eMKay
Pre-takeoff checklist
I have a choice of these two for training, the club has two other planes I can use after I'm done, they are Archers. Would it make more sense to train in the Cherokee then? Or just spit time in both?
Let's see -- 2150 lb over 150HP or 2300 lb over 160 HP -- which one has the better power loading?140s are terribly underpowered
The 160HP Warrior III grosses out at 2440 lb, for a power loading of 15.25 lb/HP, which is definitely worse than the C-172N's 14.38. But the 140 Cherokee's 14.33 easily beats the Warrior III and better than matches the 172. The earlier 1950-lb MGW 140's are all the way down to 13.0 lb/HP.I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently.
A PA-28-140 and a PA-28-161 (or 172N) are apples-and-oranges. Wing loading, aspect ratio and airfoil are other relevant variables which make the Warrior and 172 better climbers than the PA-28-140 for a given horsepower.The 160HP Warrior III grosses out at 2440 lb, for a power loading of 15.25 lb/HP, which is definitely worse than the C-172N's 14.38. But the 140 Cherokee's 14.33 easily beats the Warrior III and better than matches the 172.
Actually 13.9 lb/hp, because the engines of those aircraft were de-rated to 140 hp (2450 rpm). They were sold strictly as two-seaters and did well in that role.The earlier 1950-lb MGW 140's are all the way down to 13.0 lb/HP.
The Cherokee 140 still seems terribly underpowered when you fly the two and compare them. I think the Cherokee 180 feels more like the 172N. Perhaps it's just an illusion. Or my Cessna preferenceLet's see -- 2150 lb over 150HP or 2300 lb over 160 HP -- which one has the better power loading?
It's not that bad.Maybe it's just that ****ty Cherokee 180 you're stuck with
I learned in a Cherokee 140, and it's a great trainer. In some ways it's almost too easy to fly.
But head-to-head I think the 172 is a better trainer. It's often said that the Cherokee is too easy to fly to be an optimal trainer. It's likely a bit more difficult to transition from a Cherokee to a 172 later on than it would be to train in a 172 from the get-go and then move to a Cherokee.
I've flown and taught in a lot of 172's and Cherokees, and there just ain't that much difference between them as trainers. They're pretty much equally forgiving of sloppy technique.The Cherokee will allow you to develop more bad habits. The 172 will really teach you how to fly.
The 172 has greater adverse yaw. It also requires more effort towards keeping the nosewheel up on landing (Cherokee pretty much falls down as soon as the main's touch). A smooth landing tends to be a little harder as well.I've flown and taught in a lot of 172's and Cherokees, and there just ain't that much difference between them as trainers. They're pretty much equally forgiving of sloppy technique.
I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently. I don't mean to say it's underpowered, but it would do nicely with a 180hp engine. And the rudder thing is true, you don't need to do much with them in a Cherokee.
The 172 has greater adverse yaw. It also requires more effort towards keeping the nosewheel up on landing (Cherokee pretty much falls down as soon as the main's touch). A smooth landing tends to be a little harder as well.
I think the 150 is an even greater challenge to fly since it's under powered and light. You get bounced around a lot more in a crosswind requiring faster corrections.
It is also a sin to stick an adult in the back of a Cherokee. There is just no legroom. 172 has plenty. The archer helped with this problem.
It is also a sin to stick an adult in the back of a Cherokee. There is just no legroom. 172 has plenty. The archer helped with this problem.
The best PA 28 I ever flew was the 180R. Marty Bevill had one that was 5 knots faster than any 200R I had ever flown, and we were loaded, 3 of us and my not insignificant luggage from FL to IN.
BTW, every plane outside of an unmodified Ercoupe requires the use of rudder to be flown properly. Next time you go up, fly straight ahead using only the rudder pedals to keep the wings level. Do that in turbulence some time as well.
Every time you apply pressure to the ailerons, you should be applying pressure to the rudder as well. Even if you don't notice the need for it in the front seat, believe that the people in the back seat will appreciate it. Personally I always lead with rudder pressure. If I can catch the wing with just a tap of rudder, then that's all it gets. Once I have light pressure in the rudder then I start tipping in aileron. I do this whether I'm turning or just flying along straight.
After 3 hours my knees are gone and it's all I can do to crawl out of the plane. Not so much of an issue in the 172. Now, the 182, that's a whole different ballgame. Sure wish we had the Garmin 430 in the 182.
I've flown and taught in a lot of 172's and Cherokees, and there just ain't that much difference between them as trainers. They're pretty much equally forgiving of sloppy technique.
Now to derail slightly, how much difference am I going to notice going from the Warrior III to an Arrow III when I start on my commercial? I've heard it called the "scare-ow" around the airport. It can't be that different, can it?
I'd pick the 172. Better view of the ground. If you want to learn stick & rudder skills, you gotta fly a taildragger.
I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently. I don't mean to say it's underpowered . . ..
Real pilots fly Cherokees. 172s are for students. Starting with the Cherokee puts you ahead of the game.
But that might just be my preference leaking through.
. . . .
I think the 150 is an even greater challenge to fly since it's under powered and light. You get bounced around a lot more in a crosswind requiring faster corrections.
. . . .
... If you want to learn stick & rudder skills, you gotta fly a taildragger.
Obviously it needs some coordinating rudder, it's just significantly less than what I was used to with the Cessnas I was flying. As mentioned above, they have less adverse yaw, don't require as much rudder during the turn, blah blah. I do whatever I have to to keep the ball in the center. The warrior is definitely better at handling crosswinds though. Went up the other day 15G25 across the runway, I probably would've thought twice about it in a Cessna. (CFII was aboard, he's just along for the ride though )
Now to derail slightly, how much difference am I going to notice going from the Warrior III to an Arrow III when I start on my commercial? I've heard it called the "scare-ow" around the airport. It can't be that different, can it?
Ed Fred's favorite airplane, the Beechcraft Sierra, also has a simple pressure release valve you turn and the gear instantly drops.But the emergency gear extension system in the Arrow is dirt simple, and if I had a gear emergency in IMC, I'd sure hope to be in an Arrow... Anything else tends to require pumping, cranking, etc. whereas the Arrow drops with gravity and might require a slight slip or momentary load factor increase to help it down the last little bit.
I find the Debonair extension to be kind of a PITA. The position of the handle makes me move the seat back to the point where I can't reach teh rudder pedals anymore. 55 pretty-stiff cranks with almost no leverage on a tiny handle is also a lot of work.