Speed Mods

jmpoplin

jmpoplin

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
47
Location
Alamogordo, NM
Display Name
Display name:
NCFlyer
Anyone out there purchased any LoPresti or Knots2U speed mods for a Piper? Do they work? Are they worth the price?
 
I have met-co aire for my pa-28-180..got gap seals and new wingtips..helped with the handling allot. I noticed that when I took my wheel pants of (I rent it out) there was no noticeable TAS change..and thats with a fresh prop + engine...so I would be interested in what folks say about the wheel pants mods if thats what your referring to.
 
One of the flight schools here has a PA-28-161 with all of the speed mods and it will leave the newer 181 with just gap seals any day of the week.

The one I fly now has a few fairings on it, but the owner said the best one he feels like was the wing root fairing. Probably next would be the wheel pants. Anything to help a brick slide through the air :)
 
I suppose part of the question would be "Which Piper?"

Unfortunately, nobody that I've found offers any speed improvements for the Aztec (stop laughing - it's no funnier a prospect than speed mods for a Cherokee 140). A few times, Aztec owners have tried to convince LoPresti to do a cowl, but the response was that they didn't think there was a market.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Unfortunately, nobody that I've found offers any speed improvements for the Aztec (stop laughing - it's no funnier a prospect than speed mods for a Cherokee 140).
Click to expand...

:rofl: All I can think about is the Runway 6 - Slip like a Brick Approach into Wings that one night. LOL.
 
WHen I had my Cherokee 180, I put on wheel pants, flap seals, hinge fairings, wing root, aileron seals, stabilator, and I noticed about 4-6 knots total difference on top end. However, on the bottom end, I dropped my stall speed probably 7kts or so. That was a great short field plane. I could fly it straight and level below the green arc with no flaps in.
 
The general concensus on the Piper boards seems to be:

- Wheel pants are good for 5 knots. That's compared to no wheel pants at all. The aftermarket wheel pants are a distinct improvement over the early factory pants, but not by as much. The later factory pants ('80's and following) only get improved by a knot or two by the aftermarkets.

- Fairings on flap hinges are low cost, quick return.

- Body/wing root fairings make the plane quieter but don't speed it up.

- The various gap seals improve handling greatly, especially at the low end, but don't speed the aircraft up.

- Hoerner wing tips deliver as promised - both a couple knots speed and better low-end handling.

- The LoPresti cowl delivers the claimed speed improvement but is breathtakingly expensive and is a sufficient PITA to get on and off that it adds 1.5-2.0 hrs labor to an oil change.
 
I have a stock PA28-161. It does have wheel fairings. I flew from San Diego KMYF to Pomona KPOC yesterday. Had my $100.00 hamburger then flew back. Total flight time was 2.5 hrs. Fuel used was 15 gal.

One hour and fifteen minutes each way, or there abouts. If I had all the spensive speed modes, would I have noticed any significant difference in time or fuel used? Probably not.

To me, it is the flying that I enjoy, not getting there five minutes sooner. Warriors are for fun flying, not serious traveling. Save your money for more important things.

John
 
One time I figured out that my cherokee 140 would have better time to climb
performance if I lost 10-20 pounds than if I put some speed mods on the 140
(with the resulting increase in empty weight)
 
I bought a stock PA28-180 about 10 yrs, and a year later put all of K2U's mods on it. Wingtips with landing lights, wing root seal, wheel pant fairings, aileron/flap/stabilator seals.

Pluses:

  • Picked up a few kts of speed. Best cruise (75% power, 8000ft DA) is 143mph, and I regularly cruise near 150mph.
  • Low speed handling is much better (this has been quite helpful when landing in gusty crosswinds)
  • Stall speed is lower by a few kts (during BFRs... instructors are always surprised by the pitch angle for power-on stalls)
  • The extra 2 lights on the wingtips are awesome for night landings and recognition. Plus they add redundancy to the single nose-bowl light on the Cherokee. IMHO, this is K2U's best mod.
Minuses:

  • Wheel pant fairings make it harder to access the brakes for inspection, cleaning, and maintenance.
  • Cost. Quite a few $k by the time all the mods are installed.
All in all, I'd add them again.
 
i used to fly a Lance that had the LoPresti cowl on it as well as wingtips and gap seals i think. it would cruise at 150 knots. we ran 25 squared which I think was about 75% at 4-5000 ft typical altitudes.
 
