building time in piper warrior

[jordane93]

hey all, i just got my instrument rating a few weeks ago at about 150 hours. i want to build up around 80 hours before i start commercial training and found a guy to split a warrior and share time with (about 65/hr each). ive only flown a warrior one time and have done almost all my training in a 172. does the warrior handle a lot differently. do i need to flare differently. i know the flaps are just a lever instead of an electric motor. im flyng with the guy next thursday. any tips would be greatly appreciated!

 

[RiverHigh]

My impression of the Warrior versus the 172 is that the Warrior feels more "stable" during flight, but also a bit heavier in turns.

I also find the Warrior easier to land, but I don't do it any differently than the Cessna. Just stare down the end of the runway and hold it off as long as possible. I think the gear absorbs shock better, giving the illusion of smoother landings...

 

[AcroGimp]

Warrior is a low-wing 172, or as close to it as you can get IMO. Low wings float more easily due to ground effect and require more precise speed control to avoid it but other than that just a nice plane.

It is good to experience different planes anyway.

The Johnson Bar flaps keep you out of trouble unless you have arms like Hulk Hogan, hard to deploy above the recommended speed, and instant on if you need them compared to the Cessna.

Getting checked out will address any other differences like recommended slip angles, etc.

'Gimp

 

[jordane93]

thanks for the help and input!

 

[duc750sport]

I've done all my training in a piper but have flown in a 172.
Major difference Obviously is the low/high wing. The 172 offers you a
better view of the ground. (although, turning base to final the warrior will give a
better view of the runway). Just a few small things.. Love that the pipers put tabs in the fuel tanks. I think the landings are smoother, and the piper just feels smoother to me. However, the 172 I think is more comfortable, and it does have two doors..

 

[bobmrg]

I've done all my training in a piper but have flown in a 172.
Major difference Obviously is the low/high wing. The 172 offers you a
better view of the ground. (although, turning base to final the warrior will give a
better view of the runway). Just a few small things.. Love that the pipers put tabs in the fuel tanks. I think the landings are smoother, and the pier just feels smoother to me. However, the 172 I think is more comfortable, and it does have two doors..

The pier? I used to tie up to piers when I was in the Coast Guard, but I can't understand how that applies to flying.

I taught at a Piper school for many years, and agree with the rest of your post.

Bob Gardner

 

[poadeleted20]

It's different enough that you should get a proper checkout (much of the difference in feel in ground effect is due to its powerful stabilator compared to the 172's less powerful elevator), but not a big deal to maintain proficiency in both simultaneously. In college, our club had a 180 Cherokee and two or three Cessna 150's, and nobody had a problem going back and forth.

 

[Henning]

The primary difference between the Piper and the Cessna is that the Piper will not gravity feed fuel and if the mechanical pump craps out, you have an electric pump to back it up. You should remember to test this pump pressure before starting (that's why you turn it on for the start) and turn it off before taxi to make sure the mechanical pump is working, then reenergize it for take off in case the mechanical pump craps at low altitude, then turn it back off in cruise climb. If you follow the checklists, this will all happen.

 

[poadeleted20]

There are a lot of other significant system, handling, and structural differences, starting with how you get in and out (including getting out in an emergency). But this isn't anything you can't learn (both ground and flight) in half a day if you're a competent 172 pilot going in.

 

[V1-Vr-V2]

About those flaps... It kind of goes without saying, but with the Johnson bar you are obviously in control of the speed of flap deployment/retraction instead of an electric motor doing it for you. The PA-28-180 I fly was my first exposure to that sort of system so I had to pace myself when retracting flaps (especially on performance takeoffs) otherwise it was pretty easy for me to bring them up too quickly and dump that extra lift more quickly than I was anticipating.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It's different enough that you should get a proper checkout (much of the difference in feel in ground effect is due to its powerful stabilator compared to the 172's less powerful elevator), but not a big deal to maintain proficiency in both simultaneously. In college, our club had a 180 Cherokee and two or three Cessna 150's, and nobody had a problem going back and forth.

