent fuel load. Archer III's can come up heavier, so as ever read the w&b.
Curiously, my old 140 loaded with two big blokes in pi and pii and a full fuel load was very close to being out of the w&b envelope, due to forward c of g, whereas the warrior and archer have no such probs.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: England
Beagle Said:
Just to be pedantic, do you mean "Empty Weight" rather than "Zero fuel weight"? Do they specify the latter on a Warrior?
ZFW can come into play quite significantly on bigger aircraft but it always seems to be a case of running into the MAUW on little uns, rather than exceeding ZFW.
They must be very light people. When we did the calculations, we found that because of its greater zero fuel weight, the Warrior doesn't offer much of an advantage over the Cherokee 140.
ZFW can come into play quite significantly on bigger aircraft but it always seems to be a case of running into the MAUW on little uns, rather than exceeding ZFW.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,400
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Yes, empty weight indeed.
I go with what wsmempson wrote!
We refuel our ac to full on side, tabs the other. That just gives legal W&B for 3 non-lardy occupants.
I go with what wsmempson wrote!
We refuel our ac to full on side, tabs the other. That just gives legal W&B for 3 non-lardy occupants.
Joined: Aug 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
From: South of France
I think the previous point on W&B is well made and applies to any a/c.
Like quite a few PPL's I flew the same rented 172 for a while on trips to Le Touq and Calais etc. If it took 4 people and some booze with full tanks last week, then it's going to be the same this week.....
It was only when I had my first owned a/c, a TB9 that I started to do W&B properly. I'm ashamed to say I would not have thought twice about loading her up and setting off but the guy I bought it from sent me a spreadsheet with W&B on it as an afterthought.
I was confused at first because I just couldn't get the figures to add up properly.
Slowly it dawned on muggins that they were adding up properly and the answers were absolutely correct. The margin of error on 4 seater light a/c is stunningly small and I wonder how many PPl's have that fact drummed into them during training?
Like quite a few PPL's I flew the same rented 172 for a while on trips to Le Touq and Calais etc. If it took 4 people and some booze with full tanks last week, then it's going to be the same this week.....
It was only when I had my first owned a/c, a TB9 that I started to do W&B properly. I'm ashamed to say I would not have thought twice about loading her up and setting off but the guy I bought it from sent me a spreadsheet with W&B on it as an afterthought.
I was confused at first because I just couldn't get the figures to add up properly.
Slowly it dawned on muggins that they were adding up properly and the answers were absolutely correct. The margin of error on 4 seater light a/c is stunningly small and I wonder how many PPl's have that fact drummed into them during training?
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
From: North West UK
A further consideration is that in the event of a mishap, W&B will be one of the first things the accident inspector looks at. If the loading is outside limits, you will have contravened the ANO, and thus be illegal. And the insurance will probably be invalid too. So even if you survive the accident, you could end up bankrupt.....
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: England
Can anyone actually give me an instance where insurers have not paid out because of a pilot's transgression?
I'm not doubting anyone, but I've heard many people say that if you so much as fly a knot outside the demonstated crosswind, or a pound over MAUW they won't pay out. But has anyone heard of that actually happening?
By definition most aircraft accidents involve a mistake of some kind, isn't that why we have insurance?
I'm not doubting anyone, but I've heard many people say that if you so much as fly a knot outside the demonstated crosswind, or a pound over MAUW they won't pay out. But has anyone heard of that actually happening?
By definition most aircraft accidents involve a mistake of some kind, isn't that why we have insurance?
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: very west
Wings and things
Hi al.
Hopefully I can assist in clearing up some confusion regarding PA 28 wings. There are more differences than I know, but at a basic level, here goes:
Very earliest PA 28-140 Cherokee (Hershey bar) wing - negligable washout
Later PA 28-140 up to 180E (and PA28R-180 ArrowI) Cherokee (Hershey bar) wing - washout
PA 28-180 Archer I (and PA 28R-200 Arrow II) Hershey bar wing - washout and one foot extension each side of wing and stabilator.
PA 28-151, -161 Warrier II and III and -181 Archer II and III - taper wing with washout (see note below)
PA 28 RT-201 (and 201T) Arrow IV- taper wing with washout and increased span and fuel tankage (I think Arrow III has this wing as well)
*NOTE* PA 28-151 lower MTOW than -161 and I believe Flight Manual recommends for -151 one stage of flap for take off
I believe the PA 28-235 had the same wing as the Archer I, and the Dakota has the same wing as the -181, but I may be incorrect.
Hope this helps.
camlobe
Hopefully I can assist in clearing up some confusion regarding PA 28 wings. There are more differences than I know, but at a basic level, here goes:
Very earliest PA 28-140 Cherokee (Hershey bar) wing - negligable washout
Later PA 28-140 up to 180E (and PA28R-180 ArrowI) Cherokee (Hershey bar) wing - washout
PA 28-180 Archer I (and PA 28R-200 Arrow II) Hershey bar wing - washout and one foot extension each side of wing and stabilator.
PA 28-151, -161 Warrier II and III and -181 Archer II and III - taper wing with washout (see note below)
PA 28 RT-201 (and 201T) Arrow IV- taper wing with washout and increased span and fuel tankage (I think Arrow III has this wing as well)
*NOTE* PA 28-151 lower MTOW than -161 and I believe Flight Manual recommends for -151 one stage of flap for take off
I believe the PA 28-235 had the same wing as the Archer I, and the Dakota has the same wing as the -181, but I may be incorrect.
Hope this helps.
camlobe
Fly Conventional Gear
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
From: Winchester
The PA28 has a bewildering number of models and must be the largest GA aircraft family there is, having flown five different variations to date all I can say is just do the W&B for the aircraft in question and you shouldn't go wrong.
