Consensus of GA aircraft

[jgf]

As a long time auto enthusiast I know when "car guys" get together there's always the discussions and comparisons of various cars - performance, handling, engines, reliability, etc.  Surely when the aircraft guys get together there is the same - so what are the general consensus of Piper, Cessna, Beech, Mooney, and the myriad smaller companies? 

[lnuss]

There really is no"general consensus," but most people fly either Cessna or Piper, at least part of the time, partly because those two manufacturers have made most of the training aircraft used for the last 70+ years (Piper Cub on up). In my hangar flying there is more talk of a variety of E-AB (Experimental- Amateur Built), better known as homebuilt aircraft, vintage aircraft, etc. or perhaps some more exotic birds such as the SIAI-Marchetti SF-260, or Bucker Jungmeister or Howard DGA, but a lot of the talk is of various experiences, since people have a wide variety of backgrounds, some being retired airline types, retired military, or even current airline or corporate pilots.

 

But when CFIs get together there is often a lot of talk about experiences with various students (not generally by name), such as the young man that I flew with in a C-150 back in the 1970s. He had coke-bottle lenses in his glasses and told me that there was no way he could pass a  physical, but he was about to enlist in the Navy and was spending his bonus. It's rare that I've seen such enthusiasm from any student. He had a blast, and learned well, though he wanted to just joyride on occasion, but he was having so much fun that it was contagious.

 

Of course there was occasionally talk of whether it's better to train in a tailwheel (I think so) or not, was it wise to tech a student in a heavier airplane such as a C-206 or a Baron (I've had both), as well as discussing techniques, especially if you're having trouble getting a student to pick up some particular skill -- someone often has a good suggestion. So young CFIs can learn from the more experienced in that way, as well as others. Benefits of spin training and aerobatic training also came up.

 

But yes, there are Cessna afficianados, Piper afficianados and a smattering of others, with some liking their Mooney or Bonanza or Arrow or Bellanca Viking or Bug Smasher Special -- even Ercoupes have their adherents. And handling characteristics of a particular type, whether type A or type B is a "better" trainer.

 

But discussions of a trip to OSH, the joys of cloud skimming, details of the last fly-in, or just, "Hey, it's time for a beer, so let's go to the fridge." And yes, a few folks had such in their hangars, usually for end of the day or bad weather days.
 

So it's similar in some respects (after all, they're just people), but different in other respects, mostly because of the difference in environment and in how people use the aircraft. But the fact that a large percentage of pilots rent, rather than own, and that there are "flying clubs" and partnerships in which one (or more) aircraft are owned by several people, ranging from 2 people through the 8 we had in our L-21 club, and even more, though most of those beyond three or four were actual clubs, not partnerships, makes part of the difference too. We actually owned shares of stock in our L-21 club, so you can see it was an actual corporation.

[PhrogPhlyer]

1 minute ago, lnuss said:

Piper Cub on up

No finer training, or for that matter just plain fun, can be found than with a Cub.

 

I do agree that there are so many great aircraft, with myriad differences, and each has its place in the spectrum of needs and expectations of those who fly them.

I will add that I feel  Beech did the best in keeping the same "feel" through its line of amazing aircraft. From the Sport and Sundowner, through the Queen Air and King Air, they all have a comforting solid larger aircraft feel and responsiveness. Made transitioning through the line an easy progression.

[lnuss]

4 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

No finer training, or for that matter just plain fun, can be found than with a Cub.

Cub, Champ, Chief, T-craft, and a few others- yes, excellent training and lots of fun, though not quite as comfortable on a trip. Interestingly, one factor that makes the Cub and it's ilk so good for training is the fact that it forces you to learn what the rudder is for, though in most cases, it is somewhat forgiving of mistakes (emphasis on somewhat). This is because of the adverse yaw in these aircraft vs the adverse yaw in more modern aircraft.

 

For those not familiar, adverse yaw is the reaction of the aircraft when aileron is applied without corresponding rudder- the drag from the downgoing aileron actually wants to swing the nose in the opposite direction from the direction you applied aileron, so that left stick yaws right if not corrected. Now understand that all aircraft have some degree of that, but in the Cub vintage aircraft the upgoing and downgoing ailerons have the same amount of travel, such that the yaw is quite considerable requiring a very definite and, especially in slow flight, large input of rudder to match, and requiring it to be relaxed in proportion to the relaxing of aileron input.

