banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 07:27 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 14:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 11841
Post Likes: +10441
Location: Cascade, Idaho (U70)
Aircraft: 182
Username Protected wrote:
Jeff,
Nope....the owner had just purchased it from someone in Oregon and he was still in the test drive mode... working some things out.

Great performance. Very quiet.


Did he buy it from Billy Dunbar? If so that was the plane I had the opportunity to fly. They had put a fuel totalizer in it, (FS450 if memory serves) and were having issues with calibration, I offered to tune it up for the chance to try it out. It would be too funny if it was the same plane!


I don't know.... cant be too many of them though.
_________________
Life is for living
Backcountry videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSChxm ... fOnWwngH1w


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 14:26 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/04/10
Posts: 1514
Post Likes: +2637
Company: Northern Aviation, LLC
Aircraft: C45H, Aerostar, T28B
Username Protected wrote:
Years ago an aircraft salesman opined to me "A Piper is a 2 thousand hour plane, a Cessna is good for 3 thousand, and a Beech is an 8 thousand hour airplane".


Glad to see that salesman are honorable and accurate, regardless of the industry. In my fleet, there is a 27,000hr Beech 18, a 19,000hr C170, and a 15,000hr Piper Lance. And all of them have had to work for a living....

Those old boys back in the day knew how to build some pretty good stuff. However, I can't say much for some of the creature comforts, after a day in the 170 you had a seriously soar ass, and were suffering from mild hypothermia, except for your left foot, it was medium well!

Pretty sure our planes will outlive all of us, regardless of the brand. :D


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 14:42 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/13/07
Posts: 19825
Post Likes: +9520
Location: Seeley Lake, MT (23S)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
Username Protected wrote:
Lots of Bonanzas here in the normal category. How do tip tanks come with a UL increase? No magic in additional build quality (or strength) - they provide paperwork to lower it to normal category.

Same with the 550 upgrade. You get zero UL increase, UNLESS you change to the normal category.



You are only in the normal category when operating above the original gross weight. The placard you have for the 550 or tips will say that. Here's mine.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Want to go here?:
https://tinyurl.com/FlyMT1

tinyurl.com/35som8p


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 14:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
if you want to see the opposite of beech build quality, cut up a few piper cherokees for scrap. Skins under overlaps cut off at varying dimensions, blind rivets used here and there with no rhyme or reason from unit to unit, cheap sheet metal brackets instead of forgings. The cherokee line couldn't be any different from the comanche, which is a work of art akin to a bonanza. the cherokee's primary design goal was to be cheaper than the comanche to build - and they succeeded wildly.



I would say they did a good job of it too, considering the number of PA28's built and still flying.

I owned a 1965 Cherokee 180. Great little airplane and very easy to keep flying. It never gave me any trouble at all.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 15:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14529
Post Likes: +22860
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Username Protected wrote:
I would say they did a good job of it too, considering the number of PA28's built and still flying.

I owned a 1965 Cherokee 180. Great little airplane and very easy to keep flying. It never gave me any trouble at all.

yep. they were losing their shirt on the comanche, which was intended to be as good as a bonanza but sell for less than a bonanza. They achieved both those goals, but missed the point that if it's as good as a bo then it's going to cost as much to build as a bo. Seems that "new math" had already arrived at piper's strategic planning department in the late 50's.

With the cherokee line they got it right. If you're going to sell a plane cheap then it needs to be a cheap plane.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 17:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/09
Posts: 1190
Post Likes: +297
Location: Bend, OR
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58P
Username Protected wrote:
Once again, much of our opinion is a matter of loving what we have. Makes perfect sense.


I once owned a Maule M-5 taildragger that I would - on occasion - have to pick up #10 sheet metal screws from Home Depot to tighten up some fairings.

God, I loved that plane.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 20:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +702
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
Yes and the air filter was made by Fram that you can buy at Tractor SUPPLY.
Maule parts are cheap and the rest you can buy at your hardware store.
Owned a M5210c for a while also.


Username Protected wrote:
Once again, much of our opinion is a matter of loving what we have. Makes perfect sense.


I once owned a Maule M-5 taildragger that I would - on occasion - have to pick up #10 sheet metal screws from Home Depot to tighten up some fairings.

God, I loved that plane.

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 22:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/18/11
Posts: 2203
Post Likes: +1926
Location: (West of) St Louis, MO KFYG
Aircraft: PA28 180C
Username Protected wrote:
I would say they did a good job of it too, considering the number of PA28's built and still flying.

I owned a 1965 Cherokee 180. Great little airplane and very easy to keep flying. It never gave me any trouble at all.

yep. they were losing their shirt on the comanche, which was intended to be as good as a bonanza but sell for less than a bonanza. They achieved both those goals, but missed the point that if it's as good as a bo then it's going to cost as much to build as a bo. Seems that "new math" had already arrived at piper's strategic planning department in the late 50's.

With the cherokee line they got it right. If you're going to sell a plane cheap then it needs to be a cheap plane.