There are a lot of other significant system, handling, and structural differences, starting with how you get in and out (including getting out in an emergency). But this isn't anything you can't learn (both ground and flight) in half a day if you're a competent 172 pilot going in.

I love how you always are sure to come along and type a lot of words without saying anything. Why not share with him what the differences are?

You might also point out all the similarities, like if you push the yoke in, you go faster or descend. If you push on the left rudder pedal, the nose yaws.... If you push the throttle forward, the engine makes more noise...

I have no idea what you consider a "half a day" checkout. I know you were the advocate in another thread for a Warrior pilot with "hundreds" of hours needing a checkout and/or type rating for an Archer.


To the OP, if you go sit in the Warrior for 30 minutes with the POH, unrushed, and just look at the controls, the buttons, the levers, the pedals, you will see that they are 99% similar to the C172. You will find a few things that are a bit different, or used a bit differently, things like an electric fuel pump, carb heat and door latches. If you follow along on a checklist, you will see that they are all addressed (or should be). Then go fly it with other guy, and you will soon be able to land it just like any other simple, fixed gear single.

Honestly, despite all the fear and doubt spreading above, the biggest difference is figuring out where to push the Warrior while fueling or pushing it back into the hangar/tie down spots.

Fun planes, simple and honest to fly. No hidden surprises.

 

[frfly172]

A lot of people that fly the warrior say it floats on landing ,so watch your speed.Study the POH on the proper use of fuel pump and carb heat a little different than a 172.I have flown both ,they both are a pleasure to fly and both are easy to land.The piper will be a little faster than a 172.Enjoy, have fun.

 

[dans2992]

hey all, i just got my instrument rating a few weeks ago at about 150 hours. i want to build up around 80 hours before i start commercial training and found a guy to split a warrior and share time with (about 65/hr each). ive only flown a warrior one time and have done almost all my training in a 172. does the warrior handle a lot differently. do i need to flare differently. i know the flaps are just a lever instead of an electric motor. im flyng with the guy next thursday. any tips would be greatly appreciated!

I remember when I started flying I rented Warriors for $65 total per hour. I feel old now, but I'm only in my 30's!

 

[poadeleted20]

I love how you always are sure to come along and type a lot of words without saying anything. Why not share with him what the differences are?

Happy to -- call me and schedule half a day and I will. My standard rates apply.

You might also point out all the similarities, like if you push the yoke in, you go faster or descend. If you push on the left rudder pedal, the nose yaws.... If you push the throttle forward, the engine makes more noise...

...made of aluminum, too.

I have no idea what you consider a "half a day" checkout.

Probably 3-4 hours of ground and flight training. I'd start with a review of the aircraft manual including all limitations, procedures, systems, and performance, followed by a walk-around going over all those items on the actual aircraft. The flight would include basic handling, stalls/slow flight, steep turns, engine-out approach, and finally normal/crosswind/short/soft takeoffs and landings and abnormal landings. Probably going to be close to four hours from handshake to when the paperwork is done.

To the OP, if you go sit in the Warrior for 30 minutes with the POH, unrushed, and just look at the controls, the buttons, the levers, the pedals, you will see that they are 99% similar to the C172. You will find a few things that are a bit different, or used a bit differently, things like an electric fuel pump, carb heat and door latches. If you follow along on a checklist, you will see that they are all addressed (or should be). Then go fly it with other guy, and you will soon be able to land it just like any other simple, fixed gear single.

This is written by someone who doesn't give you his real name, whose signature is not going in your logbook, and who will take no responsibility for what happens to you if you take his advice-- and is also almost certainly not a CFI. Choose wisely.

And note that the accident statistics tell us that the greatest accident risk is when the pilot has less than 15 hours in type -- something the insurance companies agree a good checkout can change, and those are the folks putting their money where their mouths are.