 

The big difference in modern aircraft is that the downgoing aileron is configured to only go down about a third as much as the upgoing one travels, so the adverse yaw is much less for a given amount of stick input, meaning less rudder needed and, at cruise speed, many modern aircraft need little rudder in a turn, if the bank angle is only moderate, so too many folks get sloppy on the rudders and that can sometimes bite.

 

That's only one of a lot of things about the Cub and such forcing the student to learn things, to pay much closer attention than some people want to do without "encouragement."

 

There's a lot more, but I'll stop for now.

[PhrogPhlyer]

10 hours ago, lnuss said:

There's a lot more, but I'll stop for now.

Glad I sparked this follow-up. I was going to write more on the WHY for a Cub, but you saved me effort.

These detailed discussion I hope will help the non-rated pilots to understand why we often go into such detail.

This knowledge we got through experience, we can now share as written word to help others be better simmers.

[snave]

12 hours ago, jgf said:

As a long time auto enthusiast I know when "car guys" get together there's always the discussions and comparisons of various cars - performance, handling, engines, reliability, etc.  Surely when the aircraft guys get together there is the same - so what are the general consensus of Piper, Cessna, Beech, Mooney, and the myriad smaller companies? 

No consensus. Only assessment through experience. I have flown only a handful/maybe a `hatful` of different makes and types of aircraft. Only a multi millionaire and vastly experience pilot - with plenty of military experience - could have done much more. Eric `Winkle` Brown is my yardstick. His assessment of the hundreds of different type flown is my only vetting point. He reckoned the Bearcat was the best sinlge-engine fighter and I have no cause to take issue with him.... and he never had the experience of those aircraft you mention.

But I had more hours in a Diamond DA20 Katana than him!

Waste of time getting the `plane guys` together. We can't even agree of what is the best choice for breakfast!

[PhrogPhlyer]

1 minute ago, snave said:

Waste of time getting the `plane guys` together. We can't even agree of what is the best choice for breakfast!

I am just glad this discussion is about aircraft, not FS versions. 

[Nels_Anderson]

So, I'm both a car guy (own two antique vehicles) and an airplane guy so I've experienced both groups. The things you say about the car guys is certainly true, but the airplane guys really don't have those same discussions, at least not the ones I know. Comparing features of planes really isn't something that comes up in conversation all that often.

 

The two worlds are pretty different, in that car guys typically spend significant time and effort into modifying and improving their vehicles; something which is much more limited for airplanes due to all the rules and restrictions.

 

Actually, at my typical local pilot meet-up, about half of the conversation is about ham radio  There is a huge cross-over between the two activities.

[lnuss]

1 hour ago, snave said:

I have flown only a handful/maybe a `hatful` of different makes and types of aircraft. Only a multi millionaire and vastly experience pilot - with plenty of military experience - could have done much more.

Actually, that's not quite true, though I'll grant you that most pilots don't get such a wide range of aircraft in their logs. I've been fortunate in my instructing career and have about 60 different types in my logbook, from Cub, C-150 to Stearman, Citabria, Bonanza, Baron, Cherokees, etc. etc., including sailplanes, banner towing, etc. All this in spite of the fact that I was part time in aviation, with a decent job otherwise. And that doesn't count my half hour in a DC-3 and a few other very short segments, including some sophisticated sims.

 

And I'm far from a multi-millionaire, nor was I a military pilot. In fact, the only aircraft I've owned was being one of eight owners of a Super Cub for a few years, so someone else was paying for a large part of my flying. Starting in a tailwheel (Aeronca Chief) was a key to many things I did, along with getting my CFII, because I was able to, for example, get checked out in a Cessna 180 for glider towing (and later, banner towing). And I was fortunate to fly for a guy who had quite a variety of aircraft from Citabria, sailplanes and a Stearman to Grumman American birds (Tiger, Cheetah) and Cessnas and more.

 

1 hour ago, snave said:

Waste of time getting the `plane guys` together. We can't even agree of what is the best choice for breakfast!

Waste of time? No, we just have discussions of many things, not all being aviation related. But any group discussion for fun and camaraderie could be called a "waste of time" in your sense, but it's enjoyable (recreation perhaps?).

 

56 minutes ago, Nels_Anderson said:

Actually, at my typical local pilot meet-up, about half of the conversation is about ham radio  There is a huge cross-over between the two activities.

I've rarely had a LOT of that in my hangar flying Nels, about ham radio, though I agree that there is a huge crossover there -- many even fly to distant hamfests to check out gear. Also, many pilots are also musicians and motorcycle riders, and there is a large contingent that is also into boating, sailing, etc. so lots of common interests. One other common discussion among pilots is "accidents" -- I put it in quotes because it's usually pilot caused -- because most of us have an almost morbid fascination with those, usually figuring causes so we can avoid the same thing. We generally learn a lot from that.

