PA28 stall characteristics
 

Greetings,

Could some kind soul tell me a bit about the stall characteristics of the early PA28's? All my flying so far has been on Cessnas and my understanding is that the PA28 is a bit more nasty in the stalling regime, is that true? Could be interesting to know in preparation for a future "change of steed". The differences are obviously not that large but at least I killed another five boring minutes by creating this topic. :)

Thanks,

MA

SquawkModeA

I learnt in the Piper Warrior, still classified as a PA-28. The stall is completely mundane from what i've done.:ok: The Warrior has a tapered wing though, not so sure if that Mars bar slab of a wing on the Cherokee makes any difference.

Makes about 10 minutes wasted now:}

Geez

A pa-28 is a very gentle and forgiving aircraft to fly, you'll enjoy every minute of it, that is, if you like your flying straight and level ;-) However, study the poh carefully. They are not cleared for spins, something which you may be used to practising in a cessna. Get checked out by an instructor before going solo. Have fun!!

Some PA28s are cleared for intentional spinning, the slab wing PA28-140C Cherokee being one of them.

All PA28 stall characteristics are very benign; in fact the only anger is that pilots will assume that all aircraft are so forgiving at the stall. The T67A and Chipmunk have far more 'classic' stalls....

Regarding spinning the PA28, it is a very unconvincing manoeuvre. The POH outlines the mandatory entry technique which must be used. Th technique involves trimming to a speed well above the normal gliding speed and then entering the spin at the point of stall. This means that considerable back pressure is needed during the entry and maintenance of the spin - if it will spin properly at all, that is! The recovery is very prompt, but the most difficult part is revovering from the dive without overstressing or exceeding Vne. Before the POH amendment was issued, we used the Bulldog entry technique which was far better at ensuring a clean spin entry. Moreover the recovery was easier, particularly from the dive after the spin had stopped.

Do NOT, under any circumstances, try spinning a PA28 unless you've studied the POH insert thoroughly and are with a FI.

The only real bad point I have about the PA28's stalling characteristics is that the stall warning system activates too early!

I've met people who consider the early acting stall warner on a PA28 as a good indicator of the best short-field approach speed. A little extreme for my taste, but you can see their point.

Seriously, I don't think that you'll find the PA28 much different to the C152/C172, the main difference is an electrical stall warner (check it pre-flight) rather than Cessna's rather clever airflow based device.

The Piper with the exciting stall is the PA38 (Tomahawk) and I suspect that's what you've been hearing stories about. It's a totally different beast in many ways (not say that it's not a good aeroplane, but it's still not a PA28).

G

Confirm all the above - the PA28, straight or taper wing, is a pussycat in the stall.

One of my US checkouts (with a good friend and CFI in Detroit) included a ten minute route sector with the stall warner going the whole time. We even played morse on it for a giggle. The stall warner is a good "landing speed indicator" - ours beeps for the last few seconds if we've got it right. If it doesn't beep at all, you landed too fast.

The "spinnable" PA28s are few, and if you check, the C of G limits for spinning are so narrow that you could be outside them if your seat is one notch too far back or forward. I wouldn't bother - if you're going to spin, do it in something more suitable. My pal Dave uses his Yak to get all that nonsense out of his system before we go on a trip in the Arrer.

What stall?
 

I used to fly the PA28 Archer II a lot. I tried to stall it many many times, but for me, that is not a stall.

It just sinks, with little buffeting, and the nose drops just a little while the yoke is fully pulled.

A distinctive buffet in the tail can be felt a moment before the main (wing) buffet.

For training purposes, I think it's is too easy.

But the landing needs some care. If you arrive fast and/or high on final, it's better to go around, unless you got a LOT of runway to spare.

That's a very forgiving machine, the Archer.

I learned to fly on the Tomohawk then converted to the Warrior 161. The Tomohawk is quite hard to fly in comparison to the Warrior. The pa 28 is very benign and a joy to fly. I also find it has a more sturdy feel and find it very easy to land well time after time even in poor weather/x wind etc. I think you will have no problems with it. However the foreward view is qite restricted compared to the Tommy and I personally favour a cusion to get a better pilots perspective(and I am 6ft)

SquawkModeA,

the stall characteristics of the early PA28's -

To the tune of Monty Python's "spam song":

"Mush, Mush, Mush, Mush,
Mush, Mush, Mush, Mush,"

etc. ad infinitum (or you hit the ground!) :D

SD

I agree with eveyone else who has commented. The PA28 Archer and Warriors are pussycats in the stall compared to C150/152/172. THey have nice noisy stall warners and controls which go very sloppy way before the warner goes off. Even in IMC/limited panel, it seemed pretty easy and predicatable to handle.

the stall in the pa28 is pretty uneventful, it's almost impossible to get it to spin unless you stamp on the rudder.

Hershey Bar not Mars bar!

The aerodynamics of a Mars bar, especially the big chunky ones would be less than ideal.

I fly an Arrer 2 but still a PA28 by any other name, with the Hershey bar wing and the stall is a mush filled non- event.

Only problem is that when I'm doing the biennial (or do I mean bi-annual) flight review, I have to get the instructor to hold up the 'auto-land' lever or the gear warner sounds as well as the stall warner and the gear comes tumbling down.

