Going Faster…
I’ve been a C 150M owner for 31 years, and my two more recent aircraft purchases actually have larger engines (160 & 180 HP) and fly more slowly in cruise than my 150. With this statement, it should be apparent that I’m not in GA aviation for speed. Honestly, a year ago, flying my 180HP home from a week trip away, literally, cars were passing me on the highway, as the headwinds were so high (and they drive fast in that province). I just reminded myself of the fun of the plane, the things I had seen, which could not be seen for the highway, or with a reserve of safety from a single engined landplane, and eventually got home.
I have decided for myself that if I really need to go faster, I buy an airline ticket. Yes, I do have a nicely fast 182RG I can borrow whenever I like, but by the time I go to the airport to get it, I might as well buy a ticket to where I would have flown it, as the ticket will be much less costly. If I’m not in a hurry, I’ll take the 150, I’ve had it as far as the Bahamas (with my wife, and two bikes in the back).
I’ve been in the aircraft modification business since 1985, and the something I’ve learned is that generally, the cost to modify a fixed pitch four seat GA aircraft to fly 20 MPH faster is just not worth it, when you can buy a faster four seat aircraft which goes that fast already. Yes, those aircraft cost more to operate. In my rough calculations, the cost to fly 150 MPH will be more than double that to fly 100 MPH. In particular, the faster aircraft have more systems to maintain (CS props and RG), will be more expensive to insure, and burn more gas. They may also be subject to expensive inspections, which I now see creeping downward to the more simple aircraft too. Consider the Cessna 210 Centurion, a magnificently fast aircraft, though with some pretty costly recurring inspections now. Bellanca Viking, a dream to fly, and really fast, but it’s care is becoming very costly.
The least costly thing to do to make you plane go fast is to configure it, and maintain it the way the manufacture designed it. All fairings in place, and fitting properly, good paint and clean, and an engine and prop which are operating efficiently. I’d owned my 150 for 28 years before I ever installed the wheel fairings which came with it. I used to fly a lot of rough and snowy runways (hard on wheel fairings), now I use the other plane for that. So I put them on. Imagine my surprise to find that the 150 cruises 7 MPH faster with wheel and brake fairings! Now, it actually will fly at the speeds the POH states! The manufacturers went to a lot of effort to get every bit of cruise speed they could for competitive marketing. There may be small improvements to be had, but there are no major speed improvements, without massive change, like different engine and prop. With different engine and prop (which could exceed the value of the aircraft to start with) you will have to give elsewhere: Greater fuel burn, less range and endurance, and perhaps less useful load or C of G.
The stock C 182P I bought at a friend’s request in 2010, was modified exactly to his specification. In 2014, after spending a total of $900,000 on it, I trained him in it, and he was delighted. With a power increase of 80 HP, and all the mods, it had lost 20 MPH in cruise speed and 400 pounds of useful load, with higher fuel burn. Now it was an amphibian, which is what he needed. He and I flew it all over Scandinavia, and Europe, and he continues to with great pleasure. But I know, that when he’s in a hurry, he buys an airline ticket.
As far as I can see on the older PA28 aircraft the UK CAA had mandated the inspection panels had to be fitted to enable this area in the wing to be inspected.
There is also another Piper SB to fit inspection panels in the baggage bay floor to enable inspection of the spar carry through structure along with drilling extra drain holes to prevent water pooling if the aircraft had a leak in the window or door seals.
Piper corrosion issues are not new and a good inspection program along with use of corrosion suppression ( LPS, corrosionX ) should keep most of this at bay.
This Youtube video shows the wing attachment arrangement of the PA-28 series:
Inspection panels are great for looking into places. However, where the risk is the failure of the lower spar flange through two bolt holes, that’s pretty hard to inspect for without removing the bolts in the suspect holes. The spar carry through entirely conceals the suspect area of the wing spar flanges. I’ve read of a new eddy current inspection method for the bolt holes on the PA 28 spar flanges. This will mean removing all the wing spar attach bolts. That’s a big job, I’ve done it for the original AD, which was applicable to this structural joint, back in 1987.
If someone is contemplating this inspection, very wise! However, before you invest in the inspection, best to ask the inspector/maintainer what will happen if they find a defect? Can they obtain replacement parts? A defect found during an eddy current inspection of a PA 28 wing spar flange at the attachment bolt holes, will ground the plane.
Modifying a PA28 like this reminds me of this video:
It’s funny. PA28’s sell for decent money, most people can sell it and buy a 30-40kts faster airplane for much less than it takes to upgrade a Cherokee to achive 120 kts.
The reasoning probably is: the ballache of buying a new plane and selling the old one, and the same plane that flies more efficiently won’t have an increase in operating costs, whereas a faster plane is usually substantially more expensive to run (bigger, thirstier engine, maintenance and extra insurance cost of retractible gear, extra maintenance cost of CS propeller etc).
I think alioth is right, and is one of the reasons for the success of the Vans, great utility in a fixed gear/fixed pitch package. I was lucky that a previous owner invested in some speed mods which add around 5-10 knots – with zero additional associated maintenance cost.