 

1 hour ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Glad I sparked this follow-up. I was going to write more on the WHY for a Cub, but you saved me effort.

Well, that's one of my "buttons" you pressed For those who are EAA members, in their magazine two columnists stick out to me, though most are interesting: Steve Krog writes about flight training and safety, often using his 50+ years of instructing, largely in tailwheels (my own preference for teaching, too) to cover a wide range of subjects with a viewpoint that matches my own very well indeed, often going into minute detail about basics of flying the aircraft, but not neglecting mental attitude and decision making either.

 

The other one is Robert Rossier, who covers a broad range of safety items for the average pilot without getting into esoteric details. I knew Bob about 30-35 years back, when he was the manager at a flight school at BJC where I instructed part time for several years. He was good then, and is at least as good in his column now.

 

Hmmm... many memories coming back...

 

 

[snave]

Eric winkle Brown is known for flying 487 different types - more than any other man in history. I don't think, in all honesty, that 60 types qualifies your for an opinion. Except among those 60 types, for which we look forward to you expressing a comparison

I have no doubt that your 60 types is greater than mine, but I would ask that you name the tailwheel types: I have hands-on experience of Piper Cubs, Fox and Tiger Moths, Harvards and Spitfire. But would never make a comparison based solely on that limited experience, although i can say the Spitfire was, by far, the most homogenous aircraft I have flown. But flying a Mark IX T.9 at leisurely speed is not a basis for wartime, and a `friendly` Biggin Hill is no substitute for an urgent scramble to the level of WW11 bombers so I temper all comments within the level of my experience, whereas  `Winkle` could talk for hours about flying and fighting the things.

Another example: I have no experience of ` American Legend` aircraft versus the Classic Cubs, so do not consider any comparison meaningful or valid. I loved the Cub I flew...

[lnuss]

36 minutes ago, snave said:

I don't think, in all honesty, that 60 types qualifies your for an opinion. Except among those 60 types, for which we look forward to you expressing a comparison

An opinion on what? I was specifically answering your comment that "Only a multi millionaire and vastly experience pilot - with plenty of military experience - could have done much more. " The only reason I mentioned 60 types was to point out that it isn't necessary to be a multi millionaire and to have "plenty of military experience" to fly more than " a handful/maybe a `hatful` of different makes and types of aircraft" over the years. But I agree that, as I said above, "I'll grant you that most pilots don't get such a wide range of aircraft in their logs." And I wasn't trying to say that that number is near the top, either. I'm sure that there are quite a number of folks who've got a lot more than that, such as Budd Davisson with over 300 types and many others.

 

As for the rest, it was answering the OP and Phrog.

[PhrogPhlyer]

1 hour ago, snave said:

Piper Cubs, Fox and Tiger Moths, Harvards and Spitfire.

These, in and of themselves, would make any logbook proud!

[snave]

I reach for Winkle comments as a first step every time. Then Budd. Then my local air club. Then lots of comments from the hands-on cognoscenti.

It is where the internet really rules - although one has to weed out the `bad actors` and scum. 

[jgf]

Reading this afternoon I found these articles interesting.  Only one mentioned Beech, none mentioned Mooney, though I doubt those two combined have the market share of Cessna or Piper..

 

https://gsmis.org/piper-archer-vs-cessna-172/

 

https://aerocorner.com/blog/cessna-vs-piper/

 

https://aerocorner.com/blog/beechcraft-vs-piper/

 

https://aviatorinsider.com/airplane-brands/piper-vs-cessna/

[PhrogPhlyer]

Thanks for posting these links.

Interesting read of Beech vs Piper.

Unfortunately I felt the author kept comparing different class aircraft,

Malibu vs King Air (single vs multi engine), Lance vs Bonanza (middle range vs top of line single), etc.

He also keeps referring to Piper using cheaper parts and materials, and being hard to maintain. I have no idea where he gets that info.

Lots of opinion, not may facts.

This article does the comparison a disservice.

I have flown many models from both the Beech and Piper line, and have liked them both.

 

 

[lnuss]

Beech has a lot more market presence than Mooney but, as you indicate, not nearly what Cessna and Piper have.

 

1 hour ago, jgf said:

Only one mentioned Beech, none mentioned Mooney,

That's because three of them were strictly articles about Piper vs Cessna. The fourth was specifically Beech vs Piper. So that's all I'd expect them to talk about.