 

[jordane93]

thanks again. im looking at the POH and the checklist that was given to me by the place im rentingfrom. is it normal to turn the fuel pump on during take off then turning it off during cruise climb and turning it back on during approaches? the only time ive turned on the fuel pump in the 172 was to start the engine. other than that it would be off.

 

[MAKG1]

If you're proficient in a 172, you can check out in a Warrior in an hour.

The sight picture is somewhat different, not seriously. With proper airspeed, the landing is not terribly different, but the Piper is less tolerant of excessive airspeed. It handles more positively on the ground, visibility is better in the pattern (your blind spot is behind you instead of in front of you in a turn). Carb ice is less of a problem, but fuel management is more significant. You can't just set the fuel selector to both and forget about it. The trim wheel is VERY sensitive due to the stabilator. The flaps are not very sensitive. Mixture isn't so precise due to lack of a vernier.

To summarize, you'll need a checkout, but not a big one.

 

[dell30rb]

thanks again. im looking at the POH and the checklist that was given to me by the place im rentingfrom. is it normal to turn the fuel pump on during take off then turning it off during cruise climb and turning it back on during approaches? the only time ive turned on the fuel pump in the 172 was to start the engine. other than that it would be off.

Yes. That is how the fuel pump should be used.

BTW, in all of the light singles I have flown with an electric pump, the 172SP pump is used differently and I don't know why. Its an IO-360. The electric pump remains off except to start the engine. But, it should be turned on as part of the engine failure checklist.

Does anyone know why the 172SP should not have the pump on for takeoff and landing? What if the mechanical pump fails during takeoff or landing? Will the gravity feed from the high wings get enough fuel to the injection system

 

[poadeleted20]

If you're proficient in a 172, you can check out in a Warrior in an hour.

Not with me, you can't. It will take at least an hour just to go through the ground training. Of course, there are no doubt CFI's willing to put their signature in your log (or maybe no signature) after going saying "hi," hopping in the right seat, and going around the pattern for two T&G's and a full stop. But I wouldn't call that a "checkout," and neither would the FAA.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Great, I am between phone calls, I'll play along.....

Happy to -- call me and schedule half a day and I will. My standard rates apply.

Please share with us what your standard rate is. Part of being an edjumacated consumer is knowing what you are paying for and how much it will cost.

...made of aluminum, too.

I am guessing you don't have much time around Warriors as that was the only other similarity you were aware of. I am thinking you might not be one who should be called to give the checkout.

Probably 3-4 hours of ground and flight training. I'd start with a review of the aircraft manual including all limitations, procedures, systems, and performance, followed by a walk-around going over all those items on the actual aircraft. The flight would include basic handling, stalls/slow flight, steep turns, engine-out approach, and finally normal/crosswind/short/soft takeoffs and landings and abnormal landings. Probably going to be close to four hours from handshake to when the paperwork is done.

Please share with us what paperwork you are going to be doing. How long do you think this paperwork will take you to complete?

This is written by someone who doesn't give you his real name, whose signature is not going in your logbook, and who will take no responsibility for what happens to you if you take his advice-- and is also almost certainly not a CFI. Choose wisely.

Why on earth would the OP want my signature in his logbook? Why would he want your signature in his logbook? Why would he want anyone's signature in his logbook after a few hours of flying a Warrior?

And note that the accident statistics tell us that the greatest accident risk is when the pilot has less than 15 hours in type -- something the insurance companies agree a good checkout can change, and those are the folks putting their money where their mouths are.

Isn't the greater accident risk when a pilot has less than 14 hours in his logbook in type?

Isn't the greater accident risk when a pilot has less than 13 hours in his logbook in type?

Isn't the greater accident risk when a pilot has less than 12 hours in his logbook in type?

Isn't the greater accident risk when a pilot has less than 12 hours in his logbook in type?

Isn't the greater accident risk when a pilot has less than 10 hours in his logbook in type?

