Archer via Warrior

[AggieMike88]

Archer versus Warrior

For the late 70's early 80's models, what's the quick list of differences between an Archer and Warrior?

Off the bat, am I correct the Warrior is a 160HP and Archer 180hp?

What else?

 

[Matthew]

There might be a couple inches difference in the length, too, so w&b stations might be slightly different. I have a book on each in that age range, but not handy.

 

[MAKG1]

Not much.

The sight picture is a bit different due to the cowling shape. You shouldn't open the cowling on an Archer (it's a two person job) and you check the oil through a port like a 172.

I fly these almost interchangeably. That Archer has better avionics (Aspen Evolution + 430W + crappy coupled autopilot). That difference is far bigger than the flying characteristics. There is also a different Archer with air conditioning, that I know of.

 

[Pilawt]

PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior: 1974-76 = 150 hp Lyc. O-320, could run on 80 octane fuel. All Warriors have the 35-foot-span semi-tapered wing. 1974-75 models had large Frise-type hinges on the underside of the ailerons - more expensive to build, but gave better roll response. 1976 model changed to plain piano hinges, same as the rest of the line.

PA-28-161 Cherokee Warrior II: 1977 - on. 160 hp Lyc. O-320, required 100LL. (Many earlier Warriors have since been modified with the 160 hp engine, and there are are a few Warriors with 180 hp conversions, as well.)

PA-28-180 Cherokee Archer: 1974-75. 180 hp Lyc. O-360, 32-foot-span Hershey-bar wing.

PA-28-181 Cherokee Archer II: 1976 - 1990s. 180 hp Lyc. O-360, 35-foot-span semi-tapered wing.

The Warriors have a bench seat in the rear, while the Archers have individual seats in back. Archers have a small hat shelf extending aft from the upper part of the baggage area; Warriors do not.

Warriors have a more blunt metal cowl with large, hinged clamshell doors on both sides (excellent for maintenance and preflight inspection); Archers have a more streamlined fiberglass cowl, with only a small door for oil dipstick access. The entire top half of the cowl has to be lifted off for maintenance.

Archer nosewheels and tires are the same size as on the main gear; Warriors have smaller nosewheels and tires.

Otherwise, aft of the firewall, they're identical.

For 1978, both Warrior II and Archer II changed to the large fiberglass wheel, strut and brake fairings, and the "Cherokee" name was dropped.

1979 Warrior II:

1979 Archer II:

 

[Unit74]

Really no difference between the Archer and the Warrior airframe. The 180 Hp on the Archer is good for about 7 knots and 300-400 in climb.

If given a choice, the Archer is a no brainer. If cost to operate is an issue, you can alway pull it back to 2k and run warrior speeds for 6 GPH. I've done it a few times when I really was in no big hurry to get anywhere. Just feels slow after moving along at 129kts though. If your time building, it's perfect. Plus, you can haul 700lbs on full fuel.

 

[AggieMike88]

PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior: 1974-76 = 150 hp Lyc. O-320, could run on 80 octane fuel. All Warriors have the 35-foot-span semi-tapered wing. 1974-75 models had large Frise-type hinges on the underside of the ailerons - more expensive to build, but gave better roll response. 1976 model changed to plain piano hinges, same as the rest of the line.

PA-28-161 Cherokee Warrior II: 1976 - on. 160 hp Lyc. O-320, required 100LL.

PA-28-180 Cherokee Archer: 1974-75. 180 hp Lyc. O-360, 32-foot-span Hershey-bar wing.

PA-28-181 Cherokee Archer II: 1976 - 1990s. 180 hp Lyc. O-360, 35-foot-span semi-tapered wing.

The Warriors have a bench seat in the rear, while the Archers have individual seats in back. Archers have a small hat shelf extending aft from the upper part of the baggage area; Warriors do not.

For 1978, both Warrior II and Archer II changed to the large fiberglass wheel, strut and brake fairings, and the "Cherokee" name was dropped.

THANK YOU. It's what I was looking for.

I had a chance Saturday to pilot RussR's Cherokee to and from a fly-in. It's been 2 years since any PA28 time and this helped me remember why I like them. Solid honest aircraft that are easy to operate (ahem, when RussR's starter would actually work).

I know of a local 1977 Archer that isn't being flown that much. So I might seek out the owner and make some arrangements for access to it.

 

[twiggles]

PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior: 1974-76 = 150 hp Lyc. O-320, could run on 80 octane fuel. All Warriors have the 35-foot-span semi-tapered wing. 1974-75 models had large Frise-type hinges on the underside of the ailerons - more expensive to build, but gave better roll response. 1976 model changed to plain piano hinges, same as the rest of the line.

PA-28-161 Cherokee Warrior II: 1976 - on. 160 hp Lyc. O-320, required 100LL. (Many earlier Warriors have since been modified with the 160 hp engine, and there are are a few Warriors with 180 hp conversions, as well.)

