Cherokee spins?

[iflyforpie]

Only the Cherokee 140 is certified for spins. The details are in the flight manual supplement

My Cherokee 180 book says otherwise.

Edit: If you ant an oddball cross country/ acro plane, get a Musketeer C23, has the better engine, they do nice aileron rolls.

Yep. I used to fly the Sundowner (updated Musketeer with an extra door on the LH side). The pitch and roll rate on that plane is phenomenal (for the type of plane it is) it is more comfortable than a Bonanza or Baron IMHO, and in typical Beech fashion it is a luxury vehicle amongst econoboxes.

Downsides are high takeoff and landing speeds and slow climbs due to a portly fuselage attached to wings smaller in area than those of a 150, poor cruise speeds (no faster than a Cherokee 140 on 180HP), and of course..... typical Beech 'if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it' parts values.

[carbeerater]

Could one potentially "push the paperwork" on a scout, perhaps by somehow certifying it at a lower gw, thus allowing a higher g loading? Or is that a type certificate thing?

Sorry for the naivete! Just learning over here...

[Shiny Side Up]

Its ok, the Cherokee lineage is terribly confused with marketing Mumbo jumbo. The old Cherokees were the ones that were all spinable, first the 150 and 160 models, then the 180, then the 140. Later on the 180 was called the Charger, then not, then the Cherokee D, or maybe the other way around (I don't think there was a Cherokee "B" or "C") and the later production dropped the spin ability. the later ones I think you can tell by the different window shape and a slight widening of the cabin. Not even all the 140s were the same, though I think all of them are spinable, both the 2 seat and the 2+2 seat models.

I think I've maybe spun all the ones that can be spun? Not sure. The only thing notable about the 180's spin was that with more power you could get it to really whip around (relatively speaking) when it did spin, and it tended to lose more altitude per rotation. Otherwise it was pretty spin resistant like the rest of the Cherokees, and had a pretty predictable characteristic, which one might attribute to the Hershey bar.

[carbeerater]

Well, I'm looking at an entry level/first airplane. The I would love to be able to afford something with a little more capability like a super decathalon or spitfite but $$$ is a factor! I am a cpl so not for training, more for practice. I have had a great deal of spin training but am nervous about spinning some of the higher time Cessnas that I've flown (10000+hrs). Also most rental agreements prohibit spins without an instructor... $70/hr I'd rather not spend.

I have always enjoyed spins and really couldn't give two farts in a windstorm about gyros! I'd be happy with a basic vfr machine with reasonable cross country abilities

My Cherokee 180 is not certified for spins. However in terms of capability it easily bests both the Super Decathalon and the Spitfire, it will carry 4 adults and full fuel! It also has very reasonable cross country abilities. I'm writing this post from the Trump Tower in Las Vegas, I flew in to KVGT yesterday.

Watching the earth spin round and round is fun, but I don't find it as thrilling as watching unfamiliar country slip by under the wing.

My advice to you (as a newly minted airplane owner) is that if you want to do aerobatics go and buy an acro machine. If you want an all rounder don't exclude a type because it isn't certified to perform one maneuver.

Great advice idp, so far my most memorable experiences have been the longer trips, but I still can't fathom the thought of owning (paying for) something that can't perform the full range of maneuvers.

Maybe speed and money make up for that?!

[carbeerater]

Go get a Pitts and have some real fun.

That sounds awesome and I would love to do some serious aerobatic training but I hear the cross country performance is marginal

Maybe this deserves a new thread but what would be the "go to"/ "do everything" plane of choice for most?

Criteria: Fully aerobatic
Functional cross country (2 up with let's say minimum 300nm range)
Float and ski capable as a bonus?

Does this aeroplane exist?

[Shiny Side Up]

Its possible you might need multiple airplanes.

[carbeerater]

Its possible you might need multiple airplanes.

Criteria: Fully aerobatic
Functional cross country (2 up with let's say minimum 300nm range)
Float and ski capable as a bonus? 

Sorry ssu, one at a time... it's gotta do both or I need to win the lottery

[I_Drive_Planes]

(I don't think there was a Cherokee "B" or "C")

My airplane is a Cherokee C (1966) and I do believe I've seen a Cherokee B, but I wouldn't put money on it.

[Colonel Sanders]

Criteria: Fully aerobatic
Functional cross country (2 up with let's say minimum 300nm range)
Float and ski capable as a bonus?

Super D is close. Skis but no floats.

Easy to land.

[PilotDAR]

Criteria: Fully aerobatic
Functional cross country (2 up with let's say minimum 300nm range)
Float and ski capable as a bonus?


Does this aeroplane exist?

I imagine that only a Citabria would meet this list - Citabria read backward is?....

It will not be possible to have a plane which is good for all of these things. You'll find good at one, and marginal at the others, or compromise all the way around. A C-150/152 Aerobat would be the compromise all the way around (but no floats or skis).

Though I have no recent experience maintaining them (so I don't know the parts availability), I liked the Tomahawk for simple, versatile and cheap, as long as short unpaved runway operation was not on your wish list.