…and 5-10 knots in a 105-120KTAS simple four seater is quite useful.
alioth wrote:
The reasoning probably is: the ballache of buying a new plane and selling the old one, and the same plane that flies more efficiently won’t have an increase in operating costs, whereas a faster plane is usually substantially more expensive to run (bigger, thirstier engine, maintenance and extra insurance cost of retractible gear, extra maintenance cost of CS propeller etc).
That and the simply fact that most people will bend over backwards to sit on their behinds rather than do the reasonable thing and just can’t be bothered.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the PA28 is a great airframe and it’s success over the years proves that. But it is what it is! To spend tens of thousands to get 5 knots out of an old airframe is simply madness.
And no, faster planes do not have to me more expensive, neither to buy nor to run.
Those who don’t want the expense of retracable gear and CS props should look at the Grummann’s. The AA5A Cheetah is considerably faster than a Warrior/Cherokee 140 with the same engine and prop, the AA5B Tiger runs close to 140 kts with the same engine and fixed prop, basically like an Arrow II but without the movable parts. They cost often less than comparable Archers or Warriors on the used market and have about the same operating cost.
Classic Mooneys with manual gear have close to the same operating costs (with the exception of the CS prop) but are often to be had very cheap on the market. You could sell a well kept PA28 and get a reasonably priced vintage Mooney for less money and spend the difference in making it up.
I am sure there are more comparable planes which will do 140-150 kts at similar costs than a PA28 but some of them may be exotic and that is why people shy away.
The popularity of the PA28 line (and the C172 line) always has been that they are simple planes which anyone can fly. But this comes at a price and that price is that they are not very fast. Either accept that or go for a plane which does what you need.
This whole thing is not only in PA28’s anyway. Speed mods sell like crazy with most airplanes and have often very few effect than looking great. But if I look at what I could get for my C Model Mooney to make it 10 kts faster, the price of this plus installation will very quickly be more than the airframe is worth. It’s simply silly to spend $50k to get 10 knots more (which is what could be done with a 201 style windscreen, new cowling and all the rest) when there are plenty 201’s or even M20K around in the used market who will do 160-180 kts for 30-50k to buy outright?
Yes, selling the plane is a real problem these days because real value is hardly ever paid. But it may still be the better way. Or, as we have been saying all along, buy the last plane first!
It is wise to remember that the aircraft types being discussed are in large number, forty plus years old. These legacy aircraft have served much longer than the manufacturers intended, and that’s fine, as long as the maintenance continues appropriate to the condition of the aircraft. Maintenance demands will steadily increase, and parts supplies will decrease, and become more costly. Faster airplanes generally cost more than slower ones to operate and maintain. I do meet owners who are prepared to invest into an airplane sums exceeding what they paid for it, to get just what they want, in top condition. Generally what I see being done to these aircraft are not speed mods, the purchaser chose the characteristics they desired, they’re now focused on it’s condition.
Decades ago, it was possible to buy a GA aircraft in decent condition, fly it for a while, and sell it for a profit. If that’s still possible, it’s less likely now. Aircraft purchasers should choose their purchase with the mindset that they will buy the aircraft that they want for the role they envision, and as they use the plane, it will depreciate. Increasing inspection and maintenance demands may devalue these older aircraft, and force them to simply be abandoned. I have seen it happen, a 1967 Arrow, which had recently been airworthy, found to have a few coin sized corrosion spots in the very wrong places, could not be made airworthy, and was bought by the wrecker for $5000. Legalities aside, he could have flown it home for that, but the aircraft was beyond economical repair. That is fair, it had long ago paid back its investment in service. Just the last owner did not get that service, he got a couple of years of light use, and had to walk away from his investment. This is not the only example I have seen, but the one which touched close to home for me, I flew a 1967 Arrow for a year, and very much liked it – back when it was only 15 years old!
If the aircraft is to be bought to be flown and then written off, buy what you like, fly the fun out of it, and walk away when it becomes economical. If you hope to maintain your investment, choose very carefully what you buy, based upon its future maintainability.
Another seminal posting from Pilot DAR, for which (from me, at least) sincere thanks.
But an issue that’s not been referred to is availability. I’ve heard plenty of stories about fancier planes that spend a lot of time on the ground waiting for parts. My Warrior is out there now, waiting for me. That’s how I like it! A few knots here or there is small fry compared with a plane that can’t fly at all for weeks on end….
So in the PA-28 world, we bathe in a cocoon of availability, even if the actual flights are sometimes grindingly slow. Oh, what’s that about a spar AD?
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Increasing inspection and maintenance demands may devalue these older aircraft, and force them to simply be abandoned
…something I’m keenly aware of – our glider club has had to scrap one glider already (Blanik L13 due to the AD from the one that broke up in flight making the rest of them pretty much uneconomical to repair), and I’m having to scrap one glider (a Ka-8, needs a complete refurb due to the caurite glue issue). My powered aircraft was built in 1945. Although the cost of a fabric covered plane is you have pay to re-cover it every 15 years or so, the benefit is that it gets a really deep inspection and generally things are a bit easier to fix on a fabric plane with the fabric off than on a “modern” monocoque construction.
