Piper warrior

Status
Not open for further replies.

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name

Display name:
El Conquistador
I'm in the market And I have down selected to either the C172 or a Piper Warrior. I am trying get a relative idea of maintenance costs between the two. I am not sure how to quantify this question. I figure that on a relative scale a C172 is a '3', so where would the Warrior rate. The Warrior has a fuel pump but manual flaps. Warrior has 3 oleo struts, C172, one but does that make difference?
 
Long term, these two are IDENTICAL in terms of operating and maintenance cost. There's nothing to either of them. There are some variances, like 150HP vs 160HP, tapered wing versus hershey bar, and a list of modifications and STCs from here to the horizon. Warrior has 10 more gallons than the cessna, which makes some trip profiles non-stop versus fuel stop necessitating. Cessna has better ingress and egress and generally better view for the passengers. All relative, all subjective. Both are 100-110TAS airplanes depending on vintage, type of wheel pants and engine combo.

Good luck. You can't go wrong with either.
 
Long term, these two are IDENTICAL in terms of operating and maintenance cost. There's nothing to either of them. There are some variances, like 150HP vs 160HP, tapered wing versus hershey bar, and a list of modifications and STCs from here to the horizon. Warrior has 10 more gallons than the cessna, which makes some trip profiles non-stop versus fuel stop necessitating. Cessna has better ingress and egress and generally better view for the passengers. All relative, all subjective. Both are 100-110TAS airplanes depending on vintage, type of wheel pants and engine combo.

Good luck. You can't go wrong with either.

Agree with above. It mostly comes down to personal preference on # of doors and if you like keeping the runway in view as you make your d/w to base to final turns. Both are good selections for first aircraft.
 
I'd prefer the Cessna personally. There are two doors and no crappy Piper latches. Big flaps. Spring steel mains = less maintenance.
 
I'd prefer the Cessna personally. There are two doors and no crappy Piper latches. Big flaps. Spring steel mains = less maintenance.

Strut maintenance is insignificant on the Cherokee. Two doors is nice, but the Piper latches work fine and the low wing looks so much nicer. Also, the Cherokees have a wider wheel base, better ground steering (no rubber band) and you don't have to climb on a ladder to fuel them.
 
I am a partner in a PA28-151 with a 160hp upgrade. I handle the maintenance on the airplane. It's been through three annuals since I've been in it. The base annual for me is $1250 based on the A&P I choose to use. Beyond the base I have had both spinner back plates replaced (they were cracked), all three tires replaced, brake pads replaced, lord mounts replaced (to mitigate the spinner back plate issue). I have had the prop dynamically balanced to also mitigate the spinner back plate issue.

We have four partners, one of whom owns the hangar. Three of us pay $150 per month for fixed expenses of which $50 goes to hangar rent. We $17 per hour dry to fly which covers our engine reserve and oil changes.

The only other major expense was a mutual decision to upgrade our 430 to a 430W.

I did the majority of my training in a 172. I enjoy flying the Warrior and like the Johnson bar flaps. In the end it has wings and an engine and flys like a plane.
 
I'd prefer the Cessna personally. There are two doors and no crappy Piper latches. Big flaps. Spring steel mains = less maintenance.

Much more corrosion. Bad Continental Motors that are expensive to overhaul.
Look like grandma's airplane. A bit over priced for the performance. Cessna guys tend to be less cool than guys with low wings.:)
 
C172 will be gravity fed fuel system which eliminates the two fuel pumps (which the Cherokees have).

Cherokees can get air leaks on the suction sides of the fuel pumps.


Cessnas tend to have more nose wheel shimmy issues, sometimes time consuming to solve.
 
better ground steering (no rubber band)
Fixed-gear PA-28s from the 1974 model year on (which includes all Warriors) have bungees in the nose gear steering circuit.

and you don't have to climb on a ladder to fuel them.
True, but there's a payback. Whenever I fly a low-wing airplane, my legs and knees are sore the next day from crawling around under the wings on the preflight.
 
and you don't have to climb on a ladder to fuel them.

I read the engine out due to fuel starvation is higher in the high wings. I guess it is human nature to skip the visual check when you have to gt the latter out to check the fuel.

Seems like Cessna guys ***** about mogas as it is too difficult to put the cans of gas up on those high wings.....
 
Much more corrosion. Bad Continental Motors that are expensive to overhaul.

Subjective.

Only the oldest of the old 172's are Continental powered.

Most are vibrating Lycomings just like the Cherokees.
 
Fixed-gear PA-28s from the 1974 model year on (which includes all Warriors) have bungees in the nose gear steering circuit.

True, but there's a payback. Whenever I fly a low-wing airplane, my legs and knees are sore the next day from crawling around under the wings on the preflight.

I thought that was for taking that big step UP! (onto the wing).:) Its worth it.
 
