Hey 52Romeo, I just got word today that the FAA has approved adding four aircraft families to the EZ Flap STC... including your Cherokee. PMA will be forthcoming very soon (because the same basic parts are already PMA'd for the Cessnas). Contact me offline to discuss further.

Hi Bill,,I'll be touch with you when i get some extra cash,,Do you mine if i make payments,,I would like to get one befor i go to the arlington wa. air show..I still think your prod.is great,,I'll call you later...on.

Well, you can put it on your credit card when you go through Aircraft Spruce, and just pay off the credit card monthly. Since it's not a very big purchase the payments and interest costs aren't too bad.

Thanks for the kind words ! If you're at Sun n Fun next month I'll see you there and will be offering a show special at that event.

mr scout wrote:

52Romeo wrote:I'm close to 60,,and i have no need for speed,,I just want to enjoy life when flying,,sure i can burn 8 to 9gls per hr, when i'm in a rush,,but why not enjoy flying,,when I buy the gas,,I tend to slow down,,now if somone else is buying,,that's diffent,,,I have 406hrs on my motor,all comp; 78/80,78/80,79/80,79/80 last annu.in oct.09,,I always lean out when taxing or flying.So ya I fly slow,,I enjoy life and flying,,Don't you,,Their are only 2 things I would like to do ,to my plane and that"s put on a Micro Vortex generator kit and put in that EZ Flap Handle,,

No;
I only like to fly slow when landing or during a search. The rest of the time its wide open I never had a 0-360 that burned less that 9.5 most of the time they are always 10gph. If your happy at going slow enough to only burn 7gph that is wonderful.
I miss the days of 4.5 in the champ, they were some memorable hours.
My TO-360 will burn 17gph pulled back as slow as I dare go its still burning 13gph I am doing my part to stimulate the economy

VGs are always a good idea, if you can give up a little speed, in fact if you put them back further you will go faster but then they dont help slow speed at all.

mr scout, your O-360 fuel burn sounds a little high ... you say you fly "wide open", and maybe you typically fly near gross, or at lower altitudes. All those conditions could easily generate such high fuel flow. But pretty decent performance is still available from the O-360 at significantly lower fuel flows, depending upon the airframe and how its flown. My 1968 Cherokee 180, usually flown 200-300 pounds below gross and at cruising altitudes of 9,500-10,500 here in the high country of New Mexico, usually burns around 8.2 gph at around 65-70% cruise power, yielding TAS of around 148 mph. I've got the Metco-Aire wing tips and flap and aileron gap seals. No VGs (yet).

nmflyguy wrote:

mr scout wrote:

52Romeo wrote:I'm close to 60,,and i have no need for speed,,I just want to enjoy life when flying,,sure i can burn 8 to 9gls per hr, when i'm in a rush,,but why not enjoy flying,,when I buy the gas,,I tend to slow down,,now if somone else is buying,,that's diffent,,,I have 406hrs on my motor,all comp; 78/80,78/80,79/80,79/80 last annu.in oct.09,,I always lean out when taxing or flying.So ya I fly slow,,I enjoy life and flying,,Don't you,,Their are only 2 things I would like to do ,to my plane and that"s put on a Micro Vortex generator kit and put in that EZ Flap Handle,,

No;
I only like to fly slow when landing or during a search. The rest of the time its wide open I never had a 0-360 that burned less that 9.5 most of the time they are always 10gph. If your happy at going slow enough to only burn 7gph that is wonderful.
I miss the days of 4.5 in the champ, they were some memorable hours.
My TO-360 will burn 17gph pulled back as slow as I dare go its still burning 13gph I am doing my part to stimulate the economy

VGs are always a good idea, if you can give up a little speed, in fact if you put them back further you will go faster but then they dont help slow speed at all.

mr scout, your O-360 fuel burn sounds a little high ... you say you fly "wide open", and maybe you typically fly near gross, or at lower altitudes. All those conditions could easily generate such high fuel flow. But pretty decent performance is still available from the O-360 at significantly lower fuel flows, depending upon the airframe and how its flown. My 1968 Cherokee 180, usually flown 200-300 pounds below gross and at cruising altitudes of 9,500-10,500 here in the high country of New Mexico, usually burns around 8.2 gph at around 65-70% cruise power, yielding TAS of around 148 mph. I've got the Metco-Aire wing tips and flap and aileron gap seals. No VGs (yet).

