PA-28 door
bat fastard
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back home in Alba
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA-28 door
I'm curious as to why the door on the pa-28 warrior is on the right hand side of the aircraft? Why isn't there another one on the left? Surely common sense says put the door on the left hand side or even have one on both sides. It's a little annoying having to climb over the right hand seat when entering or leaving the aircraft.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when the pilot is at the controls, how would the passengers get in? Very often you change occupants whilst a pilot is at the controls. There is significant expense strengthening the fuselage for a door on either side. For economy's sake, sometimes itīs cheaper to keep it simple.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA 28 fuselage is a stressed skin design which means that the aircraft exterior is designed to bear all or some of the loads imposed on it. The more holes you cut into this design (essentially a semi monocoque construction) the more you weaken the load bearing ability of the structure.
As Rainboe has already pointed out it makes more sense to include the only door on the right from an operational perspective. I'm sure it was not structurally motivated.
As Rainboe has already pointed out it makes more sense to include the only door on the right from an operational perspective. I'm sure it was not structurally motivated.
bat fastard
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back home in Alba
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys, that makes sense. I keep forgetting these things are used for commercial and charter work where pax are getting on and off.
Antenna types, sizes & locations varies a lot. It all depends on what equipment has been fitted and where was convenient to access during fitting. Can be on the roof or belly or fin or underside of the wing. Antenna size reduces as the frequencies to be used increase.
Typical ones include:
VHF communication: something like a whip or blade antenna about a foot long
VHF navigation: a horizontal 'V' shaped antenna with the arms of the 'V' about the same lenth as a VHF comm (makes sense - the frequency ranges are similar). May be combined with the VHF com.
Glideslope: a pair of small horizontal 'blades' or a 'V'
DME: A small blade antenna
ELT: A whip about a foot long.
ADF: An oval or rectangular blister about 6" long + possibly longish horizontal rod (a foot or two in length) or wire if separate loop & sense aerials.
Transponder: A small blade or whip about the same size as the DME.
GPS: A small blister about 4" long. Often teardrop shaped.
HF communication: A long wire. Usually from the roof of the cockpit to the top of the fin and then to a wingtip. Easiest place to find the room for the length needed.
Typical ones include:
VHF communication: something like a whip or blade antenna about a foot long
VHF navigation: a horizontal 'V' shaped antenna with the arms of the 'V' about the same lenth as a VHF comm (makes sense - the frequency ranges are similar). May be combined with the VHF com.
Glideslope: a pair of small horizontal 'blades' or a 'V'
DME: A small blade antenna
ELT: A whip about a foot long.
ADF: An oval or rectangular blister about 6" long + possibly longish horizontal rod (a foot or two in length) or wire if separate loop & sense aerials.
Transponder: A small blade or whip about the same size as the DME.
GPS: A small blister about 4" long. Often teardrop shaped.
HF communication: A long wire. Usually from the roof of the cockpit to the top of the fin and then to a wingtip. Easiest place to find the room for the length needed.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 16th Jul 2009 at 03:28.
The PA 28 fuselage is a stressed skin design which means that the aircraft exterior is designed to bear all or some of the loads imposed on it. The more holes you cut into this design (essentially a semi monocoque construction) the more you weaken the load bearing ability of the structure.
As Rainboe has already pointed out it makes more sense to include the only door on the right from an operational perspective. I'm sure it was not structurally motivated.
As Rainboe has already pointed out it makes more sense to include the only door on the right from an operational perspective. I'm sure it was not structurally motivated.
From an engineering perspective, there is no substantial weight or strength penalty in fitting two doors. If there was, the same absurd "design solution" would be in many other aeroplanes or, for that matter, cars.
Also, having flown a lot of hours in PA28s I have never found it an operational advantage - especially when I'd really get passengers strapped in, do a last walk around the aircraft to confirm that everything is secure, chocks out and the like, then finally strap myself in and start up - in short what I do in every other type that I fly. Fast running changes are a rare, and usually foolhardy, thing to do in a small aeroplane: my passengers need a safety briefing, and I want to check they've not dropped anything just outside the aeroplane - all of this is best done with the engine off and usually with me outside the aeroplane at some point.
