PA-28 & C-152 Death Traps?

flyingriki

flyingriki

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
910
Display Name
Display name:
flyingriki
At least 19 people have died in these aircraft already this year with many more injuries. Well maybe not necessarily death traps but can anyone shed some light for me on these designs? What is it like to fly them and what special precautions need to be taken?
 
Well for one thing most of them are old, and will fall out of the sky for being X number of years old. Second, they are lifted by an unreal, invisible force, probably angels, which as you know can be unreliable at times. Third the people that fly them are largely OLD, and of course can't be trusted. And........:rolleyes:
 
dmccormack said:
They are common and frequently used for flight training and by solo, low time pilots.

What else you need to know?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Since a good percentage of the planes flying are those models, it stands to reason a good percentage of the accidents would involve those models.
 
flyingriki said:
At least 19 people have died in these aircraft already this year with many more injuries. Well maybe not necessarily death traps but can anyone shed some light for me on these designs? What is it like to fly them and what special precautions need to be taken?
Click to expand...
And when you normalize the stats for aircraft type numbers in the fleet what did you find out?
 
this is a sarcastic response to my "canard of death" thread

look at my signature.. and my first post in "canard of death"

fyi in spite of my title (thought it was kinda funny) which was inspired by recent fatal accidents at my home airports involving canard aircraft I am not of the opinion they are death traps
 
Last edited:
How about the thousands who have been killed, maimed and injured in Chevrolets? How can we let this continue?!
Click to expand...

Eh? Can you speak up a little louder? I can't hear anything over the sirens from the nearby fire station that have been running twice an hour all day due to going on crash runs for cars.


flyingriki said:
What is it like to fly them
Click to expand...

Deathtraps? Based on what? Poor maintenance or pilots doing something silly?

They're quite simple to fly. You almost have to go out of your way to crash them.

and what special precautions need to be taken?
Click to expand...

Don't run into the ground.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
this is a sarcastic response to my "canard of death" thread

look at my signature.. and my first post in "canard of death"

fyi in spite of my title (thought it was kinda funny) which was inspired by recent fatal accidents at my home airports involving canard aircraft I am not of the opinion they are death traps
Click to expand...
Got it! ;)
 
flyingriki said:
At least 19 people have died in these aircraft already this year with many more injuries. Well maybe not necessarily death traps but can anyone shed some light for me on these designs? What is it like to fly them and what special precautions need to be taken?
Click to expand...

Do you have the numbers for any other aircraft so we can compare?
For example if 18 people died in 172s this year than 19 on a Cherokee is nothing special, but if 2 people died in 172s this year than there is a problem.


Just our of curiosity, where did you get the number 19?
 
Last edited:
flyingriki said:
At least 19 people have died in these aircraft already this year with many more injuries. Well maybe not necessarily death traps but can anyone shed some light for me on these designs? What is it like to fly them and what special precautions need to be taken?
Click to expand...
:rofl: Now you know why I prefer Grummans.
 
Ron Levy said:
:rofl: Now you know why I prefer Grummans.
Click to expand...
Oh, apropos that... I met a guy with an AA-5 at a fly-in, who say that he trues out at 140 knots, which is faster than a E-model Mooney. He attributes it to the smooth skin without rivets. I raised an eyebrow at that and meant to ask you about it.
 
The problem with those aircraft is that they are so big, heavy, and fast. When you have a mechanical problem, all that extra speed and mass makes it more likely to end badly compared to, say, a Highlander.
 
zaitcev said:
Oh, apropos that... I met a guy with an AA-5 at a fly-in, who say that he trues out at 140 knots, which is faster than a E-model Mooney. He attributes it to the smooth skin without rivets. I raised an eyebrow at that and meant to ask you about it.
Click to expand...

Ummm, yea.... I true between 155-160 on most flights at 8-9K. Must be the new paint on mine... :rolleyes: ;)

Brian
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
Oh, apropos that... I met a guy with an AA-5 at a fly-in, who say that he trues out at 140 knots, which is faster than a E-model Mooney. He attributes it to the smooth skin without rivets. I raised an eyebrow at that and meant to ask you about it.
Click to expand...

An Arrow can go 140 knots. I'm pretty sure a Mooney isn't slower.
 
zaitcev said:
Oh, apropos that... I met a guy with an AA-5 at a fly-in, who say that he trues out at 140 knots, which is faster than a E-model Mooney. He attributes it to the smooth skin without rivets. I raised an eyebrow at that and meant to ask you about it.
Click to expand...

Not Ron, but I am an AA5B owner and I a see 135 KTAS at altitude and 75% power.
 
Apparently someone doesn't know about the Traumahawk.... :rofl:

I'm jes' sayin....
 
These planes are often flown without a flight plan by people who don't even have pilot certificates.
 
zaitcev said:
Oh, apropos that... I met a guy with an AA-5 at a fly-in, who say that he trues out at 140 knots, which is faster than a E-model Mooney. He attributes it to the smooth skin without rivets. I raised an eyebrow at that and meant to ask you about it.
Click to expand...
If you mean a 180 HP AA-5B, that's entirely possible, but if it was an AA-5 Traveler with the 150 HP engine, only in a dive.