Isn't the ........etc....etc...

 

[momalley]

What benefit does "splitting time" provide?

I would think that the only benefit would be if both pilots logged the entire flight as PIC. Am I missing something?

 

[dell30rb]

What benefit does "splitting time" provide?

I would think that the only benefit would be if both pilots logged the entire flight as PIC. Am I missing something?

Can be done. If the right seat pilot is PIC while the left seat is flying under the hood, both can log PIC.

 

[poadeleted20]

Great, I am between phone calls, I'll play along.....

I won't.

Please share with us what your standard rate is.

$60/hour or $400/day, plus expenses.

For more than that, call for an appointment, and in your case, expect half down, half on delivery. Beyond that...

 

[poadeleted20]

Can be done. If the right seat pilot is PIC while the left seat is flying under the hood, both can log PIC.

Note that the pilot in the right seat can only log PIC time while the left seater is under the hood, so they won't both be logging the entire flight.

 

[MAKG1]

What benefit does "splitting time" provide?

I would think that the only benefit would be if both pilots logged the entire flight as PIC. Am I missing something?

A "split" 50 mile cross country costs the same as a 25 mile cross country. The first one is loggable as cross-country toward certificates, the second isn't, even though the loggable PIC time is the same.

Once you get out to 100 miles, the difference is just having a companion.

They can also both legally log PIC if one is under the hood, but IMO this misses the point. They cannot both log cross-country.

There is some benefit to watching someone else fly as well.

 

[AggieMike88]

What all the preceding has said, plus

1. nail the approach and landing speeds down cold. Applies to all aircraft, but my experience in the PA28-161 is they land very easily and smoothly at 65 KIAS over the numbers, 70 on final, and 75 on base.

2. develop a good fuel management habit. The 172 feeds out of both tanks at the same time, but the Pipers require tank switching as you motor along.

3. Have a good joke ready for when your exit from the aircraft isn't as graceful as you planned. More than once I've just rolled out onto and off the back of the wing like I'm doing a parachute fall. When asked by someone on the flight line "WTH was that!?", my response was, "Oh, I thought you were the Russian judge and I wanted to score a 10.0"

 

[jordane93]

What benefit does "splitting time" provide?

I would think that the only benefit would be if both pilots logged the entire flight as PIC. Am I missing something?

me and the other pilot are going to switch off being safety pilot while one of us wears the hood

 

[Henning]

What benefit does "splitting time" provide?

I would think that the only benefit would be if both pilots logged the entire flight as PIC. Am I missing something?

Experience and sightseeing. You don't have to be able to log the time or be on the controls to enjoy or learn something.

 

[poadeleted20]

me and the other pilot are going to switch off being safety pilot while one of us wears the hood

That's how my training buddy Charlie Rothschild and I got our instrument ratings in absolute minimum time -- lesson to learn something (with one flying and one in the back, then swapping seats), then hood-swapping to practice what we learned, then back for the next lesson.

 

[jordane93]

They can also both legally log PIC if one is under the hood, but IMO this misses the point. They cannot both log cross-country

how come we both cant log x country time?

 

[MAKG1]

Not with me, you can't. It will take at least an hour just to go through the ground training. Of course, there are no doubt CFI's willing to put their signature in your log (or maybe no signature) after going saying "hi," hopping in the right seat, and going around the pattern for two T&G's and a full stop. But I wouldn't call that a "checkout," and neither would the FAA.

I prefer to do what training I can without the expensive right seater spoon feeding me. When I show up for a checkout, it's after having read the POH cover to cover, rolled my own checklist, and filled out whatever paperwork is required (W&B and often a "ground review" -- and some of these have been as long as seven pages for a complex aircraft). I'd guess this isn't all that common; I shocked my initial-complex checkout instructor (in a noseheavy 177RG) when I showed up for the lesson with 90 lb of sandbags for ballast.