You need to re-read the post I dont have an O-360 it is a TO-360 a whole different animal Which gives me 210HP up to 20,000ft 13-17 GPH is normal

BobbyZ wrote:If you get too bored with it you can always add some floats http://www.theedge.ca/kevinsky18/floats.htm

That Cherokee 6 on floats looks interesting. The flaps look full down, I wonder if it's taking off or landing? I've got about 2K hours in PA32/32R and the flaps seemed to have no effect on takeoff, landing, or cruise speeds/distances. Just the angle of attack you did all 3 at...

.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Take a 160 horse cherokee with a re-pitched prop, spend $2000 on avgas doing meaningful slowflight work and you'll have a plane that outperforms 10% of the "STOL" planes on the internet and 90% of those planes and their owners in reality.

fiftynineSC wrote:.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Take a 160 horse cherokee with a re-pitched prop, spend $2000 on avgas doing meaningful slowflight work and you'll have a plane that outperforms 10% of the "STOL" planes on the internet and 90% of those planes and their owners in reality.

Well, any stock Cessna will outperform 100% of Piper Cherokees of comparative size and hp, STOL modified and practiced up or not...A stock C206 with 3 drums of fuel on board will still outperform an empty Cherokee 6, just call Tanana Air and ask why they don't fly to Telida...lol

born2flyak wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote:.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Take a 160 horse cherokee with a re-pitched prop, spend $2000 on avgas doing meaningful slowflight work and you'll have a plane that outperforms 10% of the "STOL" planes on the internet and 90% of those planes and their owners in reality.

Well, any stock Cessna will outperform 100% of Piper Cherokees of comparative size and hp, STOL modified and practiced up or not...A stock C206 with 3 drums of fuel on board will still outperform an empty Cherokee 6, just call Tanana Air and ask why they don't fly to Telida...lol

Yep. Understood. Maybe i'm missing your point in response to mine....but I'm not aguing the fact that when comparing each airplane with an equivalently skilled pilot, a cherokee looses in a short field contest. The point I was trying to make is that for the average guy, money is better spent on proficiency rather than mods. Seen too many bloated, modded, C180's, Cubs, Maule's, etc take double the book numbers to land because their owner is not proficient. Meanwhile the guy with lots of recent experience can make the most pedestrian of planes perform.

fiftynineSC wrote:

born2flyak wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote:.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Take a 160 horse cherokee with a re-pitched prop, spend $2000 on avgas doing meaningful slowflight work and you'll have a plane that outperforms 10% of the "STOL" planes on the internet and 90% of those planes and their owners in reality.

Well, any stock Cessna will outperform 100% of Piper Cherokees of comparative size and hp, STOL modified and practiced up or not...A stock C206 with 3 drums of fuel on board will still outperform an empty Cherokee 6, just call Tanana Air and ask why they don't fly to Telida...lol

Yep. Understood. Maybe i'm missing your point in response to mine....but I'm not aguing the fact that when comparing each airplane with an equivalently skilled pilot, a cherokee looses in a short field contest. The point I was trying to make is that for the average guy, money is better spent on proficiency rather than mods. Seen too many bloated, modded, C180's, Cubs, Maule's, etc take double the book numbers to land because their owner is not proficient. Meanwhile the guy with lots of recent experience can make the most pedestrian of planes perform.

This is true...I've seen some Super Cubs at Valdez go smoking on down the runway like an F-15, while the guy in the C150 gives the other cub guys a run for their money...