 

After reading the first link above, I'm not impressed with the author. There are typos throughout the article:

"The fuel pumps are easier to sump. The gravity feeds fuel to the airplane engine, thus you don’t need to use any fuel pump."

Huh?

Several more.

 

And there are questionable statements:

"The airplane is easier to fly in ground effect and more suitable for short field take-off."

I don't understand this. Ground effect is stronger on the Piper, but with the wings (not the fuselage) at the same height, they are roughly equal in "easy to fly in ground effect." And I'd choose the C-172 before the Archer for a short field takeoff, particularly off the pavement.

 

What kind of comment is this?:

"One of the top factors influencing the sales of Piper Archer is its appearance! Most people describe its looks like those a real plane."

What is a "real plane?"

 

The other three links I didn't peruse nearly as closely.

 

But all four do, mostly at least, give a decent look at the differences between the aircraft mentioned in the article titles, keeping in mind that some of it is opinion.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

24 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

I have flown many models from both the Beech and Piper line, and have liked them both.

I fully agree with this statement, though in many respects I prefer the Beech, especially the Bonanza and Baron, though I prefer the Cherokee/Archer over the Beech Musketeer series in most ways, especially at high density altitudes where the Musketeer's laminar flow wing makes for more critical attitude/speed control requirement than the PA-28s (just like the Grumman-American Cheetah, et al) , even the "Hershey Bar" wing Cherokees, and its climb performance is more sluggish up high.

 

"The company [Piper] offers a wide range of aircraft, from small single-engine pistons to larger, twin-engine turboprops, mostly for General Aviation or light corporate use. "

Corporate use IS part of General Aviation. Everything but Military, other government, and airlines is G.A. by definition, unless something recently changed that I missed.

 

=================================

So all in all, be careful how you take the info in each article -- there's a lot of good info, but some can be misleading.

[PhrogPhlyer]

8 minutes ago, lnuss said:

So all in all, be careful how you take the info in each article -- there's a lot of good info, but some can be misleading.

Agreed

[Nels_Anderson]

Yikes! I read the first article, Archer vs C172. There is so much that is simply factually wrong in the article that I wouldn't trust anything this guy writes.

[PhrogPhlyer]

1 hour ago, Nels_Anderson said:

I wouldn't trust anything this guy writes

+1

[lnuss]

I'm looking more closely at the second link now. I found this statement:

"As student pilots are often inexperienced and prone to attempting maneuvers that increase the likelihood of a stall, a higher stall speed is not ideal and perhaps explains why more flight schools use aircraft like the C152 and C172 than the Piper Arrow. "

 

The Arrow would compete more with the C-177 than with the C-172. It should have been the Archer (and the Cherokee 140/180 before it) that were compared.

 

And this: "For more experienced pilots, a higher stall speed is also less desirable if the pilot enjoys doing aerobatics, as some of these maneuvers reduce the aircraft’s speed dangerously close to the stall speed."

What does that have to do with Cessna or Piper?

 

"Both Cessnas and Pipers are famous for being used as trainers. However, one of the biggest downsides of using a Piper as a trainer is that they have, on the whole, far higher stall speeds than Cessnas. "

Huh? Not when looking at comparable aircraft, though there is a little difference.

 

"In many cases, such as that of the Piper Cherokee and Cessna 182, the difference can be as little as $15,000, with the Cherokee having a new price of $500,000 whilst the 182 sits at $515,000."

Huh? The Cherokee hasn't been produced for decades, and it's only the Cherokee 235 that used to compete with the C-182, way back when. Archer, Warrior, Dakota (all with the newer wing that's more like the Cessnas) are the light singles that Piper currently produces.

 

This is so very true: "When it comes to a direct comparison of Cessna and Piper, it’s safe to say there is no “one size fits all” answer as to which is better. At the end of the day, it’s simply a matter of personal preference."

 

Also, he sort of compares the Seneca and the C-310, yet the aircraft aren't quite comparable, though they both are light twins. Useful load, range, roominess and more are not much mentioned, for example.

 

All in all, it's quite a bit better than the first link, but still leaves a bit to be desired in many areas, often comparing aircraft that aren't meant to be comparable, and getting into the rather tricky area of trying to compare the whole line of each manufacturer, rather than a pair of basically competing models.

 

Again, careful of misinformation.

[lnuss]

OK, link #3, another attempt to compare two manufacturers, rather than specific aircraft, same guy as link #2.

 

Similar problems to his attempt with Cessna and Piper.

 

"Another key difference is that Beechcraft models tend to be more expensive than their Piper counterparts. 

This is partly due to Beechcraft using higher quality (and thus more expensive) materials in the construction of their aircraft, which Piper mostly avoids."

