C172 VS Warrior

[ESA1178]

Apart from the obvious high wing, low wing difference what does each aircraft lead above the other? I'd like to hear from both C172 & Warrior pilots...


Mark

 

[asechrest]

I'll assume this is for PPA training since it's in the Pilot Training forum. If that's the case, my opinion is to fly the cheaper one. (Or, I guess, if money is no object, the better-equipped one?)

If you're in a state that sees real hot summers, the high wing is nice for shade (and yes, it does make a difference). I also appreciate having two doors instead of the Warrior's one, primarily for egress purposes in the event of an emergency.

I found the warrior to be more stable in the pattern and during landing, has better visibility during pattern turns due to the low wing, and is easier to fuel. It also seems to be a bit wider; I seem to have more elbow room. Not sure if that's the shape of the cockpit or if it's actually wider.

Beyond that? Both great trainers. Even if you closed your eyes and chose, you'd do fine. Thus my opinion, pick the cheaper one, or pick the one that catches your eye better.

 

[RyanShort1]

For almost everything, given the same horsepower engine installed, the Piper is slightly better. It'll carry more fuel, a bit more baggage, is a little bit faster. You have to remember to switch fuel tanks, you only have one entrance door, and you don't get the shade. All things equal, I'd pick the Piper. I'm about to buy a Cessna 172 because I want to be able to take certain kinds of pictures from it.

 

[red4golf]

I have 30 or so hours in a Warrior, 200 or so in a C172 plus about 20 in the piper Arrow.

I agree that you should pick the cheaper plane to fly unless you plan on training for your commercial and multi. If you are, I suggest looking for a place with a fleet of Pipers because the transition from a Warrior to an Arrow to a Senica.

The Warrior is almost too easy to fly. The stalls are a non event and the struts make your landings smooth as silk.

I like them both but for different reasons and use each when the mission fits one better than the other.

 

[MAKG1]

No one mentioned the big one for the upcoming summer. Cessna windows can be opened. Add that to your after-landing checklist.

A small number of Pipers have air conditioning, but I'd want something a bit bigger than a Warrior for that.

 

[frfly172]

Ease of entry the 172 has lt,speed the warrior. They both handle well in the training mode. also like the ability to open the window in the 172.

 

[rbridges]

Everyone says they're a close call, but for whatever reason, I seemed to do better in a Cherokee. I started flying a 180 after ~40 hrs in a 172. Maybe things just clicked at that point, but my landings got a lot better in the low wing. All things being equal, I'd go with a 172. Owning a mooney for the last 3 years, I've missed having a pilot's side door.

 

[MickYoumans]

Will you be the one fueling the plane? It is so much easier to fuel a low wing. I have owned a C150 and 172. I got so tired of having to climb a ladder to fuel them. I currrently have a Piper. It is worth the disadvantage of not having a pilot side door on the Piper for the ease of fueling the low wing.

 

[Unit74]

For training, the Warrior is almost too easy to fly. I have 60 hours in them and it was a great IFR trainer. Stalls are a nonevent. Tank switching is just second nature to me now.

 

[MBDiagMan]

In spite of the fact that I am a Cessna owner, in general I prefer Piper products. I wish I could make a long list of reasons why, but I just am. I madly love my wife of almost 41 years and I couldn't make a list of reasons why for that either.

As stated though, generally speaking it's six of one and a half dozen of the other. Either of these aircraft are tried and true.

Also as stated above, and seems worth commenting on in the "Pilot Training" forum, is that the Piper is too easy to fly. I don't know about the Warrior, because I've never flown one, but the Hershey Bar Cherokee is not used for teaching stalls by most instructors. One old salt CFI, IA, Piper fan I know even said that if you get in trouble under some circumstances it will float down like an oak leaf. This doesn't mean not to train in one, but if you do, make sure you spend some stall instruction time in an aircraft where the instructor can teach you stalls.

 

[duc750sport]

I did all my training in low wing planes --Archers, and Cherokees.. I now fly a 172SP quite a bit and the transition was a non event. It was all about the checklist and physically knowing where all the sh&% is in the Cessna.. After landing in the Cessna I still wait in my seat until my passenger says.. "you have your own door"!!

 

[RyanShort1]

Also as stated above, and seems worth commenting on in the "Pilot Training" forum, is that the Piper is too easy to fly. I don't know about the Warrior, because I've never flown one, but the Hershey Bar Cherokee is not used for teaching stalls by most instructors. One old salt CFI, IA, Piper fan I know even said that if you get in trouble under some circumstances it will float down like an oak leaf. This doesn't mean not to train in one, but if you do, make sure you spend some stall instruction time in an aircraft where the instructor can teach you stalls.

That's baloney. You can teach stalls just fine in a "hershey bar" Cherokee. In fact, there is no significant difference between the 172 and the Cherokee in my experience with students. For three of the last five years I had access to a Cherokee 180 and two 180hp 172s and I really don't think it should make a hill of beans if the instructor is competent.

