172 or Warrior

[aj042599]

I'm new to the forum and going to start my PPL training. I've found a flight school which offers training in either a 172 or a 161 Warrior. Anyone out there have an idea which would be a better choice? Both are the same price, but the 172 was offered as a part 141 curriculum and the Warrior a Part 61. Also, I'm partial to eventually purchasing a Tri-Pacer. Would the 172 be an easier transition to the Tri-Pacer due to being a high wing? Thanks in advance to all who reply.

 

[jason]

Welcome!

Go for an intro flight in both and fly the one that you like the best. Honestly, I'd be much more worried about the instructor than the airplane. Either airplane will do, but that may not be the case with the instructors.

That said, all things being equal...I'd fly the 172...but the high wing vs. low wing debate is one of the oldest in general aviation and you're not likely to get a unanimous answer.

 

[BillTIZ]

Fly both for a lesson and then pick. It matters not but what you prefer.

When you think you'll be ready to transition to your TriPacer, it matters not what you have flown, neither high nor low of wing. For by then, your experince for transition to the Pacer will be smooth.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

IMHO, learn in the 172 - And then get checked out in the Warrior. They're very similar in terms of performance and handling for the most part. The two major differences: The Warrior handles better on the ground and is easier to land - IMHO, *too* easy to land for a student! It'll make you lazy! So go for the 172, once you learn to land that, the transition to other birds will be pretty easy.

Don't get the idea that the 172 is hard to land from what I'm saying here - It's all relative. I just think it's hardER and it'll really teach you how to land an airplane.

 

[nosehair]

I would recommend the 172 for better landing training, but you might be more disappointed with the handling feel of your Tri-Pacer later. If you start out in a Warrior, your Tri-Pacer will feel more familiar and you will only be surprised by performance differences.

 

[N5571Q]

Want to see more of the sky? Fly the Piper. Want to see more of the gound? Fly the Cessna. You can learn to be a safe pilot in either one. It's all in the quality of instruction.

 

[Trapper John]

It's all in the quality of instruction.

Exactly. Your relationship with your instructor, and the school's ability to schedule when you're available is more important than the actual airplane.


Trapper John

 

[Clark1961]

Hmmmm, all these folks have skipped the obvious reasons to select the 172: it has two doors and ya don't have to switch fuel tanks and ya can fly with the windows open. The only reason ya don't wanna fly the 172 is that no one has ever bumped their head on the strut of a Warrior.

Of course later when you're a real pilot you'll wanna fly a proper airplane with the wing on the bottom where it belongs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Exactly. Your relationship with your instructor, and the school's ability to schedule when you're available is more important than the actual airplane.

Ditto.

Assuming equal mechanical quality and maintenance (which is usually the case even for old beaters), the choice of a training airplane should IMO be based on (a) whether you and your instructor fit into it, (b) availability and (c) cost. Anything else (I like high wings; you like low wings) is strictly personal preference and the opinions you get from others will be based mostly on what =they= trained in rather than any inherent advantage of one over the other.

The idea here is to learn to fly and get your certificate. After that, there's a whole world of wonderful airplanes out there to transition into.

 

[roncachamp]

Of course later when you're a real pilot you'll wanna fly a proper airplane with the wing on the bottom where it belongs.

Q.) Why, after millions of years of evolution, are there no low-wing birds?

A.) Survival of the fittest.

 

[TMetzinger]

... The only reason ya don't wanna fly the 172 is that no one has ever bumped their head on the strut of a Warrior.

I have, but it was the gear strut, when I was down looking at something on the belly and I spotted a snake coming my way.

To the student, the bond you have with the instructor and the business abilities of the school (scheduling, etc) is much more important than the plane you use. The 141 vs 61 doesn't matter much for the private - it can be important in follow up work if you're going to use an educational benefit like the GI bill, those programs usually require a 141 school.

Interview the instructors, talk to the schools, ask what their first-time pass rate is. If (and only if) the schools are equal, then take a flight in the airplanes and see if you have a preference.

 

[Bob Noel]

Q.) Why, after millions of years of evolution, are there no low-wing birds?

A.) Survival of the fittest.

Look for high-wing airplanes when you want to flap your wings. :-/

 

[swingwing]

I think the bigger decision is training either part 141 or part 61, and that will depend on what environment you learn the best in.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think the bigger decision is training either part 141 or part 61, and that will depend on what environment you learn the best in.

Care to share? I know that it's possible that there can be big differences, but in general I've not seen a big difference between a flight "school" operating under 61 and under 141.

That's different than an independent CFI operating under 61, of course, as the classroom might be the picnic table near the runway and not an office setting.

 

[EppyGA]

Q.) Why, after millions of years of evolution, are there no low-wing birds?

A.) Survival of the fittest.

Of course the Wright's didn't want to be part of the controversy so they just built with a high and a low wing.

 

[Clark1961]

Q.) Why, after millions of years of evolution, are there no low-wing birds?

That's an easy one bubba, it's simply because nature has stuck with one design for avians and hasn't tried any others. In order to consider the full range of evolution then a wider range of critters must be considered. I suggest you look at all creatures that propel themselves through a fluid and go from there.