Rob Schaffer said:
:rofl: All I can think about is the Runway 6 - Slip like a Brick Approach into Wings that one night. LOL.
Click to expand...

That's the best I've done yet, but I've managed a couple other nice ones. :)

I still think you could get some mods to eek out another 5-10 kts or so, which would be very nice.
 
I'm wondering what would add more value to your 180, speed mods or a new paint job or a new interior? I just don't see what five or ten knots would make on most flying days. Perhaps a little easier to land or take off, but then how hard is it to land or take off in a 180?

John
 
I've said this before. I looked into speed mods for my Cherokee 140, which ended up being a Grumman Tiger. :D
 
I have the K2U slim strobe light.

I can't say it added much in speed.
 
The best speed-mod for the Pipers is to upgrade to a Mooney or Bonanza ;)



Yes, all of them work, but not necessarily producing a cumulative effect. But once you start doing all of them and you have to throw in a paint-job to boot, you are pretty soon in territory that would allow you to buy a plane that is faster right out of the box.

Some of these PA28-140 with all the fairings bells and whistles remind me a bit of the kids who spend 20k on 'upgrades' to their POS Dodge Neon when the money they spent could have bought a used Corvette or Porsche.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I suppose part of the question would be "Which Piper?"

Unfortunately, nobody that I've found offers any speed improvements for the Aztec (stop laughing - it's no funnier a prospect than speed mods for a Cherokee 140). A few times, Aztec owners have tried to convince LoPresti to do a cowl, but the response was that they didn't think there was a market.
Click to expand...

Check out these guys: http://www.diamondaire.com/aztec_modifications.html
 
Hummm, have you tried white electrical tape along the wing route :crazy:
 
weilke said:
The best speed-mod for the Pipers is to upgrade to a Mooney or Bonanza ;)
Click to expand...

In my case it would be a Baron, but even a 58 Baron does not have the interior space of the Aztec, nor does it do as well on short fields, nor is the landing gear as strong. So for my mission, it would be better to have a faster Aztec than a Baron.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
In my case it would be a Baron, but even a 58 Baron does not have the interior space of the Aztec, nor does it do as well on short fields, nor is the landing gear as strong. So for my mission, it would be better to have a faster Aztec than a Baron.
Click to expand...

The faster Aztec is called a Navajo I believe ;)
 
weilke said:
The faster Aztec is called a Navajo I believe ;)
Click to expand...

Your answer is just as useless as those who've also said "Baron." :)

P-Baron, on the other hand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
P-Baron, on the other hand...
Click to expand...

Mh, same space or less (smaller door) than a regular Baron and needs a fair amount of runway :sosp:. Given that you mentioned short-field and load as criteria, that would seem an odd choice.

Your answer is just as useless as those who've also said "Baron." :)
Click to expand...

Why useless? Speed-mods don't make you any money back when you sell the Aztec, so from a practical standpoint you have to write off whatever you pay for them over the number of hours that you are going to fly the Aztec. Once you look at that kind of money, the step up into the big flying box may look like a bargain. (there are infinite ways how you can justify that 'the next plane' is what you really need and that it makes perfect sense to get it. No different from the guy fudging the numbers to make himself believe that a M20C is what he needs instead of his C150)
 
weilke said:
Mh, same space or less (smaller door) than a regular Baron and needs a fair amount of runway :sosp:. Given that you mentioned short-field and load as criteria, that would seem an odd choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, it's just a dream. The Aztec really is the perfect fit for what I do. A 310 or a Baron would do the job also and would do it pretty well. I've been pretty surprised at what my friend can fit in his Travel Air (akin to a 55 Baron for interior space). The 310s, depending on what you get, also have a lot of room. Short field performance is something I don't know a ton about in those planes, but the Colemill 310 I flew did darn well taking off and landing at a strip shorter than what I normally fly the Aztec into. Of course, 600 hp helped.

Why useless? Speed-mods don't make you any money back when you sell the Aztec, so from a practical standpoint you have to write off whatever you pay for them over the number of hours that you are going to fly the Aztec. Once you look at that kind of money, the step up into the big flying box may look like a bargain. (there are infinite ways how you can justify that 'the next plane' is what you really need and that it makes perfect sense to get it. No different from the guy fudging the numbers to make himself believe that a M20C is what he needs instead of his C150)
Click to expand...