BTW, I was just trying to take a cheap shot at Cherokee 6's , I flew them for a few years and now I'm in a C180 and C206...

born2flyak wrote:BTW, I was just trying to take a cheap shot at Cherokee 6's , I flew them for a few years and now I'm in a C180 and C206...

Now we are talking, if I didn't have a 180/185 it would be a 206. I think of the 206 as the "99%" plane; it will do 99% of what most people need most of the time And in all seriousness, my 180 ownership is mostly romance, I believe I could do more for the same money or less with a 206 truth be told.

born2flyak wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote:.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Take a 160 horse cherokee with a re-pitched prop, spend $2000 on avgas doing meaningful slowflight work and you'll have a plane that outperforms 10% of the "STOL" planes on the internet and 90% of those planes and their owners in reality.

Well, any stock Cessna will outperform 100% of Piper Cherokees of comparative size and hp, STOL modified and practiced up or not...A stock C206 with 3 drums of fuel on board will still outperform an empty Cherokee 6, just call Tanana Air and ask why they don't fly to Telida...lol

born2flyak - Nothing like a good over-generalization to start a Cessna v. Piper argument! Don't suppose you're fishing for a point counterpoint back-at-ya, now would ya be?

Not biting. To each their own. I learned to fly in Cessnas and "graduated" to Pipers ... then bought a Cherokee 180 as my first airplane. For me it's the better aircraft than it's main competition, the C-172 (or it's successor, the 172SP which finally went to 180 hp), for all the usual arguments ... of course, for each Piper argument there's a pretty good Cessna counterpoint. I won't argue with a Cessna guy who feels differently.

My next airplane will be something other than a Cherokee ... I'm trying to talk a friend into building a kit Cub with me for serious back-country adventure. What airplane guy isn't always dreaming about his "next plane"?

I just feel damn lucky to be a pilot and an aircraft owner!

nmflyguy wrote:

born2flyak wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote:.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Take a 160 horse cherokee with a re-pitched prop, spend $2000 on avgas doing meaningful slowflight work and you'll have a plane that outperforms 10% of the "STOL" planes on the internet and 90% of those planes and their owners in reality.

Well, any stock Cessna will outperform 100% of Piper Cherokees of comparative size and hp, STOL modified and practiced up or not...A stock C206 with 3 drums of fuel on board will still outperform an empty Cherokee 6, just call Tanana Air and ask why they don't fly to Telida...lol

born2flyak - Nothing like a good over-generalization to start a Cessna v. Piper argument! Don't suppose you're fishing for a point counterpoint back-at-ya, now would ya be?

Not biting. To each their own. I learned to fly in Cessnas and "graduated" to Pipers ... then bought a Cherokee 180 as my first airplane. For me it's the better aircraft than it's main competition, the C-172 (or it's successor, the 172SP which finally went to 180 hp), for all the usual arguments ... of course, for each Piper argument there's a pretty good Cessna counterpoint. I won't argue with a Cessna guy who feels differently.

My next airplane will be something other than a Cherokee ... I'm trying to talk a friend into building a kit Cub with me for serious back-country adventure. What airplane guy isn't always dreaming about his "next plane"?

I just feel damn lucky to be a pilot and an aircraft owner!

No, I was simply poking fun at an airplane I spent 2 years in. I thought it was great, it was a fun bird...And then I strapped on a 206.

Should I move this to a "merits of the Cherokee" thread so we can have an actual thread about Cherokee mods?

1SeventyZ wrote:
so we can have an actual thread about Cherokee mods?

OK, I'll help with that Just got the STC-PMA in my hands for a PA-28 Cherokee modification (and 3 other Piper back country aircraft too )

EZFlap wrote:

1SeventyZ wrote:
so we can have an actual thread about Cherokee mods?