 

[bflynn]

Preflight - you either get on your hands and knees to check under the wing and sump gas or you play mr gymnast and jump up on a step a few times to check wings and fuel. Note that unless it's completely full or you're really tall, you can't actually see the fuel level in a 172, so a dipstick is (IMO) a necessity. Something to think about if mobility is a concern.

Both fly basically the same, although the warrior is slightly more stable. I found that when doing stalls, it is difficult to stall the cessna straight ahead. As you stall it feels like trying to balance a ball on an inverted bowl, the plane always tries to roll one way or the other. The warrior was very gentle and easily stalled straight ahead. In general, I found the handling of the cessna to require more attention for a while until you get used to it.

When making turns, there is a high wing / low wing difference, the high wing needs to be lifted before turning to look and then will block your view a bit in the turn. Nothing you can do about that.

On the ground, the nose wheel of the cessna casters while the warrior nose gear is linked to the rudder...push rudder and the nose gear is turned. On the cessna, differential breaking is necessary to get a turn going. You need to think about this during xwind landings too because if you hold rudder in a warrior, you're going to steer yourself right off the runway. There's a short time you can scrub the nose gear with it turned, but as soon as the rubber bites, it's turns into steering again.

I like having two doors and not having to scoot across a seat when getting in. I like windows that open, especially in the summer. I prefer mechanical flaps on the warrior, but I've always liked mechanical means of doing thing over electric.

Can't think of anything else.

 

[Unit74]

Not to mention, if you fuel your own plane the low wing wins hands down. What a PITA a cessna is to fuel.

 

[DFH65]

What 172 has a castering nose wheel? None I have ever flown.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have several hundred hours in each, and as far as I'm concerned, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. IOW, it's entirely a subjective decision based on your own personal tastes and preferences. My advice, then, is for you to fly both, then buy the one you like better.

Unless, you're married, in which case you fly both then buy the one your spouse likes better.

That said, I would also suggest you consider and fly the Grumman AA-5/5A Traveler/Cheetah and the Beech 19 Sport, as they are also in the O-320-powered 4-seat simple fixed-gear class, but have other characteristics you may find better suit your personal tastes (or your spouse's). Or not, but when you're spending this kind of money, it's worth considering.

 

[bflynn]

What 172 has a castering nose wheel? None I have ever flown.

All of the (late model) ones I have flown do. Perhaps earlier models did not?

 

[poadeleted20]

All of the (late model) ones I have flown do. Perhaps earlier models did not?

Perhaps you misunderstand what a "castering nose wheel" is. That term is applied to nose wheels which freely pivot, like the front wheels on a grocery cart, without any means to directly control the pivoting from the cockpit. Aircraft with this feature include all the Grumman singles (AA/AG-1/5 series other than the AA-1x's which have been modified to tailwheel configuration), the Diamond DA-20/40, and the Cirrus SR20/22. Cessna nosewheel airplanes from the 150 onwards are all steerable nosewheels, meaning you can control the direction of the nosewheel mechanically from the cockpit via the rudder pedals (except for Ercoupes which have no rudder pedals so nosewheel control is via the yoke). And all Piper tricycle gear planes also have steerable rather than castering nosewheels.

 

[SoonerAviator]

On the ground, the nose wheel of the cessna casters while the warrior nose gear is linked to the rudder...push rudder and the nose gear is turned. On the cessna, differential breaking is necessary to get a turn going.

C172 with a castering nosewheel? I don't think so. It's controllable with the rudder pedals same as the Piper.

 

[ESA1178]

So many responses! Thanks a bunch...
I am almost 6 feet so high wing refuel isnt the issue.
It gets very hot here in Sacramento, around 90-100.
And even though there is minimal humidity, unless you have an early morning lesson,
the AC is going to be an oven if its been sitting on the apron all day.
So 2 doors are a plus for me....
The thing is, I am going to be moving straight into the instrument phase.
My heart softens with the C172SP. And since it will be only the missus & I, its the perfect size for comfort and distance. I had asked the question because my school has both the C172 and Warrior. I have posted their rates below. I think I will stick with the C172 Classic for my PPL since that is the AC we would most likely invest in and its $30 an hour cheaper than the SP to rent..

Many many thanks for all your suggestions!

Cessna 172 Classic $115
Cessna 172SP $145
Cessna 172SPG (G1000) $189
Piper PA-28-151 Warrior $112
Piper PA-28R-180 Arrow $147
Cessna Corvalis 400 TT $330

 

[Pilawt]

All 172s have had the same nose gear steering system, with the nosewheel connected to the rudder pedals through a spring system. So you steer with the rudder pedals, but you still feel some "give" in the system. When the nose gear shock strut is fully extended, as when the aircraft is in flight, a centering cam keeps the nosewheel straight regardless of the position of the rudder. That keep the nosewheel from being turned in the downwind direction during a crosswind landing.

