That's baloney. You can teach stalls just fine in a "hershey bar" Cherokee. In fact, there is no significant difference between the 172 and the Cherokee in my experience with students. For three of the last five years I had access to a Cherokee 180 and two 180hp 172s and I really don't think it should make a hill of beans if the instructor is competent.Also as stated above, and seems worth commenting on in the "Pilot Training" forum, is that the Piper is too easy to fly. I don't know about the Warrior, because I've never flown one, but the Hershey Bar Cherokee is not used for teaching stalls by most instructors. One old salt CFI, IA, Piper fan I know even said that if you get in trouble under some circumstances it will float down like an oak leaf. This doesn't mean not to train in one, but if you do, make sure you spend some stall instruction time in an aircraft where the instructor can teach you stalls.
What 172 has a castering nose wheel? None I have ever flown.
Perhaps you misunderstand what a "castering nose wheel" is. That term is applied to nose wheels which freely pivot, like the front wheels on a grocery cart, without any means to directly control the pivoting from the cockpit. Aircraft with this feature include all the Grumman singles (AA/AG-1/5 series other than the AA-1x's which have been modified to tailwheel configuration), the Diamond DA-20/40, and the Cirrus SR20/22. Cessna nosewheel airplanes from the 150 onwards are all steerable nosewheels, meaning you can control the direction of the nosewheel mechanically from the cockpit via the rudder pedals (except for Ercoupes which have no rudder pedals so nosewheel control is via the yoke). And all Piper tricycle gear planes also have steerable rather than castering nosewheels.All of the (late model) ones I have flown do. Perhaps earlier models did not?
On the ground, the nose wheel of the cessna casters while the warrior nose gear is linked to the rudder...push rudder and the nose gear is turned. On the cessna, differential breaking is necessary to get a turn going.
Then if you know what's good for you, you'll involve her in the process.And since it will be only the missus & I,
So many responses! Thanks a bunch...
Many many thanks for all your suggestions!
Cessna 172 Classic $115
Cessna 172SP $145
Cessna 172SPG (G1000) $189
Piper PA-28-151 Warrior $112
Piper PA-28R-180 Arrow $147
Cessna Corvalis 400 TT $330
So many responses! Thanks a bunch...
I am almost 6 feet so high wing refuel isnt the issue.
My Wife is a Physics Teacher and is blessed with an analytical mind. So I am hoping to woo her into flight lessons and joining the 99's. She will be a whiz at flight planning and fuel/payload calculations. And I am more of a hands on/listen to the aircraft kind of pilot... So a great marriage when it comes to pilot & co pilotThen if you know what's good for you, you'll involve her in the process.
Sign me "37 years of marriage and airplanes -- 4 planes, 1 woman."
Perhaps you misunderstand what a "castering nose wheel" is. That term is applied to nose wheels which freely pivot, like the front wheels on a grocery cart
I don't care if you're 7' tall, you aren't refueling a C172 standing on the ground. If you don't use a step ladder, you'll still need to do the fuselage step/wing strut maneuver to check fuel level and such. I've never fueled a C172, so I can't speak to that, but I've checked fuel plenty of times and haven't been able to do it from the ground yet at 6' tall myself.
My dad had claustrophobia and simply could not fly left seat in an airplane that did not have a door there. He had no problem with the C-172 that he owned for 20 years, but a PA-28 would have been impossible for him.I also appreciate having two doors instead of the Warrior's one, primarily for egress purposes in the event of an emergency.
In my opinion, compared to a C-172, a PA-28 is easier for a student to land safely; but harder to land well (i.e., tail low, full-stall, no drift).I found the warrior to be more stable in the pattern and during landing
Very true. Visibility is my one biggest gripe about the C-172.has better visibility during pattern turns due to the low wing
Yes. But preflight inspection can be tough on the ol' knees. Whenever I fly a low-wing I feel it in the knees and legs for days thereafter.and is easier to fuel
PA-28 cabin is a skosh wider than a C-172 at the elbow; but the upper half of the fuselage is rounded in cross-section so it tapers inward, leaving less room at eye level and less headroom. C-172 cabin side is more-or-less vertical all the way up to the roof.It also seems to be a bit wider; I seem to have more elbow room. Not sure if that's the shape of the cockpit or if it's actually wider.