My Tigerized Cheetah (AA-5A with the AA-5B engine and heavier center spar -- essentially identical to a Tiger) will go about 143 KTAS, but that's full throttle down low indicating 98% power (1000 MSL, temp above standard) and burning like 15 gph. I can cruise it at about 70% power burning 9.2 gph at about 128-134 KTAS from SL up to 10K. Pushing to 75% power adds 3-4 knots, but pushes the fuel burn over 10 gph -- not a good tradeoff in my book, but it's available if you want. So, you should ask about conditions for that 140 KTAS speed, but with some of the speed mods available, at 75% power, up around 8000 feet, it might be top cruise speed.

As for why the AA-5-series cruise so much faster than their like-powered C/P cousins, the rivetless skin is one factor. So is the laminar flow wing. And there are many other low-drag features, especially on the Cheetah/Tiger which were the result of Grumman turning Roy LoPresti loose on the AA-5 Traveler design and telling him to make it better. Roy is memorialized for this in the Grumman community by the annual Roy LoPresti Memorial Air Race held every year at the AYA Convention.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
An Arrow can go 140 knots. I'm pretty sure a Mooney isn't slower.
Click to expand...

Ha! I flew a Cherokee at 140kt the other day, at the end of 3 hours flying, with the plane nicely in the utility category, and the speedometer well into the yellow (Vne 148)... going full power on a descent to straight final... the best final approach evah!

Umm... so there.
 
wsuffa said:
Apparently someone doesn't know about the Traumahawk.... :rofl:

I'm jes' sayin....
Click to expand...

I have... stalling them is great fun. Scares the crap out of the person who wanted save $10/hr instead flying the cherokee. It shakes violently and then trys to turn upsidedown almost immediately (co-ordinated or not). Nice 90kt cruise too..

<---<^>--->
 
The rank-and-file are not widely acclaimed for their abilities as nuance detectors. Apparently, for good reason.

Ron Levy said:
That is his point. Can't anybody here recognize sarcasm without a big flashing "SARCASM" sign?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
I love my old PA 28-161, I'm old, but I can still figure out how to make her go, for the most part. Wandering around trying to remember which plane is mine, and where I left her tied down sometimes is a problem at the FBO, but no big deal.

She's old, slow, (easy to stay ahead of) and downright pretty. How can I not love her?

John
 
onwards said:
Ha! I flew a Cherokee at 140kt the other day, at the end of 3 hours flying, with the plane nicely in the utility category, and the speedometer well into the yellow (Vne 148)... going full power on a descent to straight final... the best final approach evah!

Umm... so there.
Click to expand...

Just FYI

when you're in the yellow zone, a heavier airplane would actually be better than a light one if you encountered unexpected turbulence

turbulence penetration speed actually increases with weight. this is because the wings will stall at a lower G force with a heavier aircraft
 
Ron Levy said:
That is his point. Can't anybody here recognize sarcasm without a big flashing "SARCASM" sign?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess we need one like this:

sarcasm_is_just_one_more_free_service_we_offer.jpg
 
Yes, and some Cherokees are equipped for mid-air refueling in order to achieve that aerodynamic advantage. The problem is finding a tanker that will fly that slow.

dell30rb said:
Just FYI

when you're in the yellow zone, a heavier airplane would actually be better than a light one if you encountered unexpected turbulence

turbulence penetration speed actually increases with weight. this is because the wings will stall at a lower G force with a heavier aircraft
Click to expand...
 
"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it."

-- Thomas Carlyle
 
dmccormack said:
"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it."

-- Thomas Carlyle
Click to expand...

You do know he was a satirist, right?

Samuel Butler wrote one of my favorite quotes about Carlyle's marriage:

It was very good of God to let Carlyle and Mrs Carlyle marry one another, and so make only two people miserable and not four.
Click to expand...
 
dell30rb said:
Just FYI

when you're in the yellow zone, a heavier airplane would actually be better than a light one if you encountered unexpected turbulence

turbulence penetration speed actually increases with weight. this is because the wings will stall at a lower G force with a heavier aircraft
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused by this comment... I thought I'm only allowed in there when in the "grey box" on the W&B chart? or am I confusing the word "maneuvering" with "excess speed"?
 
onwards said:
I'm a little confused by this comment... I thought I'm only allowed in there when in the "grey box" on the W&B chart? or am I confusing the word "maneuvering" with "excess speed"?
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure what this "grey box" is. However, maneuvering speed does go up and down with weight -- heavier = higher Va. Also, the lighter you are, the slower you need to go in turbulence because the amount of force applied to the wing by the up/downdraft will be the same (same air velocity, same wing area), but the resultant g-force on the plane (total force applied to wing divided by weight) will be greater, and that greater g-load is what overstresses components.
 
The only thing that being in the utility category will get you is a slightly higher G limit, and in a high-wing (c172 or C152) the ability to spin the aircraft.

In a cherokee you are not supposed to bank past 60 degrees when in the normal category (You'll pull some G's in that turn).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top