Scared the cr*p out of a low hours instructor who did my review a few years ago who had no hours on type: But that's another question.

Safe flying


Cusco

Thanks everyone. Seems to be generally agreed that the PA28 has none of the scary characteristics I imagined so long as you don't try to spin it. (I actually have spun twice in a C172 but that didn't do much for me as it was very reluctant to enter the spin and would then exit as soon as back pressure was removed)

I, too, suspect that what I have heard about is in fact the PA38 which I don't think is very common over here. What will that one do?

SMA (Baby food? ...sorry!...)

Ball in the middle, stalls OK. Ask a pal at your flying club/airfield to take you in a Pitts..or a Yak..or a Cub..or a 747...with the ball in the middle and S&L, the stall is also benign, because the aircraft is in balance.

All aircraft have their differences, particularly in an accelerated stall, so ask a QFI to show you in your PA28 (I am thinking of the base-turn-to-final scenario). It is also benign, but you need to be aware of the dangers (meaning when the ball is not in the middle, and/or no height to recover).

But Straight & Level, it's a pussy cat.

What's a PA38? Is that a Tomahawk? If so, it's also OK in the spin, if you understand the recovery technique. It's in the POH, and is pretty standard. I know a lot of folk came to grief in these in years gone by, but usually from a misunderstanding of the type.

Hope this helps

Aha the PA38 Tomahawk:

Now that's a slightly different kettle o' fish.

This was the trainer designed by a panel of instructors to have all the good features of a trainer and none of the bad.

I trained in the Tomahawk at Ipswich (RIP) in the early 90's:
Spin training by then had been banned so I did the usual stall/spin awareness bit in the PPL syllabus

However I did persuade my instructor at the time (now a well-known aerobatics pilot) to do a few spins with me.

The PA38 is much easier to get into the spin and by chr*st does it take you by surprise with its suddenness.

However: spin recovery is textbook so long as you're within limits (as you are on a training flight, aren't you?).

However after a couple of spins I was invited to look over my shoulder at the tail/fin during the spin.

Now that's a ring tweaking sight!, as any PA38 pilot will tell you.

However , it stayed on, and we landed safely.

For what it's worth however: both the PA28 and 38 do not land themselves like the Cessnas do: you need a trickle of power throughout the flare or else you will 'arrive' rather than land.

Just my 2 pennorth.

Safe flying

Cusco.

Cusco: "a trickle of power"?

With due respect, I should say that I disagree. Both the PA28 and PA38 land very well, and in a repeatable manner, without power (and on most occasions I land them with the throttle at idle, and only occasionally have they not been at idle [i.e. prop stopped]). Mind you, I like to "arrive" the Cessnas as well, so perhaps you are correct!

I should argue that they are equably as landable as a Cessna in this respect, but the Cessna variety do have more forgiving landing gear (the "ooh-err stalling-too-high" factor) than the Pipers, which cost more in spar replacement due to heavier landings than out Wichita cousins.

The only time I land (sorry...touch down) any light aircraft (both single and multi) with power is when they are equipped with floats, and I only have a few hours on those, so I am yet to learn all the skills necessary thereof.

Anyway, an interesting discourse for me, still learning.

(Oh, you are right, the tailplane wobble in a spin is frightening for the Traumahawk, but well within its structural limits).

Hi D-T

As I said, just my two pennorth.

My 200HP Arrer 2 Hershey - Flying Brick (but still a PA28 and that's what the original poster was on about) needs a trickle of power on landing, or else , at low speeds on short East Anglian grass strips, one runs out of stabilator authority.

You have every right to disagree: that's what PPRUNE is all about.

Safe flying, and safe arrivals.

Cusco.

Hey Cusco, no disrespect meant..in fact your opinion sought. Is your Arrer with wobbly prop & stuff..I guess so with 200 'oggins on the front. How do you train for the unforeseen engine failure (say in the cruise)? In reality, of course, if it happened you land the plane where you can, but how do you "practice" for it?

HI DT

Yup, we've got wobbly prop and flappy Dunlops.

The 'Auto-land' feature is a magical gadget designed to monitor the manifold pressure and airspeed, so that if you got too slow, and with too low airspeed it would drop the undercarraige automatically (auto land) and stop you landing gear - up.

Apparently the death rate in Californian Doctors (getting close to home here) was so high when they forgot to put the gear down that the auto land (or summink like that) was designed.

However, in later Arrers this feature could be disabled by sliding a pin under the emergency hydraulic dump lever.

This however led to a permanently flashing yellow light on the panel which drove many pilots barking.

Fortunately, in our ante-diluvian Arrer there is no pin.

This does mean however, if you really must prat about with stall testing, someone (the instructor) must do the job of the absent pin and haul up on the lever,
to prevent the gear being dropped automatically, and mucking up the stall characteristics of the a/c.

To the un - initiated (low hours and non type-rated) instructor , the additional Klaxon, which is a bl**dy sight louder than the stall warner, can provide a ring tweaking entertainer.



Safe flying

Cusco.

I've never usually needed extral power on the flare in a pa28, in fact I usually completely cut the power just before passing over the threshold otherwise i just glide the thing in.