Now that's pretty easy to fix. See the AA-1/5 maintenance manual for details, but all you need are a few wrenches/sockets and a fish scale.Sometimes that analogy is far too accurate. We had an Grumman in our club that the nosegear shimmied like the cart you always hate to get at the grocery.
The C-172 airframe with 180 hp is an excellent combination. Along with the 172S (not "172SP" -- the marketing name is "Skyhawk SP" but the model number is "172S") built since 1999, many older 172 aircraft have been converted to 180 hp, and can be a good value.My heart softens with the C172SP. And since it will be only the missus & I, its the perfect size for comfort and distance.
C172 with a castering nosewheel? I don't think so. It's controllable with the rudder pedals same as the Piper.
I don't care if you're 7' tall, you aren't refueling a C172 standing on the ground. If you don't use a step ladder, you'll still need to do the fuselage step/wing strut maneuver to check fuel level and such. I've never fueled a C172, so I can't speak to that, but I've checked fuel plenty of times and haven't been able to do it from the ground yet at 6' tall myself.
My dad had claustrophobia and simply could not fly left seat in an airplane that did not have a door there. He had no problem with the C-172 that he owned for 20 years, but a PA-28 would have been impossible for him.
In my opinion, compared to a C-172, a PA-28 is easier for a student to land safely; but harder to land well (i.e., tail low, full-stall, no drift).
Very true. Visibility is my one biggest gripe about the C-172.
Yes. But preflight inspection can be tough on the ol' knees. Whenever I fly a low-wing I feel it in the knees and legs for days thereafter.
Warrior also has the clamshell-door cowl that opens wide for preflight inspection and maintenance, a good thing. Cherokee 140, the Grumman series and Bonanzas also have good cowl access; Cessnas and other PA-28s, not so much.
PA-28 cabin is a skosh wider than a C-172 at the elbow; but the upper half of the fuselage is rounded in cross-section so it tapers inward, leaving less room at eye level and less headroom. C-172 cabin side is more-or-less vertical all the way up to the roof.
Power being equal, speeds of a C-172 and a Warrior are very close. Warrior may have a slight edge, but close enough that a C-172 with wheel pants might be faster than a Warrior without.
On fixed-gear PA-28s before the 1974 model year, you are correct. Bungees were added to the system in 1974, so it was no longer "hard-wired" -- but still stiffer than the Cessna system.There is a difference. The Piper nose gear is 'hard wired' to the rudder pedals, like the steering wheel on your car.
The system on the C-172 and nearly all other high-wings Cessnas does not caster. In order to caster, there has to be (1) a displacement of the wheel from the vertical axis of the suspension, opposite of the direction of travel, and (2) free swiveling through the connection between the suspension and the wheel. An example of that is the nose gear of the American Aviation/Grumman-American series, like the AA-1 Yankee below. The nose gear of the C-172 has neither.Correct me if I'm wrong, but on most Cessnas the rudder pedals are connected to the nose gear by springs, so there is a castering effect.
The centering cam is on all of the fixed-gear high-wing Cessna singles, too.On the C177RG that I fly when you extend the landing gear the nose wheel is locked along the long axis of the airplane. It unlocks and becomes steerable when the strut is compressed after landing.
Or if you put too much air in the nose strut so that it's extended too far at rest, it can be very difficult to turn on the ground.If you land on the main gear and do F-15 style aero-braking it's possible to sail right by that first turn off if you have not put some weight on the nose gear. DAMHIK.
There were these ...Of course no high wing Cessna has a true castering nose wheel like those on the Cirri etc.
There is a difference. The Piper nose gear is 'hard wired' to the rudder pedals, like the steering wheel on your car.
Apart from the obvious high wing, low wing difference what does each aircraft lead above the other? I'd like to hear from both C172 & Warrior pilots...
Mark
The C-172 airframe with 180 hp is an excellent combination. Along with the 172S (not "172SP" -- the marketing name is "Skyhawk SP" but the model number is "172S") built since 1999, many older 172 aircraft have been converted to 180 hp, and can be a good value.
And if the flap limiter is not put in, useful load suffers (MGW remains at 2300 lb), but it's a heckuva short-field performer.as long as the whole STC is complied with (mainly, limit flap travel to 30 deg).