Exactly. Cherokees are not a work of art. But easy to maintain and keep flying. Great learning to for learning about planes and ownership. Much better than renting.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 01:36 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5552
Post Likes: +2504
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
Over the years, I've owned several types of airplanes, and worked on most of the popular ones while helping my IA. I currently am rebuilding a V35A (as seen in the pic to the left), own a share in a 182E, and own an Aerostar. In the family, we've also owned, and I've maintained a PA28, two Citabria's, a BE23, K35 Bonanza, and a B55 Baron.

About 10 years ago, I hired a local guy to help me with the sheet metal on the Bonanza as I don't have enough hours in the day. He had done sheet metal work for 30 some years in the military, and then did the work in the GA world on the side for retirement for a fair amount of years. He had seen most brands, but the wings on me V35A (really, V35B wings) were the first indepth Beech product he had worked on. I spent many hours with him reskinning and repairing the wings on my airplane. During that time, we discussed many things, including comparing the structure of different aircraft. He had also reskinned a PA32 wing for a customer, and a C-172 wing for someone else.

His comment was, there was no comparison in strength and quality. The Beech was far above the others in both. The few interesting things we found besides the significant structure in the Beech, was the consistency of the rivet holes between different parts. We used a few parts from the original wings, and even 1100 serial number later, the holes on a few miscellaneous parts lined right up.

There is no comparison between the 182 and the V35. Structurally, the Beech is physically a fair amount beefier structure. Comparing a PA28 and a BE23 is not even a fair comparison for the PA28.

Each class of aircraft larger, the quality seems to improve in the Cessna line. The classic 300/400's Piston fleets seems better built than the singles, and the 441 that I manage seems another step above the 300/400's.

Now, compare the Aerostar to the Cessna 300/400's and there is no comparison. The Aerostar is built like a brick %#$@ house...

Just me two cents from a hands on ownership/maintenance experience...

Jason


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 05:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20104
Post Likes: +23514
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
Besides rivet holes lining up, what makes the sheet metal design of one brand better than another? Is it the thickness of the sheet? Or is it the way it attaches to ribs? Or how the ribs attach to spars? Or???

I’m curious, as we just don’t see sheet metal peeling off of Cherokees in flight, or wings falling off of Bonanzas (compared to the Aerostar’s beefier build).

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 08:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/10/13
Posts: 2278
Post Likes: +1667
Location: Lexington, KY
Aircraft: B95A Z526F SU26
Username Protected wrote:
Besides rivet holes lining up, what makes the sheet metal design of one brand better than another? Is it the thickness of the sheet? Or is it the way it attaches to ribs? Or how the ribs attach to spars? Or???

I’m curious, as we just don’t see sheet metal peeling off of Cherokees in flight, or wings falling off of Bonanzas (compared to the Aerostar’s beefier build).


I'm going to step up on my little soapbox for a while. I am keeping this explanation as vague and theoretical ( I hope)

Holes lining up consistently between S/N's is because the manufacturing facility has sufficient tooling fixtures to ensure each part is in the same alignment every time. Then there are either drilling fixtures to line up and space rivet rows, or one part in the rivet stackup contains a set of pilot holes in the part to allow the rivet holes to be consistently drilled.

The design specifies the sheet metal thickness, alloy, rivet size and pitch, spacing between ribs, stringers etc.

The Beechcraft and Cessna wings, which are similar in their basic design, have a tapered leading edge and trailing edge, so the chord of the wing is shortening as it goes outboard and also reducing its thickness from root to tip. My point being that no two ribs are the same. That means there are about 30 forming dies to stamp the ribs for one wing. Another set of mirror image dies will be required for the other wing. If the manufacturer chooses, you can make both wings from one set of dies, saving money on tooling costs, and also maintaining a lower part count since each aircraft uses two of the same rib on each build. The downside is that now the wings are not an identical bookmatched set. One wing has stamped rib flanges pointed outboard, and the opposite wing has the same ribs with flanges pointing inboard. That requires another set of engineering drawings instead of an "opposite" callout on a single drawing set. While very similar, they will have separate structural analysis done to verify that they are equally strong.

Similarly, the hershey bar Piper wings reduce the manufacturing cost dramatically because only a handful of dies are required to stamp out parts for the wing. There is a root rib, a flap rib, an aileron rib, a full chord rib, and a tip rib. Maybe less.

Wing rib bay spacing, stamped rib thickness, skin sheet thickness, etc can be explained with an analogy pretty well. Let's say you're building a floor in a house. You can choose to use 2x8 floor joists, 2x10 floor joists, engineered I-beam lumber, etc. These are your wing ribs. Which floor joist you use is dictated by your span distance, supported load, and joist spacing. If you go with a smaller joist (thinner rib), you will have to space them together more closely than if you choose a larger joist (thicker rib) to achieve the same deflection and load ratings. Same thing holds true for your subfloor and flooring options.

In a wing, the ribs support the skin, which maintains the airfoil shape. If the skin is too thin or the ribs are spaced too far apart, then the rib bay will oil-can and change shape during flight. If you increase the skin thickness, oil canning can be reduced or virtually eliminated. You could also add a rib or two to the wing design and make smaller rib bays.


