Going from a 172 to a Warrior II

ArnoldPalmer

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 3, 2015
Messages
204
Display Name

Display name:
ArnoldPalmer
Too many twos and tos in that title.

This thread isn't meant to be a high-wing vs low-wing or Cessna vs. Piper fest.

The opportunity has come up for me to buy share in a really nice '79 Warrior. Has the 180 horse and all the bells and whistles. I have 200 + hours - mostly in high-wing (172 and 152).

What are the things one can expect with this transition? My biggest concern (and fear) are crosswind landings. I think with the Piper the rudder pedals control the nose wheel, right? How will this affect landings?

Thanks!
 
You will rarely bump your head on a Warrior II wing. You will never slip while climbing the cowl and strut to check the gas on a Warrior II. You usually won't run out of fingers and toes while counting the sump points on a Warrior II. You cannot open the pilot's side door on the Warrior II. The landing gear won't make the neat "sprong" sound when ya bounce a Warrior II.
 
There will be less flair in your flare.
 
I've got 10ish hours in Cherokee's and their derivatives. 200+ in 172's. Here's what I've found to be significant for me:
1) Ground handling is much crisper in the Pipers. They have a direct "hard" connection to the nose wheel from the rudder pedals while the Cessna has bungees. I've never noticed a problem on crosswind handling which probably means there's not much difference in that area.
2) No "both" setting on the fuel tanks. The Archer I have access to now has it's G530 set up to remind tank switches every 1/2 hour. I like that.
3) Remembering to turn on the fuel pump on landing approach. It's part of the pre-landing checklist and with good reason. If the engine driven pump quits (say on a go-around) the engine quits unless the electric one is on. But I keep forgetting it. And, since I've never had a fuel pump fail at all, much less on a go around, I keep getting away with it. Sigh.
Also, the Archer feels more "solid" in the air. I'm not sure why. Maybe wing loading?
John
 
Too many twos and tos in that title.

This thread isn't meant to be a high-wing vs low-wing or Cessna vs. Piper fest.

The opportunity has come up for me to buy share in a really nice '79 Warrior. Has the 180 horse and all the bells and whistles. I have 200 + hours - mostly in high-wing (172 and 152).

What are the things one can expect with this transition? My biggest concern (and fear) are crosswind landings. I think with the Piper the rudder pedals control the nose wheel, right? How will this affect landings?

Thanks!

The nose gear is fixed to the rudder pedals, so if you are holding rudder in one direction for crosswind correction, the plane will tend to swerve that way when the nose touches. I find though that by the time the nose gear touches down, I have already taken a lot of the rudder correction out. I have not found it to be difficult to deal with.
 
Easy transition. Keep in mind that the Warrior fuel selector does not have a "both" position so you will have to pay more attention to fuel usage than the set-and-forget Cessna selector. Crosswinds will be much easier and stalls almost nonexistent (you have to work to get a PA-28 to stall). Carb ice, although very unusual in Lycomings, should never be ignored.

Bob
 
Fuel management (as stated by otheres). I like to point the fuel selector to the side of the clock my watch minute hand is on. Some will say that's too much tank switching, but it's easier than writing it down.
Fuel pump switch kind of replaces the Carb Heat. Pipers don't use carb heat in normal descent and landing but they do use the fuel pump in the GUMPS checks.
Pipers don't float. They like to land. Stay on your speeds and you'll be fine.
 
A tapered wing Cherokee, which a Warrior is, basically lands itself. You'll haul more, go a touch faster, and look cooler.
 
Last edited:
I did the same transition several years ago. The Warrior lands much easier than the 172. The struts make it harder to bounce. Your nosewheel shouldn't be on the ground when you touchdown, so if you are doing it right, the N/W has no effect on x-wind landings.
 
Remember to change fuel tanks.
Don't try to escape through pilot's side door.
Fuel Pump ON for landing.
And... what's "carb heat"???

Ok, ok, I kid on the last part. You still need a healthy respect for carb ice and may occasionally use carb heat. I actually discovered carb ice during runup before even leaving the ground once. But it is less of an issue in the pipers.

Having time in both, I far prefer flying Warriors to the 172s. Landing seems easier to me and I definitely like being able to look for other traffic more easily when making turns in the pattern.
 
What are the things one can expect with this transition? My biggest concern (and fear) are crosswind landings. I think with the Piper the rudder pedals control the nose wheel, right? How will this affect landings?
Thanks!

I owned a 1965 Cherokee 180 for about a year, never had any problems with the nose wheel just make sure you straighten out the pedals before you lower the nose, no big deal. You'd do that anyway in another plane too .