My best guess is that it was a cost saving measure in the 1960s, and since everybody got used to it, Piper have never gone to the cost and effort of changing the design.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thoughts on this one.
One observation I would make from currently learning on the cherokee is that it forces you to walk round the plane a couple of times when performing the pre-flight which may help you spot anything out of the ordinary.
For example if you were sloppy with your pre-flight and there was a door on the left you would not have to circle the aircraft to check the stall warning works (as you could just reach in to switch on the master switch) and likewise being forced to enter the aircraft next to where external power can be plugged in means your more likely not to forget to disconnect it if you had to use it.
I dare say those two observations may not be part of the reasoning but I see them as a benefit even tho I also find it a pain jumping across the seats.
One observation I would make from currently learning on the cherokee is that it forces you to walk round the plane a couple of times when performing the pre-flight which may help you spot anything out of the ordinary.
For example if you were sloppy with your pre-flight and there was a door on the left you would not have to circle the aircraft to check the stall warning works (as you could just reach in to switch on the master switch) and likewise being forced to enter the aircraft next to where external power can be plugged in means your more likely not to forget to disconnect it if you had to use it.
I dare say those two observations may not be part of the reasoning but I see them as a benefit even tho I also find it a pain jumping across the seats.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Genghis the EngineerQuote:
Originally Posted by Donalk
The PA 28 fuselage is a stressed skin design which means that the aircraft exterior is designed to bear all or some of the loads imposed on it. The more holes you cut into this design (essentially a semi monocoque construction) the more you weaken the load bearing ability of the structure.
As Rainboe has already pointed out it makes more sense to include the only door on the right from an operational perspective. I'm sure it was not structurally motivated.
I've heard both of those arguments before, and frankly I think that they're complete cobblers.
From an engineering perspective, there is no substantial weight or strength penalty in fitting two doors. If there was, the same absurd "design solution" would be in many other aeroplanes or, for that matter, cars.
Also, having flown a lot of hours in PA28s I have never found it an operational advantage - especially when I'd really get passengers strapped in, do a last walk around the aircraft to confirm that everything is secure, chocks out and the like, then finally strap myself in and start up - in short what I do in every other type that I fly. Fast running changes are a rare, and usually foolhardy, thing to do in a small aeroplane: my passengers need a safety briefing, and I want to check they've not dropped anything just outside the aeroplane - all of this is best done with the engine off and usually with me outside the aeroplane at some point.
My best guess is that it was a cost saving measure in the 1960s, and since everybody got used to it, Piper have never gone to the cost and effort of changing the design.
G
Originally Posted by Donalk
The PA 28 fuselage is a stressed skin design which means that the aircraft exterior is designed to bear all or some of the loads imposed on it. The more holes you cut into this design (essentially a semi monocoque construction) the more you weaken the load bearing ability of the structure.
As Rainboe has already pointed out it makes more sense to include the only door on the right from an operational perspective. I'm sure it was not structurally motivated.
I've heard both of those arguments before, and frankly I think that they're complete cobblers.
From an engineering perspective, there is no substantial weight or strength penalty in fitting two doors. If there was, the same absurd "design solution" would be in many other aeroplanes or, for that matter, cars.
Also, having flown a lot of hours in PA28s I have never found it an operational advantage - especially when I'd really get passengers strapped in, do a last walk around the aircraft to confirm that everything is secure, chocks out and the like, then finally strap myself in and start up - in short what I do in every other type that I fly. Fast running changes are a rare, and usually foolhardy, thing to do in a small aeroplane: my passengers need a safety briefing, and I want to check they've not dropped anything just outside the aeroplane - all of this is best done with the engine off and usually with me outside the aeroplane at some point.
My best guess is that it was a cost saving measure in the 1960s, and since everybody got used to it, Piper have never gone to the cost and effort of changing the design.