Man, being aware of his failings as a designer has attempted many fundamentally different designs. As a result we have the superior low wing aircraft. QED

 

[poadeleted20]

You'll have significant differences to learn for the Tri-Pacer whether you learn in the 172 or the Warrior, so that isn't really an issue. There are a few additional restrictions to training under 141, and the chances of being ready for the practical test in 35 vs 40 hours are somewhere between slim and none. I'd say go with the Part 61 program unless you have a good reason to go Part 141 like having your training funded by an agency which requires Part 141.

 

[TMetzinger]

Birds generate lift by moving their wings through the air. Since muscles work by contraction, wings need to be on top, so that the large muscles that move them down have an anchor point below the wing.

Airplanes generate lift by moving air across the wing. Wing placement matters less in this case.

 

[TMetzinger]

You'll have significant differences to learn for the Tri-Pacer whether you learn in the 172 or the Warrior, so that isn't really an issue. There are a few additional restrictions to training under 141, and the chances of being ready for the practical test in 35 vs 40 hours are somewhere between slim and none. I'd say go with the Part 61 program unless you have a good reason to go Part 141 like having your training funded by an agency which requires Part 141.

Ron, have you heard of a 35 hour PPL in the last decade? Even with the schools I know that take the foreign students and run them through intense one week courses, I think they're at 40+. It's less than the national average, to be sure, but it ain't 35.

 

[JeffDG]

Birds generate lift by moving their wings through the air. Since muscles work by contraction, wings need to be on top, so that the large muscles that move them down have an anchor point below the wing.

Airplanes generate lift by moving air across the wing. Wing placement matters less in this case.

A more apt analogy would be to helos...where the wing moves...haven't seen a low "wing" helo yet!

 

[Clark1961]

I have, but it was the gear strut, when I was down looking at something on the belly and I spotted a snake coming my way.

You obviously have a "special" talent and are the exception which proves the rule (or some other nonsense statement like that).

 

[Ted]

The instruction matters more than the plane. I like the lack of rigidity of Part 61 training (which is what I've gone through and what I teach in). Some people work better with the greater rigidity of the Part 141. Above all else, the instructor is of paramount importance. Regardless of the plane or curriculum, if you and your instructor can't work together, your learning experience will suffer. I know that there are certain instructors who, if I had them instead of mine, I probably just would have quit long ago.

As to high vs. low-wing, you could just go mid-wing:

I'm pretty sure nobody would consider an Aerostar to be a good trainer aircraft, but you can see up and down with them, especially with the skylights.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

A more apt analogy would be to helos...where the wing moves...haven't seen a low "wing" helo yet!

You axed for it:

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/lockner_helicovector.php

re: High wing vs. Low wing - no big deal. But all of the aircraft mentioned by the OP have the tailwheel on the wrong end.

Consider looking for Pacer instead of the Tripacer...

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, have you heard of a 35 hour PPL in the last decade? Even with the schools I know that take the foreign students and run them through intense one week courses, I think they're at 40+. It's less than the national average, to be sure, but it ain't 35.

Exactly my point -- you're not likely to get the ticket any sooner under 141 because of the 35-hour min compared to the Part 61 40-hour min.

 

[JeffDG]

You axed for it:

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/lockner_helicovector.php

re: High wing vs. Low wing - no big deal. But all of the aircraft mentioned by the OP have the tailwheel on the wrong end.

Consider looking for Pacer instead of the Tripacer...

I knew, that if such a beast existed, someone on here would know of it!

 

[Matthew]

I can't help any with the 141 vs 61 debate.

When I started training I also had the option between a PA28-161 and a C172.

My CFI told me - pick one and stick with it until you're done. We spent our first lesson together sitting in and getting settled in, each of the airplanes. I went with the one that fit me best - the Warrior. It's personal preference.

Since my checkride, nearly all my hours have been in a 172. Go figure.

Matt

 

[RotorAndWing]

FWIW, The only thing Part 141 course gets you versus a Part 61 is if you are using funds from something like the VA or you have a funding source that requires you to attend a Part 141 school. Other than that Part 141 is useless.

I had a Part 141 school and we seldom had people enroll in it because there was just no clear advantage to doing it over Part 61. Even my FSDO POI once told me he couldn't understand why anyone would choose 141 over 61.

 

[AdamZ]

If its the same school why would they make one plane available for 141 and the other only for 61?

 

[John Baker]

Think more about the school than what is better, high or low wing. How is the school doing? Look at their equipment, (airplanes) are they well maintained, clean, tires in good shape, interiors? How about the school itself, is it clean, well lighted, has classroom(s)? Does this school look hungry, skimping on things to save money?

How about the instructors, how long have they been with the school?

Don't do what I did and get into a flying school that traded instructors every few weeks. My six to eight month and six to eight thousand dollar flying course turned into a never ending rotation of flight instructors, unsafe and filthy airplanes. Twenty four months after starting with them and numerous flight instructors later, I had still not left the pattern on my own.

My advise would be to join a flying club that has decent airplanes, then hire an instructor through that club. Make sure it is not a business, disguised as a flying club.