Transitioning is cake, in fact I'd argue that the Cherokee/Warrior is superior to the 172 in a lot of ways. The only thing that sucks is the low wing blocks the view directly below the plane so, sightseeing is a bit degraded. However, the flip benefit to that is that your visibility of traffic in the pattern above you or around you is vastly increased.

As @Cajun_Flyer mentioned, fuel management now comes into play since there is no "both" selector for Cherokees. But you get used to it. I'd burn an hour on one tank, 2 on the other and the final hour back on the original. 4 hours full tanks. Some change it more frequently. I'd usually burn left tank first, then right since I flew by myself a lot it would balance things out weight wise.

If it's a tapered wing Cherokee you won't have the sink of a hershey bar Cherokee (like I did) and it'll float a bit more but all in all it's a great plane to fly, low-wings rule.

Oh and crosswind landings believe or not, FAR easier in a Cherokee (least they were for me). Felt more stable, more controlled.
 
I made the transition from rental 172s to owning an Archer and I found it to be easy. I also taught my son's instructor to fly the Piper and found that managing the fuel, including the fuel pump, was the only thing that took a while for her to adjust to.

Not to violate the stated intention of the thread but I do have high wing envy at Oshkosh, the rest of the year I do not.
 
After several years in a Hershey bar wing Cherokee, flying a tapered wing Archer was a little adjustment. For the most part they fly the same, but you get a little lift on the first notch of flaps with the tapered wing and it is does float a bit more on landing. With the Hershey bar wing (the older Cherokees), you wanted a little power over the fence, because they will drop when you pull the power. In that respect, the tapered wing is closer to the 172s I have flown. At the end of the day, as others have said, there is very little difference in flying behavior for all of the planes in this class (Cherokee, Warrior, 172, etc.). It was alluded to, but not said, that with a Cherokee or Warrior, you don't use carb heat unless it is required (engine stumbling).
 
...keep your hands off the carb heat except at runup.

Bad advice. I have about 600 hours in PA-28s (both Warriors and Archers) and I have had carb ice once. So never say never. Mostly you can ignore carb ice unless the dewpoint is outrageous. Fly Smart and the -28's are solid aircraft.

-Skip
 
I moved from a 172 to an Archer. The biggest thing that I could not get used to was one door. I could not figure out an elegant way to get in and out. Maybe it was the way I did it, but it was not a classy way to arrive, dragging myself out onto the wing. The other issue was a bit of claustrophobia with the only exit way over there and I'd have to crawl over the passenger to get out in an emergency. (Kidding). As mentioned before, the ground handling was easier and in flight it was a lot of fun.
 
I personally like the looks of the low wing. I also miss having two doors. Both are great planes. When I transitioned to a 180 cherokee from a 172, I noticed that the plane dropped faster and didn't seem to stay in ground effect as long. I was a student at the time, so it could have just been crappy piloting skills.
 
Too many twos and tos in that title.

Good thing you weren't shopping for a Cessna 152II. :p

The Warrior (then called "Cherokee Warrior") was introduced for the 1974 model year, and was the first of the PA-28 line to have the 35'-span tapered wing (170 sq ft wing area), instead of the 30' span (160 sq ft) rectangular "Hershey Bar" wing. The reason for the new design was to produce a Cherokee that performed and handled more like a 172 (36 ft span, 174 sq ft wing area), and in that for the most part it succeeded. So well, in fact, that the tapered wing spread to the rest of the PA-28 and PA-32 lines, except for the Cherokee 140.

In flight you're unlikely to tell much of a difference in handling. The Warrior's stabilator makes pitch control somewhat more responsive, especially in the flare, and it might seem a little more difficult to get it trimmed "just right" in cruise.

The comments by others about fuel management, and different POH recommendations for use of carb heat, are correct.

I like the PA-28's manual flap control. The flaps, though, are not as large or as effective as those on the Cessna, so you can't count on them as much to salvage a too-high, too-fast approach, as one might in a Cessna.

My biggest concern (and fear) are crosswind landings.

If anything, crosswind landings are easier in the Warrior than in a Cessna, and with its wider gear and lower CG the airplane is more forgiving of a botched crosswind arrival.

I think with the Piper the rudder pedals control the nose wheel, right?

Yes, as they do in the Cessna and many other tri-gear lightplanes. The difference is what kind of linkage there is between the rudder pedals and the nosewheel. Cessnas have a rather loose, springy connection between the pedals and the nosewheel. While parked on the ground you can easily move the rudder stop-to-stop with the rudder pedals, or move the rudder by hand outside, while the nosewheel remains motionless. You can feel some resistance from the spring, but not much.