OK, I'll help with that Just got the STC-PMA in my hands for a PA-28 Cherokee modification (and 3 other Piper back country aircraft too )

OK...in my opinion, the only Piper back-country aircraft I can think of belong to the Cub family. That being said...and in the Cherokee's defense...I loved the flap handle setup in the PA32, (the only Cherokee I've ever flown) as well as the location of the stabilator trim wheel, it worked great. You could cut the throttle, flare, and dump the flaps to cut any float on short strips all in one smooth motion.

As for some early model Cessnas, like the 172/180/182...the flap handle seems like it needs to be shortened and raised for sure. Although, the EZ flap handle looks like it creates as many problems as it solves. In most short strips in Alaska, full flaps are required and need to be easy to pull in. The stock handles almost require some gymnastic flexibility to yank in 40 degrees. Are any Cessna-specific mods in the works? A flap handle raised up to seat level and with closed-throttle clearance (without scraping the skin off your thumb) would be great. I'd imagine it'll be much more complex to enable as much torque with a shorter handle...just an idea.

Has anyone here had any experience with the vortex generators sold on http://www.pipermods.com?

These seem to be diferent from other versions of vortex generators sold for Cherokees in that they only go on the inboard sections of the hershey-bar wing, and do not address the outboard wing nor the stabilator or rudder. The vendor claims that not only do these VGs reduce stall speed and improve low speed handling, but they also (counterintuitively) raise cruise speed. The theory is that most of the turbulent flow over the hershey-bar wing is located only on the inboard sections, and that otherwise the airfoil produces relatively non-turbulent airflow. Because only a limited number of VGs are mounted, they don't add significantly to parasitic drag, yet because they significantly reduce the induced drag, the PiperMods VGs actually increase cruise speed.

They're also quite a bit cheaper ($575) - about 1/3 the price of the competing product.

I'd like to know if anyone can vouch for the claims of PiperMods.com?

born2flyak wrote:As for some early model Cessnas, like the 172/180/182...the flap handle seems like it needs to be shortened and raised for sure.

Nope, that don't work at all. Believe me, I measured the forces required during the certification process. If you shorten the OEM Cessna handle more than a few inches, you lose enough leverage that you stand a good chance of not being strong enough to deploy the flaps at 80 mph, much less 100 mph as required by the type certificate. If you raise the OEM Cessna handle higher, then FIRST (unless you're a bodybuilder) you will no longer have the upper body strength and leverage to deploy it upwards and rearwards at those angles... and SECOND it will interfere with the engine controls. The feds would never let you do it.

born2flyak wrote:Although, the EZ flap handle looks like it creates as many problems as it solves. In most short strips in Alaska, full flaps are required and need to be easy to pull in.

At the risk of seeming too egomaniacal, my gadget solves ten times as many problems as it creates. It represents the most elegant solution possible given the restrictions of the original Cessna or Piper flap system design. The flaps are actually much easier to "pull in" using this extension, because you can do it without leaning into the instrument panel and taking your concentration off flying.

born2flyak wrote:The stock handles almost require some gymnastic flexibility to yank in 40 degrees.

HALLE F***ING LUJAH !!! Someone finally admits 50% of the truth. I'll take it FIRST, the stock handles require some un-necessary and silly maneuvering to grab the handle at zero. In order to be able to lean forward and grab it in the first place, most pilots adjust the seat a little further forward than otherwise appropriate. So when it comes time to "yank in 40 degrees"... guess what... you need to pull it way far back at an awkward angle. So if you could have your seat a little further back - and still be able to reach the flap handle easily (sitting upright watching where you're going BTW), then when it comes time to yank back that last notch of flap you no longer have that awkward pull where you run out of arm strength with your elbow back behind your rib cage. Halle#*$&%lujah!

born2flyak wrote:Are any Cessna-specific mods in the works?

I've had the flap handle extension certified STC approved on Cessnas since August 09. Several are installed and flying in Cessnas, a few by BCP participants.

born2flyak wrote:A flap handle raised up to seat level and with closed-throttle clearance (without scraping the skin off your thumb) would be great.

