Piper PA-28 Cherokee — the Hershey-bar wingvsPiper J-3 Cub — a rectangular wing that works

root section naca652415 → usa35b · dihedral 7.00° → 1.00° · aspect ratio 5.624 → 6.945 · span 9144 mm → 10730 mm · area 14868144 mm² → 16577850 mm² · mac 1626 mm → 1545 mm

units

These analyses are not directly comparable

The geometry comparison below is unaffected — it is a comparison of shapes, not of runs.

  • Piper PA-28 Cherokee — the Hershey-bar wing
  • Piper J-3 Cub — a rectangular wing that works

What changed

PropertyPiper PA-28 CherokeePiper J-3 CubChange%
Geometry
Span9144 mm10730 mm+1586 mm+17.3%
Root chord1626 mm1545 mm-81 mm-5.0%
Tip chord1626 mm1545 mm-81 mm-5.0%
Dihedral7.00°1.00°-6.00°-85.7%
Derived
Aspect ratio5.6246.945+1.321+23.5%
Area14868144 mm²16577850 mm²+1709706 mm²+11.5%
MAC1626 mm1545 mm-81 mm-5.0%
Sections
Root sectionnaca652415usa35bchanged—
Shapedeviation at matched span fractions, 64 samples
Chord deviation (max)81 mm
Chord deviation (RMS)81 mm
Twist deviation (max)0.00°
Dihedral deviation (max)468 mm
Tip cap deviation (max)797 mm

Performance

CoefficientsDimensionless — how good the shape is, independent of size and speed.
ForcesNewtons and watts — what each wing actually carries and costs at this condition.
Spanwise

withheld — “Piper PA-28 Cherokee” integrates to CL 0.007 against the polar’s CL at the same α (this analysis predates the loading reporting its own) 0.271 (0.03×); “Piper J-3 Cub” integrates to CL 0.002 against the polar’s CL at the same α (this analysis predates the loading reporting its own) 0.330 (0.01×). A loading that does not integrate back to its own wing’s CL is not a coarse curve, it is a wrong one.

Efficiency
15.0020.0025.0060.0070.0080.0090.00V (kt)L/DPiper PA-28 CherokeePiper J-3 Cub

air, ρ = 1.225 kg/m³

data
V (kt)Piper PA-28 CherokeePiper J-3 Cub
59.4011.0622.81
62.6912.2323.78
67.7914.0425.06
68.1214.1525.12
72.8916.3725.88
76.8518.2126.17
78.0018.6626.25
83.1020.6326.21
85.5721.5826.03
88.2022.4625.85
93.3024.1725.19