 

This isn't necessarily true. Just because materials are aimed more at luxury doesn't automatically mean that they are inferior parts. The designs are considerably different, and Beech puts more "luxury" into their aircraft than Piper tends to do and, for example, in the Bonanza has a very refined design that is the Cadillac (rather than the Chevy) with a fast aircraft that carries a decent load with good range and superb handling, though it's not quite as benign in slow flight as the Pipers and Cessnas tend to be. The Piper singles are also very refined designs, but with a different aim.

 

Another factor is that the Beech aircraft tend to be overbuilt, by comparison to Piper (or Cessna, for that matter) giving a very solid feel that, if you're a car afficianado, (to me) reeks of BMW and the like.

 

And I see that he compares the Piper Seneca with the Beech Baron (260 HP? Only on older models), again not really comparable aircraft other than speed range and the fact that they're light twins.

 

So there's plenty of the article to be wary of, with some misinformation and much of the same problem that plagues his article in link #2.

 

Careful...

[lnuss]

OK, link #4.

 

"Many single-engine piper aircraft have only one door on the right-hand side, whereas all Cessna aircraft have two doors."

Of the singles, the Pipers starting with the Cherokee have only one door, but the Pacer and TriPacer have two doors (right front and left rear), and it's only starting with the Cherokee line that the singles are all low wing -- prior to that they were all high wing.

 

"The first Piper aircraft, the Piper J3 Cub, was, in fact, a high wing aircraft. However, since that time, almost all Piper aircraft have been low wing. There are a few exceptions to this, but certainly, the more popular general aviation aircraft, such as the PA-28 Warrior and Archer, are all low wing."

She skips the rest of the Piper singles since the Cub, through the TriPacer and Colt, before getting to the Cherokees.

 

"Cessnas, on the other hand, are almost all high wing, although again, there are some exceptions, particularly when it comes to larger and more modern aircraft such as the Cessna Citations."

Cessna singles hold true to this, but Cessna only has one high wing twin (the C-336/7), with the rest being low wing and single door.

 

"All pilots are agreed that when it comes to performance and handling issues, there is virtually nothing to choose from between the two companies. To illustrate this, here are some quotes from private pilots concerning both Piper and Cessna aircraft…"

Not all pilots. From an instructor's standpoint, the Cessnas tend to do more to force the student to use the rudder, where the Piper trainers have so little adverse yaw that students can easily get sloppy without realizing it (or caring, in many cases), and some instructors seem to be almost indifferent to this. There are other differences (flap use, etc.) too, but I'll pass on covering the rest, for now.

 

All in all, she's a tad more professional in her coverage, but like so many writers makes general statements that should have a caveat or two (ALL Pipers have one door, ALL Pipers are low wing). Granted that a lot of this may apply to those currently for sale new, but often so many used aircraft from earlier times are ignored, yet they're still on the used market.

 

Again, be careful...

[PhrogPhlyer]

Nicely done review and critiques.

Unfortunately, we see the same issue with so much posted in our forums, generalizations in lieu of specifics.

[lnuss]

Thanks for the compliment. And I agree with your second sentence -- there are, indeed, too many generalizations in the wrong places, both in the forums and in so many other places too.

 

On 4/21/2023 at 6:23 PM, jgf said:

so what are the general consensus of Piper, Cessna, Beech, Mooney, and the myriad smaller companies?

So for the OP, you can see that there's not really a consensus.

[jgf]

Ah, but these "contrast and compare" were what i sought.  I also noticed the discrepancies, contradictions, and anomalies in these reports but figured posting here would get some clarification.  I read another dozen or so similar articles, the ones I posted were representative.

 

"What kind of comment is this?:

"One of the top factors influencing the sales of Piper Archer is its appearance! Most people describe its looks like those a real plane."

What is a "real plane?""

 

My take on this is what has always caught my eye - the Piper has a streamlined modern appearance while the strut braced wing of the Cessna seems rather ..."quaint", so I can understand why many would gravitate towards the Piper even though both aircraft have similar performance.

 

As a fan of race sims, and raced in RL for 35 years, I've had some rather heated discussions in forums regarding how realistically the cars are modeled.  And I stand by my opinion taht if you have never driven the car in question, especially at racing speeds, you cannot speak with any authority on how well it is modeled.   Having never flown myself (I don't count two brief flights over forty years ago ...the one goal in life I never achieved was getting a pilot's license) I've no idea how well anything in FS is modeled, reading up on this got me wondering about real pilots' opinions of the various aircraft.