Cessna nosegears also have a centering cam in the oleo strut. When the strut is fully extended, as when the airplane is in flight, the cam centers the nosewheel so it's always pointed straight ahead when you touch down, regardless of the position of the rudder. (That's why if the strut is pumped up too high, or if the CG is too far aft, it can be hard to turn the airplane while taxiing.)

Earlier PA-28s had a direct mechanical connection between the rudder pedals and the nosewheel, with no give in the system at all. That's why PA-28s have a "No Push" placard on the rudder. If the rudder is deflected the nosewheel is deflected, on the ground or in the air.

Screen Shot 2017-07-20 at 1.18.57 PM.png

Beginning with the 1974 model year (which includes all Warriors) a bungee was incorporated into the nosewheel steering circuit of all fixed-gear PA-28s to make steering a little easier, but it's still a stiffer connection than in Cessnas. And there is no centering cam, so if you land with the rudder shoved one way or the other, the airplane will steer that way when the nosewheel touches down. But if you're aware of that phenomenon and are ready to give the airplane its head when it touches down, you should not have a problem.
 
I moved from a 172 to an Archer. The biggest thing that I could not get used to was one door. I could not figure out an elegant way to get in and out. Maybe it was the way I did it, but it was not a classy way to arrive, dragging myself out onto the wing. The other issue was a bit of claustrophobia with the only exit way over there and I'd have to crawl over the passenger to get out in an emergency. (Kidding).

My dad suffered greatly from claustrophobia. No way could he ever fly a lightplane without a door next to him. In his Cessna, though, he was fine.
 
I've got 10ish hours in Cherokee's and their derivatives. 200+ in 172's. Here's what I've found to be significant for me:
1) Ground handling is much crisper in the Pipers. They have a direct "hard" connection to the nose wheel from the rudder pedals while the Cessna has bungees. I've never noticed a problem on crosswind handling which probably means there's not much difference in that area.
2) No "both" setting on the fuel tanks. The Archer I have access to now has it's G530 set up to remind tank switches every 1/2 hour. I like that.
3) Remembering to turn on the fuel pump on landing approach. It's part of the pre-landing checklist and with good reason. If the engine driven pump quits (say on a go-around) the engine quits unless the electric one is on. But I keep forgetting it. And, since I've never had a fuel pump fail at all, much less on a go around, I keep getting away with it. Sigh.
Also, the Archer feels more "solid" in the air. I'm not sure why. Maybe wing loading?
John

So maybe if you're used to carb heat in the 172 in the pattern, just touch the fuel pump switch instead of carb heat on the Piper (based on what POA says about carb heat in the Piper).
 
Except me? I'm in a PA28 in that pic! :)
My pic is out the porthole of a PA-28. I only use the porthole for pictures. Dunno what people are talking about when they mention visibility in the pattern.
 
So maybe if you're used to carb heat in the 172 in the pattern, just touch the fuel pump switch instead of carb heat on the Piper (based on what POA says about carb heat in the Piper).
Depends on the Piper. I touch neither.
 
As said in the prev. post the warriors do NOT have a direct coupled rudder/nose wheel. The posters who said that probably have experience with older 140 or 180s. Even if you continue to hold the rudder on a crosswind landing the nose wheel immediately pulls straight to the direction of travel. You may notice the force of the bungy-type spring on the rudders but it doesn't bother. At least that is my experience with a 77 Warrior (over 800 hours in it) and I have done some landings in crazy crosswinds--well above the max demonstrated value.
 
What are the things one can expect with this transition? My biggest concern (and fear) are crosswind landings. I think with the Piper the rudder pedals control the nose wheel, right? How will this affect landings?

Thanks!

Easy transition, both are trainer planes. You will not hardly ever need carb heat, will need to switch tanks and know where the boost pump switch is, and on a crosswind landing make sure you straighten out the rudder before the nose wheel touches down or you will be in for a shock. its still not that bad. Not to mention crosswinds are easier in the low wing. No more counting to 3 for flaps....You will wonder why you haven't flown the piper earlier! oh yeah 3 sumps instead of what 7 or 14 or something like that....And lastly you can expect to look cooler because low wings just look sportier (yeah yeah its a warrior, might not be sporty but looks more sportier). Have fun, you will like it!
 