Well, the first assumption is that I'm going to sell the Aztec. While that may happen, it will probably be a long way in the future. What money I put into it for upgrades I'm putting in assuming I'm keeping the thing indefinitely. The Aztec's capacity and capabilities fit my mission quite well overall. However, getting an extra 10 kts out of the thing without extra fuel burn would result in being able to go further in one day. Considering that the biggest thing I push is how far I go with the thing (LA to NYC in one day is a lot), speed is nice there.

If I bought a Navajo, I'd literally be looking at about double the hourly operating cost for only about 15% more speed. While I'd have more capacity, that capacity would typically put me at higher than what the demand for my trips is, so it doesn't help. Paying double per engine at overhaul time doesn't help, either.

If Colemill or one of the other go-fast guys had an STC to put 300 hp engines in (upgrade from the 250 hp), that'd be something to consider. Whether or not I'd be willing to spend the money is another matter, but it'd be worth considering.
 
The Free Bird has vortex generators, root fairings, wing and stabilator tips, and the boost to 160 hp. It was faster with the gap seals, but I lost those at annual. With luck my partner will fly it down to Florida to get them put back on. I won't claim its rational, but I want the damn gap seals. Its a knot or two slower without them, and I'll be damned if it doesn't go faster. Low speed handling is amazing. Last time I did an arrival stall I glanced at the airspeed indicator and real 35 mph indicated, and it was still flying controllably. I can't do a departure stall without a lot of trim, and even then its not easy. And that's without the gap seals.

Those who say "just by another airplane" haven't owned airplanes for long. The idea is to make your airplane faster, not make it into a different beast. Saying it isn't cost effective is really dumb. These days owning an airplane in the first place isn't cost effective, in case no one's noticed they don't make such good investments anymore. It isn't about what's financially smart, its about what you want. If we were worried about being financially smart we'd dump the whole flying thing in the first place.
 
steingar said:
These days owning an airplane in the first place isn't cost effective, in case no one's noticed they don't make such good investments anymore. It isn't about what's financially smart, its about what you want. If we were worried about being financially smart we'd dump the whole flying thing in the first place.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your earlier points about the fun of improving your airplane as opposed to getting another one (then again, variety is the spice of life), I have to take issue on this part. Financially an airplane is an investment in the same way that is a car is. You're virtually guaranteed to lose money on both, but what you're buying is a tool that allows you to do something.

For many, that tool is financially smart. Not because paying, say, $200/hr to operate something is inherently cheap (certainly it isn't for most of us on our pay scales), but because of scenarios where you need to get somewhere in a given period of time that either is not readily served by commercial aviation or that you can't bring what you need on commercial cost effectively (people, stuff, etc.). $200/hr for operations gets cheap when you're moving 6 people and luggage, especially when it's saving time for all 6 of those people.

Then let's look at the weather. The thought that if commercial isn't getting there that GA won't either is a fallacy. I've had far fewer mechanical problems in my Aztec that have stopped me than commercial flights. Plus, all you need is one giant storm over PHL and you aren't getting anywhere from Williamsport via commercial, even if the weather from Williamsport to California is perfect.

Finances are a lot more than my commercial ticket costs $300 and my plane does the same trip for $900. It's what am I buying for that extra $600. In a lot of cases the answer is the one thing that no amount of money can ever replace: time.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While I agree with your earlier points about the fun of improving your airplane as opposed to getting another one (then again, variety is the spice of life), I have to take issue on this part. Financially an airplane is an investment in the same way that is a car is. You're virtually guaranteed to lose money on both, but what you're buying is a tool that allows you to do something.
Click to expand...

What you wind up spending on that Aztec will buy you a lot of commercial tickets. Now granted, those tickets won't let you indulge your hobby of saving puppies from the ravages of the deep South, but they would suffice for most of us. And by the way, you are a mechanic who works for an airplane engine company. The finances for you are likely a bit different than for the rest of us.

Ted DuPuis said:
For many, that tool is financially smart. Not because paying, say, $200/hr to operate something is inherently cheap (certainly it isn't for most of us on our pay scales), but because of scenarios where you need to get somewhere in a given period of time that either is not readily served by commercial aviation or that you can't bring what you need on commercial cost effectively (people, stuff, etc.). $200/hr for operations gets cheap when you're moving 6 people and luggage, especially when it's saving time for all 6 of those people.
Click to expand...

How often do you fill all six seats of your six seater? Heck, can you even fit six people in a six seater? Most of us do the majority of our runs with the aircraft underloaded. I doubt many people (other than you, of course) do giant cross country trips on a weekly basis. Most flyers do local trips for fun of flying that could easily be done in a ground based vehicle.