If you still want an hour to brief what has already been studied, there had better be a lot of complex systems or some really nasty gotchas. I've run across CFIs who have minimum times, and I thoroughly disagree with the practice. Like the guys at WVI who want me to take an hour checkout on a 172SP when I'm already current in type, because "it's the policy." I understand them wanting to make sure I can land on their 5000 foot runway without overrunning, but that doesn't take anywhere near an hour.

 

[momalley]

Experience and sightseeing. You don't have to be able to log the time or be on the controls to enjoy or learn something.

I completely agree with that, just not the "time building"

 

[momalley]

how come we both cant log x country time?

Because you are not both not PIC for the takeoff and landing of a specific leg of the cross country, from what I understand

 

[Hobobiker]

About those flaps... It kind of goes without saying, but with the Johnson bar you are obviously in control of the speed of flap deployment/retraction instead of an electric motor doing it for you. The PA-28-180 I fly was my first exposure to that sort of system so I had to pace myself when retracting flaps (especially on performance takeoffs) otherwise it was pretty easy for me to bring them up too quickly and dump that extra lift more quickly than I was anticipating.

+1! While I spend a decent amount of time with barbells, and the Johnson bar somewhat replicates the diameter and feel, it moves amazingly faster than most free weights. My instructor told me I needed to work on "calmly and slowly" moving the bar up and down so as to not scare the bejeezus out of my passengers in the future.

I guess I'm a little like Shrek stuffed in a little airplane...

 

[AcroGimp]

On the flaps, one nice thing is you can unload them quickly once on the ground, to put weight on the wheels for use of brakes - below touch down speed they don't provide enough drag to be of aerodynamic braking value unless you hold the nose off (which is fun to do BTW).

They can retract with surprising speed although you should deliberatley move them and not let them slam retracted. Pulling them on should also be very deliberate - you can, if you have good arm strength, pop them down the first notch or two and get real pitch change or balloon effect. Either way, they act more directly/quickly then the motorized flaps in the Cessna.

They also don't, as I recall, have any fowler motion (moving back), they just rotate around the hinges (plain flaps), so they don't have the same effectiveness as the Cessna flaps.

'Gimp

 

[mtuomi]

The only real difference an average PPL pilot needs to know between a Warrior and a 172 is the way it lands. Piper needs more precise speed control to avoid floating, but with proper speed control it is easier to flare than a 172.
172 is slighly less sensitive on the ailerons (more force on yoke needed), but apart from that they take off, climb, stall and fly pretty much the same. Piper is alot easier to taxi (you don't need as much diff braking as you do on 172).
An hour, maybe 1.5 should be more than enough if you're proficient with the 172.

 

[bobmrg]

how come we both cant log x country time?

December 1, 2009
{New-2012-05}
James Hilliard
3818 S. 47th St. Apt. 2
Lincoln, NE 68506
Dear Mr. Hilliard:
This responds to your request for a legal interpretation dated October 12, 2009. Your letter requests clarification concerning the logging of cross-country time to meet the aeronautical experience requirements under 14 C.F.R. § 61.65(d). This response is being issued simultaneously with legal interpretations to Ted Louis Glenn and Dwight B. Van Zanen, both of which address questions concerning logging cross-country time and are enclosed.
Your letter presents two scenarios to illustrate your question about how a pilot may log cross-country time under § 61.65(d). Because these two scenarios are substantially identical with each of two pilots flying only a portion of a cross-country flight, this response will not address these scenarios separately.
In the scenario, Pilot A and Pilot B, who hold pilot certificates and ratings appropriate to the aircraft, take a flight in an aircraft for which one flight crewmember is required. Pilot A and Pilot B each are the sole manipulator of the controls for a portion of the flight. You ask whether each pilot may log cross-country time for the portion of the flight during which that pilot was the sole manipulator of the controls.
In interpreting whether a safety pilot could log cross-country time, the FAA stated that § 61.65(d) contemplates that only the pilot conducting the entire flight, including takeoff, landing, and en route flight, as a required flight crewmember may log cross-country time. See Gebhart Interpretation. That interpretation did not address how two pilots who trade off manipulation of the controls may log cross-country time. However, that interpretation is applicable to this scenario. The rationale behind the cross-country requirement is to provide a pilot with aeronautical experience flying a significant distance to and landing at an airport that is not the pilot's home airport. Section 61.65 contemplates that one pilot is gaining that aeronautical experience. Accordingly, in this scenario, neither pilot may log cross-country time to meet the cross-country requirements under § 61.65(d).
This response was prepared by Robert Hawks, an Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of Chief Counsel and coordinated with the Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch of Flight Standards Service. We hope this response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073.
Sincerely,
Rebecca B. MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200
Enclosures