It may be a matter of personal taste. Been years since I've flown either, but I much preferred the handling of the 172 to the Warrior, which I found solid but sluggish. But then I preferred the 150 to the 172, and a Taylorcraft was the heaviest airplane I've actually owned.

But if your interest is going places straight and level, I can see how the Warrior might be preferable.
 
Hopefully you can fly either without much difficulty. High wing versus low wing,is an overrated debate. Have flown both without any difficulties,get a good checkout and enjoy.
 
You will rarely bump your head on a Warrior II wing. You will never slip while climbing the cowl and strut to check the gas on a Warrior II.
Maybe. But you'll get a sore neck, back and knees from sumping the fuel, tying the airplane down, or trying to put air in the main gear tires.

You usually won't run out of fingers and toes while counting the sump points on a Warrior II.
oh yeah 3 sumps instead of what 7 or 14 or something like that....

You guys have been ruined by the restart (post-1995) Skyhawks. My '78 C-172N just has one sump under each wing and one in the cowl, like the '79 Warrior OP is looking at.

No more counting to 3 for flaps.
Sure you do. "That's one click, two clicks, and three clicks!"

:)
 
Also, the Archer feels more "solid" in the air. I'm not sure why.
Yes. The PA-28 series feels like it is on train tracks and the yoke and overall feel of the plane is far more solid and rugged. The high wings seem unsure of themselves in all phases of flight and need constant but subtle rudder inputs and either constant slight yoke pressure or fiddling with that awkwardly positioned trim wheel. Not sure what it is, but even the Cirrus (which is an awesome and tight plane) doesn't feel as solid to me..

On the Archer you can sit back and relax, get the rudder trim in, get the elevator trim in, and fly it for hours on end as you cruise through the air. It's also, at least in my experience, a little faster. I'll typically see a comfortable 118-123 TAS, whereas the 172 settles in around 112-118. The 172 with the 180 will go faster if you ask it to do more but it feels unnatural. The Archer, the faster it goes the more "in its element" it feels

The Skyhawk is also incredibly awkward and ridiculous on the ground, bouncing and bobbling around.. the Piper, needless to say, just goes. Never had an issue with cross wind landings in the Archers.. in fact I find landings a little easier in the Archer

BUT - I don't hate the Skyhawks.. most non pilots I fly with prefer the high wing because it is easier to get into and seems a little bigger inside
 
It'll feel and look different when you first get into the plane, that's only because it's new to you. There are a few different systems and operations, but that's easily and quickly learned.
Both the Cessna 172 and Warrior are simple and easy to fly, forgiving airplanes, otherwise there wouldn't be tons of them around.
Once you learn a few new things and get some time in it, you'll soon feel right at home, don't sweat it, and enjoy the experience of a new plane.
I'm kind of a high wing man and I do like the 172, but I think the Warrior is a little more bang for the buck, compared to the 172.
 
Last edited:
Except me? I'm in a PA28 in that pic! :)

You are? Well awesome then! For some reason it looked like a high wing :). And you know F15's have a penchant for stopping high wings, I think they let the low ones go...heh
 
I don't have much to add, except that everyone else is basically right. I just looked it up: 320 hours in Cessna, 85 in Piper. I own a 172. It'll be fine and easy. A little more to do in the cockpit due to the low fuel tanks, but you'll notice little else after a while. I actually like the Johnson bar over the electric flaps. Direct and easy.

Oh...something others haven't mentioned: You'll also have to spend more time telling your passengers how to enter and exit the aircraft. The first time you forget one notch of flaps in and your passenger goes flat on their ass as they step on it... (Since I preflight with one notch in and will usually brief immediately after, I step on the flap during the passenger brief to show them why they should double-check that the flap is up before stepping on it.)

The door is also more complex, with two separate handles. Make sure your right seat passenger can operate that door! My trick for that? Taxi with the door cracked open. That forces the passenger to close and lock the door before you fly, proving they can actually do it.
 
The door is also more complex, with two separate handles. Make sure your right seat passenger can operate that door! My trick for that? Taxi with the door cracked open. That forces the passenger to close and lock the door before you fly, proving they can actually do it.

And it flys quite well with the door unlatched and open:cool:

Cheers
 
And it flys quite well with the door unlatched and open:cool:

Cheers

Heh, yeah, that's why I don't sweat that risk. I do tell my passengers that if the door comes open to just ignore it. I'll deal with it and it's not dangerous.

Had it happen only once...and I was in the back seat! My friend and the CFI in the front seat argued over aborting vs. taking off while accelerating down the runway. One of the few times I've ever been scared in a plane.
 
Back
Top