Ted DuPuis said:
Then let's look at the weather. The thought that if commercial isn't getting there that GA won't either is a fallacy. I've had far fewer mechanical problems in my Aztec that have stopped me than commercial flights. Plus, all you need is one giant storm over PHL and you aren't getting anywhere from Williamsport via commercial, even if the weather from Williamsport to California is perfect.
Click to expand...

Ted, you're starting to scare me. Jets can go through a lot of stuff that a light GA airplane can't. You can't possibly argue otherwise. Yeah, the spoke and hub system is idiotic, but the tools they use to run it are superb. It is true that one isolated storm can ruin your day flying commercially, but on the balance the jets can get through a lot more stuff than we can.

Ted DuPuis said:
Finances are a lot more than my commercial ticket costs $300 and my plane does the same trip for $900. It's what am I buying for that extra $600. In a lot of cases the answer is the one thing that no amount of money can ever replace: time.
Click to expand...

Again, that works for the Ted because you do the whole fly across the country on a weekly-basis thing. For most of us we put far more time into training and currency than we'll ever save not flying commercially. It really comes down to the fact that we all like flying, and it just so happens the aircraft can be used for the occasional trip. But by the time you've got an aircraft that can do the kinds of things a jet can do with that level of dependability, you've invested a lot of time and resources into obtaining it and the training to operate it, and you're going to invest a lot maintaining it. It takes a fairly specialized mission for that to make financial sense, certainly not the sort of mission undertaken by most GA pilots.
 
steingar said:
What you wind up spending on that Aztec will buy you a lot of commercial tickets. Now granted, those tickets won't let you indulge your hobby of saving puppies from the ravages of the deep South, but they would suffice for most of us. And by the way, you are a mechanic who works for an airplane engine company. The finances for you are likely a bit different than for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I've run the numbers, and you would be surprised. It's really not much different. I would argue that several people on here have the finances significantly better for their aircraft ownership than I do. Also, I'm not an A&P, I don't do my own work on the plane. I pay someone else to do it just like you. I don't even do my own oil changes, no time. The people who come out ahead better than me are the ones who are A&Ps or do most of their own maintenance while being supervised by an A&P, and save money that way.

Also, the "hobby" you so speak of is a non-profit organization, it's another job for me. All that means it's a business, and I run it as such. People who don't run non-profits like proper businesses end up with non-profits that go out of business. However, that goes exactly to the point I'm making of it being a tool. For business especially, it is a tool to get the job done.

How often do you fill all six seats of your six seater? Heck, can you even fit six people in a six seater? Most of us do the majority of our runs with the aircraft underloaded. I doubt many people (other than you, of course) do giant cross country trips on a weekly basis. Most flyers do local trips for fun of flying that could easily be done in a ground based vehicle.
Click to expand...

In the past few months I've had the seats all filled with people, and luggage, and we came in under gross still with full fuel. The Aztec is good at that.

You're once again missing the point. You're looking at it strictly from the perspective of a leisure pilot such as yourself, and your statements don't indicate any sort of understanding of an airplane as a tool. Even looking at it from the perspective of someone who uses it as a pleasure tool but has requirements to get back at certain times on a particular schedule that the airliens don't meet, it's greater flexibility. No, it's not a guarantee of meeting the schedule, but in my experience it's higher probability than the airlines.

Ted, you're starting to scare me. Jets can go through a lot of stuff that a light GA airplane can't. You can't possibly argue otherwise. Yeah, the spoke and hub system is idiotic, but the tools they use to run it are superb. It is true that one isolated storm can ruin your day flying commercially, but on the balance the jets can get through a lot more stuff than we can.
Click to expand...

When did I say otherwise? Unless you both start and finish at a major hub, you are virtually guaranteed to have a stop to make. All it takes is one problem at that stop (or the stop where the plane you're boarding was coming from) to screw the whole thing up. How am I going through a 65 dB storm when it's 150 miles to the east of my flight path, and my path is perfectly clear for the whole route? I'm not talking about going through the bad stuff, I'm talking about it not being at a critical point.

If I'm in GA and I'm going from NYC to CA, I have a lot of different ways I can take, and I get to choose. If I'm in a jet going non-stop from NYC to CA, then it has the same options, plus more capabilities. If I'm making a layover somewhere, that layover having a problem screws me up.