G
Extra strengthened flap, extra step, extra strengthened wing walkway, extra door, extra handle on external fuselage, then you would have to beef up the flap system to take the weight of a person on either flap at once and if you want to allow pax to use the left door the extra folding mechanism in the P1 for the seat back all equal extra cost.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Added weight would be the actual penalty of adding another door, in addition to cost. The structure must be beefed up to offset the reduction in strength from cutting a hole in the stressed skin, adding weight.
Only of academical or historical interest these days, since aircraft certified in the last 20 years are not allowed to have only one exit (unless they are single seat or have canopies)... So Piper could not have done what Cessna did and recertified their aircraft under current regulations when production restarted in the 90's. But that might be for the TRRBAPSOI thread...
Only of academical or historical interest these days, since aircraft certified in the last 20 years are not allowed to have only one exit (unless they are single seat or have canopies)... So Piper could not have done what Cessna did and recertified their aircraft under current regulations when production restarted in the 90's. But that might be for the TRRBAPSOI thread...
CS 23.807 Emergency exits
(a) Number and location. Emergency exits
must be located to allow escape without crowding
in any probable crash attitude. The aeroplane must
have at least the following emergency exits:
(1) For all aeroplanes with a seating
capacity of two or more, excluding aeroplanes
with canopies, at least one emergency exit on
the opposite side of the cabin from the main
door specified in CS 23.783.
(a) Number and location. Emergency exits
must be located to allow escape without crowding
in any probable crash attitude. The aeroplane must
have at least the following emergency exits:
(1) For all aeroplanes with a seating
capacity of two or more, excluding aeroplanes
with canopies, at least one emergency exit on
the opposite side of the cabin from the main
door specified in CS 23.783.
G
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have no particular knowlege on this, but the way I had always rationalised this (if you are going to only have one door) is that you would want to make sure all passengers had exited the aircraft safely first before leaving as the pilot and abandoning the controls - but I can see that working both ways as to my mind would also make sense to have the pilot exit first and to make sure passengers moved away from the aircraft in the right direction...
One flight instructor I flew with also told me cautionary tales of door popping open shortly after take off, scared passenger grabbing pilots arm, leading to stall - never happens with 1 POB he said. Plane is not going to stop flying with an open door. But the PA28 design is hardly going to be changed now!
One flight instructor I flew with also told me cautionary tales of door popping open shortly after take off, scared passenger grabbing pilots arm, leading to stall - never happens with 1 POB he said. Plane is not going to stop flying with an open door. But the PA28 design is hardly going to be changed now!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you happen to know the date / issue state that came into play?
It's in Amdt. 23-36, Eff. 09/14/88. Prior to that, aircraft seating 5 or less (with centreline mounted engines) did not need two exits.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So all cessnas, luscombes, lots of beech's, tomahawks etc etc are structuraly weak ?
CRAP!
I dont recall anyone stating that the above mentioned aircraft were structurally weak.
The view advanced was that a semi monocoque design relies on a minimum number of openings to preserve structural integrity without reverting to the need for additional frames and stringers.
Moreover, in this respect Genghis is correct, insofar as the addition of an additional door will introduce a cost penalty, both in materials, and a more complex manufacturing tooling process.
CRAP!
I dont recall anyone stating that the above mentioned aircraft were structurally weak.
The view advanced was that a semi monocoque design relies on a minimum number of openings to preserve structural integrity without reverting to the need for additional frames and stringers.
Moreover, in this respect Genghis is correct, insofar as the addition of an additional door will introduce a cost penalty, both in materials, and a more complex manufacturing tooling process.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft certified in the last 20 years are not allowed to have only one exit (unless they are single seat or have canopies)...
The PA 28 fuselage is a stressed skin design which means that the aircraft exterior is designed to bear all or some of the loads imposed on it. The more holes you cut into this design (essentially a semi monocoque construction) the more you weaken the load bearing ability of the structure.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft certified, not built, in the last 20 years. So they can continue to build PA28 Archer IIIs with one door, because the design is so old, but new designs must have two.
Tim
Tim