PRAISE JEEESUS on Easter Sunday!!! A flap handle at the seat level with closed throttle clearance WOULD be great. I can send you out a package TOMORROW with just exactly that... the flap control located just underneath and behind the throttle.

born2flyak wrote:I'd imagine it'll be much more complex to enable as much torque with a shorter handle

You don't need a shorter handle, all you need is the handle up where you can reach it. That's exactly what I invented... as elegant as possible of a way to put the handle there... without making major structural or control modifications to the airplane. I've just put before and after photos of the Cherokee and Cessna 180 installations on my website. Feel free to see just how much of a benefit there is to having the flap control where you can reach it more easily.

EZFlap wrote:

born2flyak wrote:As for some early model Cessnas, like the 172/180/182...the flap handle seems like it needs to be shortened and raised for sure.

Nope, that don't work at all. Believe me, I measured the forces required during the certification process. If you shorten the OEM Cessna handle more than a few inches, you lose enough leverage that you stand a good chance of not being strong enough to deploy the flaps at 80 mph, much less 100 mph as required by the type certificate. If you raise the OEM Cessna handle higher, then FIRST (unless you're a bodybuilder) you will no longer have the upper body strength and leverage to deploy it upwards and rearwards at those angles... and SECOND it will interfere with the engine controls. The feds would never let you do it.

born2flyak wrote:Although, the EZ flap handle looks like it creates as many problems as it solves. In most short strips in Alaska, full flaps are required and need to be easy to pull in.

At the risk of seeming too egomaniacal, my gadget solves ten times as many problems as it creates. It represents the most elegant solution possible given the restrictions of the original Cessna or Piper flap system design. The flaps are actually much easier to "pull in" using this extension, because you can do it without leaning into the instrument panel and taking your concentration off flying.

born2flyak wrote:The stock handles almost require some gymnastic flexibility to yank in 40 degrees.

HALLE F***ING LUJAH !!! Someone finally admits 50% of the truth. I'll take it FIRST, the stock handles require some un-necessary and silly maneuvering to grab the handle at zero. In order to be able to lean forward and grab it in the first place, most pilots adjust the seat a little further forward than otherwise appropriate. So when it comes time to "yank in 40 degrees"... guess what... you need to pull it way far back at an awkward angle. So if you could have your seat a little further back - and still be able to reach the flap handle easily (sitting upright watching where you're going BTW), then when it comes time to yank back that last notch of flap you no longer have that awkward pull where you run out of arm strength with your elbow back behind your rib cage. Halle#*$&%lujah!

born2flyak wrote:Are any Cessna-specific mods in the works?

I've had the flap handle extension certified STC approved on Cessnas since August 09. Several are installed and flying in Cessnas, a few by BCP participants.

born2flyak wrote:A flap handle raised up to seat level and with closed-throttle clearance (without scraping the skin off your thumb) would be great.

PRAISE JEEESUS on Easter Sunday!!! A flap handle at the seat level with closed throttle clearance WOULD be great. I can send you out a package TOMORROW with just exactly that... the flap control located just underneath and behind the throttle.

born2flyak wrote:I'd imagine it'll be much more complex to enable as much torque with a shorter handle

You don't need a shorter handle, all you need is the handle up where you can reach it. That's exactly what I invented... as elegant as possible of a way to put the handle there... without making major structural or control modifications to the airplane. I've just put before and after photos of the Cherokee and Cessna 180 installations on my website. Feel free to see just how much of a benefit there is to having the flap control where you can reach it more easily.

Well, I've never used the EZ flap handle in any aircraft yet, but if it's easy to reach the flap handle to pull in the first 10 or 20 degrees of flaps, what next? The EZ flap handle is now at the OEM handle's 40 degree angle, it looks as though you need a flight engineer in the backseat to pull in the last 2 notches...and I really am ignorant, never used it, and don't make landings without full flaps, unless flying bored and empty on long runways...