Speed Mods

Pilawt said:
Constant-speed prop would help takeoff distance, climb rate and high-altitude performance, but not necessarily cruise speed. Through the 1972 model year, fixed-pitch prop was standard and constant-speed prop optional on both the Cherokee 235 and the Cherokee Six 260. On both, book cruise speeds were 2 mph slower with the constant-speed propeller.
Click to expand...

Weird! I wonder what the physics behind that are?

The change to the bigger wheel and brake fairings was with the 1978 model year on all US-built fixed-gear PA-28s and PA-32s. They do help reduce drag, but they're a pain should you ever be inclined to inspect or service tires or brakes. :mad:

Oddly, PA-28s and PA-32s built under license by Embraer in Brazil were still built with the old-style fairings well into the 1980s. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroclube-de-Eldorado-do-Sul/Embraer-EMB-712-Tupi/537223
Click to expand...

I was hoping you would reply, your knowledge of the line is superb. :)

It's definitely more difficult to check/fill tires, but the Archers I've flown with the fully faired landing gear are 7-10 knots faster than those without. Getting that kind of speed from Knots2U and LoPresti would cost enough to buy another plane, so definitely worth getting one with them if you're looking for a simple airplane that's a little faster.
 
Just a guess ... the cross-section of a c/s prop blade transitions to a near-cylindrical shape, with the aerodynamic properties of a tree stump, near the hub. So perhaps it loses some effectiveness in that area, while the fixed-pitch prop maintains an airfoil cross-section all the way to the hub.
 
I’m a new owner myself and purchased a ‘78 Archer with the reason being the cabin extension and fairings for that year and onward.

All of my time was in Cherokee cruisers and warriors and the additional 20hp and 100+lbs of useful load were appealing especially in an aircraft I’m already familiar with. The simplicity was a huge selling point for me. The insurance was cheap as well.

I purchased the plane to travel and have been doing exactly that. I’ve put 55 hours on it in six months and while not concerned about speed initially, after time you see the appeal. I can fly about 3 hours before I need to stretch my legs and take a bathroom break. With a faster plane I could cover more distance in those 3 hour legs. The Archer isn’t getting any faster, and doing the math maybe I’d be saving more time and fuel with a plane 20-30 knots faster at 14-16gph.

But as I said, the Archer is a simple machine, affordable to purchase and maintain and cheap to insure, and I enjoy my time in the air.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The best speed mod for an Archer is retractable landing gear. IE, an Arrow. Better yet, a Mooney or Bonanza... But of course, faster plane usually means higher purchase price. So...

The best "speed mod" you can get and still have it be an Archer is to get one of the newer models with the fully faired landing gear. The early ones could have wheel pants, but even if they did, they left the brakes hangin' out in the breeze, among other things. This changed around 1978 or 79, so you want one newer than that.

This is the kind you want:

View attachment 63427

This is the original style - Note all of the uncovered stuff on the inside of the wheel and the much smaller pant:

View attachment 63428




Bah. I'm 6'4" and over 300# and I fit in my Mooney better than most any other 4-seat single. "Mooneys are small" is an OWT, unless you're talking about the back seat of a short-body model. But I don't think any of us sit in the back, and my long-body is just fine in the back. The "small" impression can also come from the instrument panel being closer to you, but I much prefer it that way. I used to get a backache on instrument lessons in the Archer from having to lean forward to do stuff on the panel so often. Another place it comes from on the early models is the more-vertical windscreen and its position relative to you - It's in the same position as any other plane relative to the instrument panel, but as I mentioned, that's closer to you. But, I don't spend any time above the glareshield, nor does anyone else, so any space you may have had there is wasted anyway.
Click to expand...

Yep! The panel is indeed comfortably close, and the cramped myth is indeed a myth. Beyond that, other areas where my Mooney shines is control precision and simplicity. Pushrods instead of cable and pulley gives me much more confidence in choppy air. Getting out of a pulley and cable plane into a Mooney is like getting out of an SUV with worn out steering linkage and getting in a Ferrari. Mechanical landing gear and flaps offer simplicity.

I am 6’1” 190 pounds and have tons of room to spare in my short body Mooney. Since I almost always use it for two people, the back seat is normally a non issue.
 
swoop said:
I’m a new owner myself and purchased a ‘78 Archer with the reason being the cabin extension and fairings for that year and onward.

All of my time was in Cherokee cruisers and warriors and the additional 20hp and 100+lbs of useful load were appealing especially in an aircraft I’m already familiar with. The simplicity was a huge selling point for me. The insurance was cheap as well.

I purchased the plane to travel and have been doing exactly that. I’ve put 55 hours on it in six months and while not concerned about speed initially, after time you see the appeal. I can fly about 3 hours before I need to stretch my legs and take a bathroom break. With a faster plane I could cover more distance in those 3 hour legs. The Archer isn’t getting any faster, and doing the math maybe I’d be saving more time and fuel with a plane 20-30 knots faster at 14-16gph.

But as I said, the Archer is a simple machine, affordable to purchase and maintain and cheap to insure, and I enjoy my time in the air.
Click to expand...

It's not the fuel premium that gets ya, it's the airframes that come with these older HP singles that walk away from the PA-28 on the mx front. Bladders, non-manual flaps, magnesium skins, tubular steel internal corrosion, parts goose egg hunts et al ad nauseam. So when I look at speed delta, I don't really care about the fuel, it's what you're sitting on that is likely to manifest itself as the true substantive increase in mx. That's why I'm currently resistant to leave the PA-28/32 line.
 
Got a Bonanza. Had the usual antenna farm on the roof, starting with the “boomerang V”. To make matters worse it had a flashing beacon on the belly that protruded 8-10 inches - one of my buddies suggested it sported the “frisky German Shepherd” look. Couldn’t wait to remove all those ‘knot sinks’ from the airframe. Installed LED nav/strobes beneath the nav light lenses and removed the beacon, got rid of the boomerang, put a low-drag comm antenna on the belly, aft and VOR whiskers beneath the tail. Thousands of $ later the airplane m i g h t be 2kts. faster. Would have been much cheaper to just run the engine harder. Looks better, though.
Then I flew a Glasair II with a 330hp IO-540. Got so much power that the throttle has to be advanced very slowly on takeoff so as not to overpower the rudder. It’s 50mph faster than my Bo. With fixed gear, no less! Had the short wings and I’m sure it would glide like a set of car keys if the engine quit. But it got me thinking speedy airplanes have speedy wings and lots of power; I could remove virtually all the parasite drag from my V-tail, and it wouldn’t make much difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top