All wings flex. I know you know that, but I wanted to say it again. That sheetmetal wing flexes and twists more than you think and should rightfully scare you at a basic level... Flexing a material that has memory causes a multitude of issues to design around, but it all boils down to fatigue life limits. Trust that somewhere, someone has fully analyzed that wing design to fly and flex *infinitely*. This doesn't mean that there won't be some smoking rivets and cracks along the way, but it does mean that the airframe shouldn't catastrophically fail, assuming the airframe looks approximately the same as it did when it left the factory.


TLDR
Each manufacturer decides what is most important to them for any design. They can spend more money on tooling and the aircraft will literally click together like a lego kit. Hydroforming and drop hammer dies allow a single sheetmetal part to achieve the equivalent strength of a multi-piece riveted part. That saves weight and assembly time but adds money.

The faster an airplane goes and the more weight it carries requires any manufacturer to design at a higher caliber than their slower, lighter airframes. It is simply physics. Regardless of manufacturer, when the design is asked to go faster, further, higher, or carry more, then the design variations narrow. They have to or the resultant plane wouldn't meet the design parameters.

There is nothing new under the sun. Until electric airplanes and truly low cost turbine engines are readily available, airplanes are going to basically all look the same with the biggest differences being a manufacturer's engineering philosophy. Send a Beechcraft design over to Cessna to be built, and Cessna will successfully build a Beechcraft airplane. All these manufacturers possess the ability to build one another's aircraft.


Stepping down off the soapbox now.

_________________
Steven Morgan
^middle name


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 10:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
During this whole discussion, I have to ask.
Which tree stands up better in a wind storm. A willow tree or an oak tree?

When you understand which tree is stronger, which is stiffer, and which can survive high speed winds. You will question a lot of the logic about which design is best.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 10:55 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/04/10
Posts: 1514
Post Likes: +2637
Company: Northern Aviation, LLC
Aircraft: C45H, Aerostar, T28B
Steven, thank you for an excellent post.

The very notion of the ability of modern manufacturing producing parts to exacting dimensions was proven during WW2 with the production of parts that were interchangeable with those manufactured in an entirely different plane. Studebaker building Wright engines for example.

As Peter Garrison pointed out, an airplane is a mass of design compromises and over the years we have seen how some of those compromises haven't worked quite as well as intended. The choice of magnesium for the control surfaces and the lack of a shear web and landing light placement in the early Bonanza line are a couple that comes to mind the proved to be a mistake. Are these an example of poor quality or engineering? No, simply a reality of the engineering constraints that are required to produce something as complex as a modern aircraft. One of the reasons I tend to avoid the "A" model of anything.

It is interesting to see how the different manufacturers have dealt with the requirements to produce a hight yet strong structure. The much-maligned Piper Cherokee line (at least here) used design compromise to rather good effect to produce a line that has proven to be quite efficient in terms of manufacturing and maintenance. Things such as hydro-formed skins that reduced internal structure, constant-cord wings and the elimination of the floor were departures from the norm that have proven to be an effective way to build an "efficient" aircraft. At least in terms of the cost/performance demanded by the free market. Another example of a very well designed aircraft, from a market perspective, is the RV series of aircraft. A runaway success by any measure.

I see considerable confusion between quality and strength, they are different. Using a 2x6 where a 2x4 will do the job isn't higher quality work, it's inefficient and wasteful. I love the saying that to an optimist the glass is half full, yet to a pesimist it is half empty. Well to an engineer the glass is twice the size it needs to be...

Probably one of the best SE GA airplanes in terms of quality and strength? The Meyers 200D. Unfortunately, some of the design compromises, as well a marketing, left the Meyers like so many others as technical successes, but financial failures. The airplanes that have stood the test of time were the ones that got the mix of cost/operational efficiency/and longevity right, such as Beech, Cessna, and Piper. Some of the others that built "quality" aircraft in terms or strength and craftsmanship failed. Some simply due to their selection of construction materials, examples would be Ballanca, Stinson. Great airplanes from most every sense, just out of step with the times.

History has proven the choice of stressed skin semi-monocoque construction was the way to go. It would be interesting to see in 50 years how the second generation of "composite" airplanes are doing, the first generation (wood) didn't do so well, at least from a commercial mass production standpoint.

Jeff


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 11:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/10/13
Posts: 2278
Post Likes: +1667
Location: Lexington, KY
Aircraft: B95A Z526F SU26
+1 Jeff

We are in complete agreement

_________________
Steven Morgan
^middle name


Top

 Post subject: Re: Beech vs Cessna Quality
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 11:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/16/10
Posts: 8885
Post Likes: +1954
Username Protected wrote:
During this whole discussion, I have to ask.
Which tree stands up better in a wind storm. A willow tree or an oak tree?


Oak trees have a tap root.

_________________
If you think nobody cares about you. Try not paying your income tax.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.camguard.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.