Last edited:
I do not look at Aviation Consumer as subjective. They do their analysis and then they post four or five owners comments on each model. Its been a half dozen years since I read them for 172's and Cherokees. The 2nd door is a huge benefit and the wing overhead is nice when it rains but I seldom fly in the rain.

I would chose the Cardinal RG over the Arrow if priced similarly otherwise I'd stay Low cost, Lycoming and low wing.


Subjective.

Only the oldest of the old 172's are Continental powered.

Most are vibrating Lycomings just like the Cherokees.
 
160 & 180 horse Lycoming = crankshaft AD's. WATCH OUT
 
Last edited:
Cessnas tend to have more nose wheel shimmy issues, sometimes time consuming to solve.

I flew with a friend in NY in his Cessna and I wanted to jump out while it was taxing. I thought we were doing to have a prop strike. If you call that a shimmy, boy howdy do!

I felt bad for my friend as he really wanted to impress me with is plane but what a POS.
 
Agree with above. It mostly comes down to personal preference on # of doors and if you like keeping the runway in view as you make your d/w to base to final turns. Both are good selections for first aircraft.

Although I am yet to own an aircraft (working on it), I flew both as a student/new PP. I agree that it comes down to preference - do you want to climb up to view fuel, or bend down to drain fuel? One door or two? Does it matter to bend down to switch fuel tanks? Totally up to you. If it doesn't matter to you, maybe focus on what is on market when you are ready to pull trigger i.e. air frame, engine time, avionics etc.

Good luck!
 
160 & 180 horse Lycoming = crankshaft AD's. WATCH OUT

You really have to watch some mechanics they do not even know how to decipher this ad. When I had a Cherokee 150 the mechanic was such a duffas he performed this ad on it. What a dumas. When I talked to FSDO they asked who did that? The guy closed his shop and went back to work at Cessna.....now Cessna sent his job to Mexico so I think he is janitor at the community collage last I heard. That is probably where he deserves to be.
 
I thought you were a mechanic? This scares you? Really? or are you just being a PITA?

I think u need a nap.

You really have to watch some mechanics they do not even know how to decipher this ad. When I had a Cherokee 150 the mechanic was such a duffas he performed this ad on it. What a dumas. When I talked to FSDO they asked who did that? The guy closed his shop and went back to work at Cessna.....now Cessna sent his job to Mexico so I think he is janitor at the community collage last I heard. That is probably where he deserves to be.


Way to prove my point.
 
I'd prefer the Cessna personally. There are two doors and no crappy Piper latches. Big flaps. Spring steel mains = less maintenance.

Less maintenance than what a helicopter?

You must prefer to pay higher maintenance on the Continental 300 engine. I bought a 2000 hr lycoming engine in a Cherokee put 880 hrs on it myself over 8 years, my friend and brother added another 400 hrs and the flight school I sold it to put it up to 3480 hrs 1500 hrs past TBO.

You do not see that on 172 Continental or 172 Lycoming engines.

Its not do you have corrosion in a 172 it is where is the corrosion and has it be fixed yet?
 
Less maintenance than what a helicopter?

You must prefer to pay higher maintenance on the Continental 300 engine. I bought a 2000 hr lycoming engine in a Cherokee put 880 hrs on it myself over 8 years, my friend and brother added another 400 hrs and the flight school I sold it to put it up to 3480 hrs 1500 hrs past TBO.

You do not see that on 172 Continental or 172 Lycoming engines.

Its not do you have corrosion in a 172 it is where is the corrosion and has it be fixed yet?

Cherokees must be built out of stainless steel

Oh wait
SUBJ:​
Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Spar Corrosion SAIB:
CE-11-13

Date: January 5, 2011

SUBJ:​
Stabilizers- Vertical Stabilizer on Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 SAIB:
CE-11-14

Forward Attach Point Corrosion Date: January 5, 2011

SUBJ:​
Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, and PA-34 Aileron Hinge Fitting SAIB:
CE-11-11

Corrosion Date: January 5, 2011

http://blog.what2fly.com/2011/01/05/special-faa-bulletin-on-piper-aircraft-regarding-corrosion/
 
Last edited:
I'm in the market And I have down selected to either the C172 or a Piper Warrior. I am trying get a relative idea of maintenance costs between the two. I am not sure how to quantify this question. I figure that on a relative scale a C172 is a '3', so where would the Warrior rate. The Warrior has a fuel pump but manual flaps. Warrior has 3 oleo struts, C172, one but does that make difference?

If you are primarily concerned with costs then Piper is the way to go. They are cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to insure....

The same year, condition and equipment will be at least $10k more for the Cessna than the Piper. Automatically even if the rate is the same the taxes, and insurance based on hull value will be higher by that higher purchase price giving you NO added value for the additional costs of purchase price, insurance, taxes, interest on a higher note. Owners regularly fly their engines way past TBO on Cherokees/Warriors but you seldom see Cessna 172's getting TBO without a TOP overhaul costing $10k. So if you have the cessna very long you will be $20k deeper at least than had you the wisdom to buy a Piper.