Again, that works for the Ted because you do the whole fly across the country on a weekly-basis thing. For most of us we put far more time into training and currency than we'll ever save not flying commercially. It really comes down to the fact that we all like flying, and it just so happens the aircraft can be used for the occasional trip. But by the time you've got an aircraft that can do the kinds of things a jet can do with that level of dependability, you've invested a lot of time and resources into obtaining it and the training to operate it, and you're going to invest a lot maintaining it. It takes a fairly specialized mission for that to make financial sense, certainly not the sort of mission undertaken by most GA pilots.
Click to expand...

I think that ignores all of the 135 operations and the planes owned by businesses and businessfolk who use them as tools, which makes up a large number of people who I know and meet in my travels. From your perspective to you as a pilot, you're absolutely right. To make a generalization like that and suggest that it applies to all of us, I'd say that's incorrect. There's a lot of GA out there.
 
We're really saying the same thing from different sides of the coin. Very few of us have a mission in which the aircraft makes any sort of financial sense. You are probably one of two or three people on the board who use their aircraft as a tool. For the rest of us, the aircraft is a toy, just an uber cool one.

Unless you get paid by the non-profit as its director, its hobby in my book. I've got one too for my Origami, but its still a hobby (and I bet I make more money off origami than you do saving puppies). I'm not in the process of giving up my day job, though.
 
steingar said:
We're really saying the same thing from different sides of the coin. Very few of us have a mission in which the aircraft makes any sort of financial sense.
Click to expand...
This discussion brings up a good point. GA can mean a lot of different things. Some people think of it as the segment of aviation which encompasses flying little airplanes for fun but it's much more than that. I've been involved with GA all my adult life and very little of it has been flying for fun. Some companies attempt to make money with their airplanes and others use them as business tools. When I did mapping the airplane was just a platform to carry some expensive equipment up into the sky. The airplane I fly now, as nice as it is, is just another method of transportation for the company which owns it. It's not an extension of someone's ego, although I have seen other situations where that was the case.

As far as transportation in small airplanes goes, I hadn't flown in a small airplane for my own transportation in years until I flew with Tony and Leah to Gastons. I had also considered driving from Wichita if our schedules hadn't matched up and flying was by far the better choice. I wouldn't have even considered flying commercial. It was great. I got to experience why our passengers experience. Show up, put the luggage in the airplane, no responsibilities, snooze in the back and daydream while watching the clouds go by. Sometimes it's nice to be able to do that... :)
 
steingar said:
We're really saying the same thing from different sides of the coin. Very few of us have a mission in which the aircraft makes any sort of financial sense. You are probably one of two or three people on the board who use their aircraft as a tool. For the rest of us, the aircraft is a toy, just an uber cool one.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing that I'm trying to point out and apparently failing at it. You say very few of us and seem to be defining it as PoA, although previous wording indicated GA as a whole. My point is with Mari's, that GA is much bigger than what we see from the confines of this website, and most of the people I know who do it seriously (i.e. more than toys) don't frequent the boards.

I've seen you make this similar argument before, especially referencing businessfolk, and I really think that it comes down to a different perspective and what each one of us observes from where we sit. It's clear that from where you sit, you don't see how it works. Someone like Mari with her background very much does. Plus, I think she explains it better than I do.

Unless you get paid by the non-profit as its director, its hobby in my book. I've got one too for my Origami, but its still a hobby (and I bet I make more money off origami than you do saving puppies). I'm not in the process of giving up my day job, though.
Click to expand...

It's a job. If you don't believe it, come watch what it's like and pay attention to the hours I put in. Nevermind the fact that I hold a lot of legal responsibilities. Getting paid for something isn't a requirement for a job. Try saying that housewives don't have a job and see how long before you get smacked.

I've had a lot of people say it's a hobby. Upon coming on a transport themselves, every one of them has retracted their original statement.
 
Will do. I am admittedly seeing things from my own perspective. Then again, within the context, people were arguing against speed mods for a Cherokee saying they made little financial sense. I reiterate that a Cherokee makes little financial sense to begin with, since you can't use most as tools (need more airplane), and leisure flying makes little financial sense to begin with. And ugly truth we all know and hate.

On the other hand Ted is absolutely right in that there is a large world of pilots and aircraft that make very good financial sense, but still fit under the GA envelope. We all tend to see things from our own perspective, and mine of course from that of amateur pilot. I appreciate the reminder that the world of GA is substantially larger. It is a good thing to have one's perspective enlarged from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top