Sometimes you can find an instructor who will help you find a suitable airplane you can rent for your lessons, that would be the best way. How about training in a tri pacer?

If your a young fellow, you are probably going to do fine in a school. If your an older person, the school may consider you a cash cow and keep leading you on while insuring you go nowhere. That is what I experienced in a school, the older guys all had to go elsewhere to get their licenses.

If the school or it's equipment look dirty and shabby, go somewhere else. Most schools are desperate for cash and are hanging on for dear life. Be especially wary if the school wants a large chunk of cash up front, or is eager to help you arrange a loan for your lessons. You could very well find the school closed for good when you show up for a lesson, but you will still owe the money.

Please note: If you are the owner of a flying school and find this to be unsettling or unfair, in that I am penalizing all schools for the action of one, please consider this: If you don't want people bad mouthing your industry, how about policing your industry. Start a business association or join one. Set standards, do something about the state of most flying schools.

John

 

[SkyHog]

I did my original ground school for the IR under 141. I still don't have my IR.

No, I don't think they're related, but I did think the 141 was structured a bit better than most part 61 schools. But I prefer part 61, its more "free" and "fun" than a 141 school. Flying is supposed to be fun.

 

[poadeleted20]

No, I don't think they're related, but I did think the 141 was structured a bit better than most part 61 schools. But I prefer part 61, its more "free" and "fun" than a 141 school. Flying is supposed to be fun.

My experience is that 141-certified schools generally run with the same structure for their Part 61 training as for Part 141 -- just less paperwork to file with the Feds and fewer restrictions on the operation and administration. Thus, if the same school is offereing both 61 and 141 training, the quality and organization of the training is likely to be the same under both. YMMV.

 

[dmccormack]

My experience is that 141-certified schools generally run with the same structure for their Part 61 training as for Part 141 -- just less paperwork to file with the Feds and fewer restrictions on the operation and administration. Thus, if the same school is offereing both 61 and 141 training, the quality and organization of the training is likely to be the same under both. YMMV.

That was my PP experience -- 141 school under 61 rules. I used the same Jepp curriculum, etc.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If its the same school why would they make one plane available for 141 and the other only for 61?

The airplane has to have a conformity inspection to be added to the Part 141 certificate. Also, the course curriculum is probably written for the 172. To add the PA28 would require a rewrite of the curriculum plus some other paperwork changes.

It's like anything else dealing with the FAA, it's all about the paperwork and bureaucracy.

 

[TMetzinger]

My experience is that 141-certified schools generally run with the same structure for their Part 61 training as for Part 141 -- just less paperwork to file with the Feds and fewer restrictions on the operation and administration. Thus, if the same school is offereing both 61 and 141 training, the quality and organization of the training is likely to be the same under both. YMMV.

That's been my experience too.

 

[SkyHog]

To be fair, my 141 experience was through a Community College using Bode Aviation in Albuquerque. Going directly through Bode in a 61 setting was totally different....I assume it was the College that made it different though.

 

[EdFred]

I trained in a Cherokee 140, a 152, and a 172 during my private. It worked out good because if someone else was renting any of the three planes, or was down for maintenance, I could still fly. There really isn't *that* much difference between the three.

 

[DutchessFlier]

Since the 141 vs 61 issue is at hand in the thread...I would like some advice about continuing on with my IR. I just did the PPL ASEL through a 141 program which was well managed, flexible, highly structured, and effective. I am choosing to fly for a while and not go immediately into the IR program. When I do decide to go back for the IR (most likely when I can get enough $$$ together) what say you all about which program to look into?

 

[TMetzinger]

Again, if you're using educational benefits, you may have to use a 141 school. Absent that, 61/141, same-same.

Now, I WILL recommend you look for a place with a combined SIM/flight program, as it will probably be more cost-effective, and you can learn some lessons in a sim you wouldn't want to learn in an airplane.

 

[dmccormack]

Again, if you're using educational benefits, you may have to use a 141 school. Absent that, 61/141, same-same.

Now, I WILL recommend you look for a place with a combined SIM/flight program, as it will probably be more cost-effective, and you can learn some lessons in a sim you wouldn't want to learn in an airplane.

For the PP?

I dunno....

 

[poadeleted20]

When I do decide to go back for the IR (most likely when I can get enough $$$ together) what say you all about which program to look into?

Obviously, if you're getting funding from a source requiring Part 141 certification (like VA benefits), you don't have any choice. If that's not an issue, the big advantage of the 141 program is that you don't have to have the 50 hours of XC PIC time -- just 35 hours of instrument training in the IR program. OTOH, if you are planning to take some time and fly a bunch so you get that XC PIC time built, then that advantage fades a bit, and you can do the IR with less training time and enough practice time with a safety pilot to have the 40 hours of instrument time required under Part 61. Either way, you can use an AATD or FTD as part of your training (assuming the 141 school has it approved as part of their TCO).

At PIC, we operate under Part 61, but bring our own portable FTD with us. The typical 10-day program runs about 20-23 hours of flying in your plane and 17-20 hours on the sim.