There might be reasons to pick Cessna over Warrior but cost is not one of them.

There is a mechanic or two on this board that have little or no experience with Pipers, Cherokees, Warriors and believe otherwise but they are confused, wrong and the exception. Don't let their ignorance lead you astray.
 
Last edited:
You still need your shovel to handle your cardinal.


Pretty big of you.

I didn't buy the cardinal. My dad bought it about 7 years ago. We've always known it needed some work just never found the right time. After I was discharged from losing my right hand and the front of both my feet in 2009 I had given up on flying altogether. When I finally came to terms with myself and got flying again I needed another challenge so I rented a hangar in KLNK and move the cardinal here and went to work.

I guess hard work just doesn't make any sense to you :dunno: It felt damn good to do it.

Re-wiring bad wiring, painting the cowl, new hoses, replacing mags I guess is a ground up rebuild. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Less maintenance than what a helicopter?

You must prefer to pay higher maintenance on the Continental 300 engine. I bought a 2000 hr lycoming engine in a Cherokee put 880 hrs on it myself over 8 years, my friend and brother added another 400 hrs and the flight school I sold it to put it up to 3480 hrs 1500 hrs past TBO.

You do not see that on 172 Continental or 172 Lycoming engines.

Its not do you have corrosion in a 172 it is where is the corrosion and has it be fixed yet?

Less maintenance than the gold standard in aircraft suspension--the rubber shock donut. :D

Who said anything about the Continental? Most of the Cessna 172s out there have the same engines as Warriors and Archers.
 
Less maintenance than the gold standard in aircraft suspension--the rubber shock donut. :D

Who said anything about the Continental? Most of the Cessna 172s out there have the same engines as Warriors and Archers.

Including the 1968 & 69 C177
 
The 2nd door is a huge benefit and the wing overhead is nice when it rains but I seldom fly in the rain.

I would chose the Cardinal RG over the Arrow if priced similarly otherwise I'd stay Low cost, Lycoming and low wing.

I offered you a bone in #15 you didn't take it.

We all lover our aircraft for good reason if one guy wants to throw darts then this sort of stuff happens. You as a mechanic are in a good position to post all the SB's and ADs by Cessna, Piper and FAA so if you really want to help out a discussion then post objective data and the new guys can read for themselves but when you only post disparaging data about one aircraft which greatly distorts the truth then you got to know someone is going to not take that sitting down.
 
Less maintenance than the gold standard in aircraft suspension--the rubber shock donut. :D

Who said anything about the Continental? Most of the Cessna 172s out there have the same engines as Warriors and Archers.

Who said anything about Landing gear/suspension?
Most?
Since 1968 mabye but most of these birds are old as that or older so I do not think you can say Most 172's. The Op is talking about costs.. are you honestly saying he cna buy the same year 172 and maintain it for less than a Cherokee or Warrior as the case might be? If you are saying that I advise you to get out your spread sheet and go to trade a plane and then start running the numbers.

There are good reasons to own a Cessna but cheapest is not one of them.
 
The Op is talking about costs.. are you honestly saying he cna buy the same year 172 and maintain it for less than a Cherokee or Warrior as the case might be? QUOTE]


It depends SOLELY on the condition of the airplane when he buys it and what it cost, anything else is nonsense.

1968 172 isn't very new anymore. They may ask for a premium compared to O-300 power, but do they actually sell that high?
 
Less maintenance than the gold standard in aircraft suspension--the rubber shock donut. :D

Who said anything about the Continental? Most of the Cessna 172s out there have the same engines as Warriors and Archers.

now we are talking even newer more expensive models:

Cessna's implementation to the Lycoming 0320 H2D I think was disastrous for owners maintenance costs.
 
Same year, same condition, same equipment, same HP and yes Cessna sells for at least $10k-20k more than a Cherokee, Warrior or Archer. And you really do not want to compare Total cost of ownership between the 182 and the Cherokee 235.


The Op is talking about costs.. are you honestly saying he cna buy the same year 172 and maintain it for less than a Cherokee or Warrior as the case might be? QUOTE]


It depends SOLELY on the condition of the airplane when he buys it and what it cost, anything else is nonsense.

1968 172 isn't very new anymore. They may ask for a premium compared to O-300 power, but do they actually sell that high?
 
The Op is talking about costs.. are you honestly saying he cna buy the same year 172 and maintain it for less than a Cherokee or Warrior as the case might be? QUOTE]


It depends SOLELY on the condition of the airplane when he buys it and what it cost, anything else is nonsense.

1968 172 isn't very new anymore. They may ask for a premium compared to O-300 power, but do they actually sell that high?

But for comparing we are saying identical hp, equipment, year, hours, condition: Cessna most expensive....Piper least expensive. Total cost of ownership as well as just maintenance.
 
Closing thread pending management council review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top