Historically, as the FAA moved away from spin training, the American aircraft manufacturers moved away from spin certifying their planes - it was simply easier. Bear in mind that every certified single engine aircraft, right up to the Caravan has demonstrated spin recovery to be certified, though that does not mean they get spin certification - that is much more rigorous testing. Non spin approved aircraft can be recovered from a spin, though with a much lesser margin of safety.

Grand Caravan at gross weight - 9200 FPM peak descent rate, 2.8G AT Vne to recover - 10 times that day, for certification testing....

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjB_q7AIvDo[/youtube]

[Pop n Fresh]

Which is the best Kawasaki?
I want to do this.


I don't want to edit this but I suppose I should. Sorry I originally posted some dummies ripping around on public roads. I feel remorse.

And this.

[PilotDAR]

Edited, my comment is no longer relevant.

[Pop n Fresh]

Interesting direction you took that.

I merely googled "mud bogging" then YouTube searched "porsche 911 cornering".

Point narrowly missed by you like the on coming traffic in the video was...

Sometimes you need a different unit to attempt a speed record at the salt flats than the one you would use to move a refrigerator.

[Shiny Side Up]

Sorry ssu, one at a time... it's gotta do both or I need to win the lottery

You could do one, then the other. You know, get an acro plane, fly the hell out of it, then get a cross country machine. OR the other way around, which you might want to do if you still have kids who fit into airplane seats, fly them all over the place, then when they're too cool to be seen with Dad, get an acro plane. Many solutions! Maybe get an acro plane, and rent a cross country cruiser when you need it. Maybe buy both and lease them to a school so they don't cost you as much. Get creative! Maybe buy shares of both, get some like minded fellows who want access to both.

[Pop n Fresh]

I'm surprised at how bitterly annoyed I am about that lecture. Too bad you were not around when I was cleaning trout for the first time to drone on about knife safety. Giving examples of real life cuts you've seen.

[PilotDAR]

Lots of good discussion here about responsible flying, and safety, and that's great.

[CFR]

I have resigned myself to a number of things ...

1) there is no perfect all singing all dancing airplane,
2) to get what I want, I would need 3 or 4 airplanes,
3) bank account does not support 3 or 4 airplanes (barely supports one)

On the plus side, if the lotto ever hits I know how I will store my 3 or 4 airplanes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnI9-dltQcI

[Shiny Side Up]

I would say that if you are going to go through with the financial drain of owning an airplane, buy what you can afford and fly the most. Don't buy an airplane for a once a year mission. If you want to fly acro once a year, but fly across the country 20 times a year, then don't worry about your missed acro, enjoy what you can do. I see so many airplanes that were bought and sit since the mission they were bought for only happens once in a blue moon. Pilots have the bad tendency of wanting way more than they need, then not being able to use it. Their wife won't go, their kids won't go, they have no friends. Ninety percent of pilot/owners are going to fly most of their time with at most one passenger for less than an hour.

[Tailwind W10]

Its possible you might need multiple airplanes.

Criteria: Fully aerobatic
Functional cross country (2 up with let's say minimum 300nm range)
Float and ski capable as a bonus? 

Sorry ssu, one at a time... it's gotta do both or I need to win the lottery

I don't know if it's an option for you, but I believe an RV homebuilt would fit the requirement. RV-6 or -7 for sideby side seating, or RV-4 or 8 tandem seating. (The RV-9 and -10 aren't aerobatic, not sure about the -12 and 14)

Floats: Why not!
http://www.clamarfloats.com/downloads/0711_feature.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPvBZJXJvS0

I haven't spotted one on skis, but it's experimental so why not be the first?

There are plenty other homebuilt designs that have legitimate cross country capability, and some basic aerobatic abilities as well, a couple more that come to mind are Thorpe T-18,Mustang II, and GP-4, but a bit of research would bring up more options. Needless to say purchasing an experimental would require a good deal more research and inspection than a certified airplane.

Gerry

[Pop n Fresh]

Lecture not so much intended as a reminder of consistency. Lots of good discussion here about responsible flying, and safety, and that's great. Anyone here who describes (or worse admits) poor judgement or airmanship here is opening themselves to criticism. Fair enough, but the attitude to responsible operation should extend beyond just airplanes, to become a culture, rather than "Okay, I'll be safe, now I'm flying".

As for mud bogging - yup, I've had my ATV up to its fenders a few times. I was surrounded by my mates, with their winches at the ready. Neither speed nor non participant motorists involved!

Yes, I do now see your point about different vehicles for different applications, fair enough. Perhaps the hard cornering on a closed course (that one in every TV ad for a car) would have allowed me to focus. Sorry....

And I suppose if I'm going to be honest I have certainly endangered people with my irresponsible operation of ground transportation units. As a "professional driver" and unwitting father/mentor, I like to think that's in my past. Maybe I subconsciously know it's not.

More so I feel defensive about my imagined heightened degree of level headed safe choices when I fly.

I'll have you know the safety of my aircraft and crew are my top priority every time I fly!