PA-28-180 Cherokee Archer: 1974-75. 180 hp Lyc. O-360, 32-foot-span Hershey-bar wing.

PA-28-181 Cherokee Archer II: 1976 - 1990s. 180 hp Lyc. O-360, 35-foot-span semi-tapered wing.

The Warriors have a bench seat in the rear, while the Archers have individual seats in back. Archers have a small hat shelf extending aft from the upper part of the baggage area; Warriors do not.

Warriors have a more blunt metal cowl with large, hinged clamshell doors on both sides (excellent for maintenance and preflight inspection); Archers have a more streamlined fiberglass cowl, with only a small door for oil dipstick access. The entire top half of the cowl has to be lifted off for maintenance.

Archer nosewheels and tires are the same size as on the main gear; Warriors have smaller nosewheels and tires.

Otherwise, aft of the firewall, they're identical.

For 1978, both Warrior II and Archer II changed to the large fiberglass wheel, strut and brake fairings, and the "Cherokee" name was dropped.

Don't forget the 1973 PA28-180 Cherokee Challenger. For all intents and purposes, it is an Archer. Piper just decided to return to the Indian themed names in '74. When looking online, you will find the '73 listed as Archers, Cherokees, AND Challengers...it was a weird year

 

[Pilawt]

Don't forget the 1973 PA28-180 Cherokee Challenger. For all intents and purposes, it is an Archer. Piper just decided to return to the Indian themed names in '74. When looking online, you will find the '73 listed as Archers, Cherokees, AND Challengers...it was a weird year

The 1973 PA-28-180 was called "Cherokee Challenger"; for the 1974 model year it was changed to "Cherokee Archer". As with automobiles, Piper rolled out the 1974 models in the previous fall, so some "Cherokee Archers" were built in calendar year 1973. FAA registration data list only year of manufacture, not model year.

Likewise the 1973 PA-28-235 "Cherokee Charger" became the "Cherokee Pathfinder" for 1974. I'm told that the name change after only one year was prompted when Chrysler Corporation squawked about Piper's use of the names of its muscle cars.

 

[eman1200]

....I know of a local 1977 Archer that isn't being flown that much. So I might seek out the owner and make some arrangements for access to it.

[thread hijack] What's your approach going to be here? We have an older gentleman at our field that lost his medical and almost never flies his mooney. We're trying to figure out how to approach him about getting some time in it. [/hijack]

 

[twiggles]

The 1973 PA-28-180 was called "Cherokee Challenger"; for the 1974 model year it was changed to "Cherokee Archer". As with automobiles, Piper rolled out the 1974 models in the previous fall, so some "Cherokee Archers" were built in calendar year 1973. FAA registration data list only year of manufacture, not model year.

Correct. I believe the '73 Challenger and '74-'75 Archer are identical. The Challenger has the stretched fuselage, larger stabilator, and hershey bar wings.

 

[Pilawt]

I believe the '73 Challenger and '74-'75 Archer are identical.

Yes, except for the window shapes. 1974 was the first model year for the rounded window corners on all PA-28 and PA-32 models.

 

[N801BH]

Re: Archer versus Warrior

For the late 70's early 80's models, what's the quick list of differences between an Archer and Warrior?

Off the bat, am I correct the Warrior is a 160HP and Archer 180hp?

What else?

N4341X... My first plane.. I loved it... Bought it with 1.5 hours in my log book... Flew it for 600 hours.. Sold it for twice what I paid.......

Be nice to have it back again...

First love and all...

 

[silver-eagle]

Go fishing through the FBO. If he's paying for parking, they might know or at least be able to handle the intro. Or offer to fly right seat with him.
An idle motor vehicle is never ever a good thing. They go from good to awful real quick. Little animals like them.

 

[AggieMike88]

[thread hijack] What's your approach going to be here? We have an older gentleman at our field that lost his medical and almost never flies his mooney. We're trying to figure out how to approach him about getting some time in it. [/hijack]

In my case, I've known the aircraft owner for years and am well aware of the various things that's occurred within his life that keep him from flying. And he's well aware that aircraft that are being flown regularly are much less costly to maintain. He recently groused about how expensive something was recently and that he wasn't able to realize the "enjoyment return on the expenditure" because he isn't flying.

We've frequently talked about me flying it. But I think what will tip things in my favor is to come to him with a draft non-equity agreement that is fair to both of us. Include enough detail to describe how I see things working between us, a proposed dry rate, how insurance would work, his responsibilities, my responsibilities, etc.

If the terms of draft agreement is acceptable to him, I'll start by making sure it's in annual. Then spend a dollar or two with a good local Piper mechanic to verify all is well and there are no surprises that could bite me and all AD's are complied with. If all well is there, I'll see about working up the final agreement with him and go from there.

How "over the top" formal we get will sorta depend on him. I don't think we need to get into the "NYC millionaire prenup" level of things, but it would be smart to get some basics recorded on paper. Especially things that need to be agreed to so to prevent nasty arguments that involve sums of money.