 

[jordane93]

December 1, 2009
{New-2012-05}
James Hilliard
3818 S. 47th St. Apt. 2
Lincoln, NE 68506
Dear Mr. Hilliard:
This responds to your request for a legal interpretation dated October 12, 2009. Your letter requests clarification concerning the logging of cross-country time to meet the aeronautical experience requirements under 14 C.F.R. § 61.65(d). This response is being issued simultaneously with legal interpretations to Ted Louis Glenn and Dwight B. Van Zanen, both of which address questions concerning logging cross-country time and are enclosed.
Your letter presents two scenarios to illustrate your question about how a pilot may log cross-country time under § 61.65(d). Because these two scenarios are substantially identical with each of two pilots flying only a portion of a cross-country flight, this response will not address these scenarios separately.
In the scenario, Pilot A and Pilot B, who hold pilot certificates and ratings appropriate to the aircraft, take a flight in an aircraft for which one flight crewmember is required. Pilot A and Pilot B each are the sole manipulator of the controls for a portion of the flight. You ask whether each pilot may log cross-country time for the portion of the flight during which that pilot was the sole manipulator of the controls.
In interpreting whether a safety pilot could log cross-country time, the FAA stated that § 61.65(d) contemplates that only the pilot conducting the entire flight, including takeoff, landing, and en route flight, as a required flight crewmember may log cross-country time. See Gebhart Interpretation. That interpretation did not address how two pilots who trade off manipulation of the controls may log cross-country time. However, that interpretation is applicable to this scenario. The rationale behind the cross-country requirement is to provide a pilot with aeronautical experience flying a significant distance to and landing at an airport that is not the pilot's home airport. Section 61.65 contemplates that one pilot is gaining that aeronautical experience. Accordingly, in this scenario, neither pilot may log cross-country time to meet the cross-country requirements under § 61.65(d).
This response was prepared by Robert Hawks, an Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of Chief Counsel and coordinated with the Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch of Flight Standards Service. We hope this response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073.
Sincerely,
Rebecca B. MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200
Enclosures

i see. so lets say we do 4 hrs round trip. and each leg was 2 hours each. we both can log 4 hrs PIC but only 2 hours of x country? am i interpreting this correctly?

 

[Henning]

Wouldn't the obvious solution to that be have one pilot hooded flying one complete leg log XC PIC while the safety pilot just logs PIC for the corrected time, and switch roles for the leg home?

 

[MAKG1]

i see. so lets say we do 4 hrs round trip. and each leg was 2 hours each. we both can log 4 hrs PIC but only 2 hours of x country? am i interpreting this correctly?

That's my understanding.

Splitting time only seems to be useful if you want to do one-way cross-countries of 50-100 miles.

Just trying to pad PIC time misses the point. You'll have 200 hours PIC time, but only the experience of a 100 hour pilot.

 

[Henning]

That's my understanding.

Splitting time only seems to be useful if you want to do one-way cross-countries of 50-100 miles.

Just trying to pad PIC time misses the point. You'll have 200 hours PIC time, but only the experience of a 100 hour pilot.

On that figuring, CFIs have a lot less experience than their log books show....