The only high-wing Cessnas I can think of that had a true "castering" nosewheel were the C-162 Skycatcher, the prototype "NGP" (the erstwhile "Cirrus-killer") of about ten years ago and the prototype C-160 of the early 1960s.

Fixed-gear Piper PA-28s had direct "hard" linkage between the rudder pedals and the nosewheel up through the 1973 model year. So when the rudder was deflected, so was the nosewheel.

For 1974 (which would include all Warriors) a bungee connection was incorporated into the system, to reduce the forces necessary to steer during low-speed taxi; but there was still no inflight centering mechanism as on the Cessnas.

 

[poadeleted20]

And since it will be only the missus & I,

Then if you know what's good for you, you'll involve her in the process.

Sign me "37 years of marriage and airplanes -- 4 planes, 1 woman."

 

[TUPilot]

So many responses! Thanks a bunch...

Many many thanks for all your suggestions!

Cessna 172 Classic $115
Cessna 172SP $145
Cessna 172SPG (G1000) $189
Piper PA-28-151 Warrior $112
Piper PA-28R-180 Arrow $147
Cessna Corvalis 400 TT $330

I have a slight preference for the handling of the PA28 series, but the difference is not huge. The truth is they both do certain things slightly better. For a given horsepower a PA28 tends to be very slightly faster, but in reality it is not significant in daily flying--especially when training.

As has been mentioned, Piper steering on the ground is a bit tighter and requires less use of brakes, but a Cessna uses a steerable nosewheel as well--it just has a bit more "slop" in it. If two doors are a big plus, the 172 certainly is the winner. During the summer we commonly taxi PA28s with the door open, so cooling isn't much worse than a Cessna.

For private training a 172, 172SP, and 172SP with a G1000 are fundamentally similar airframe wise. The difference is learning the installed equipment.

 

[Anthony]

I prefer the Warrior. I like sitting on top of the wing, and seeing in the pattern. I much prefer the Cheetah over either in that HP class.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I think both are fine airplanes and both have features that one could consider preferable over the other, but Pipers are generally cheaper than Cessnas for the same class and equipped airplane and therefore give you a better bang for your buck.

 

[SoonerAviator]

So many responses! Thanks a bunch...
I am almost 6 feet so high wing refuel isnt the issue.

I don't care if you're 7' tall, you aren't refueling a C172 standing on the ground. If you don't use a step ladder, you'll still need to do the fuselage step/wing strut maneuver to check fuel level and such. I've never fueled a C172, so I can't speak to that, but I've checked fuel plenty of times and haven't been able to do it from the ground yet at 6' tall myself.

 

[ESA1178]

Then if you know what's good for you, you'll involve her in the process.

Sign me "37 years of marriage and airplanes -- 4 planes, 1 woman."

My Wife is a Physics Teacher and is blessed with an analytical mind. So I am hoping to woo her into flight lessons and joining the 99's. She will be a whiz at flight planning and fuel/payload calculations. And I am more of a hands on/listen to the aircraft kind of pilot... So a great marriage when it comes to pilot & co pilot

 

[flyingron]

Perhaps you misunderstand what a "castering nose wheel" is. That term is applied to nose wheels which freely pivot, like the front wheels on a grocery cart

Sometimes that analogy is far too accurate. We had an Grumman in our club that the nosegear shimmied like the cart you always hate to get at the grocery.

 

[flyingron]

I don't care if you're 7' tall, you aren't refueling a C172 standing on the ground. If you don't use a step ladder, you'll still need to do the fuselage step/wing strut maneuver to check fuel level and such. I've never fueled a C172, so I can't speak to that, but I've checked fuel plenty of times and haven't been able to do it from the ground yet at 6' tall myself.

I'm 6'1" and I'll agree. I can't even fuel a 152 standing on the ground nor see into the tanks (I can reach the caps barely). I've always either used a ladder or climbed on the strut (a step helps but is not obligatory).

 

[Pilawt]

I also appreciate having two doors instead of the Warrior's one, primarily for egress purposes in the event of an emergency.

My dad had claustrophobia and simply could not fly left seat in an airplane that did not have a door there. He had no problem with the C-172 that he owned for 20 years, but a PA-28 would have been impossible for him.

I found the warrior to be more stable in the pattern and during landing

In my opinion, compared to a C-172, a PA-28 is easier for a student to land safely; but harder to land well (i.e., tail low, full-stall, no drift).

has better visibility during pattern turns due to the low wing

Very true. Visibility is my one biggest gripe about the C-172.

and is easier to fuel

Yes. But preflight inspection can be tough on the ol' knees. Whenever I fly a low-wing I feel it in the knees and legs for days thereafter.

Warrior also has the clamshell-door cowl that opens wide for preflight inspection and maintenance, a good thing. Cherokee 140, the Grumman series and Bonanzas also have good cowl access; Cessnas and other PA-28s, not so much.

It also seems to be a bit wider; I seem to have more elbow room. Not sure if that's the shape of the cockpit or if it's actually wider.

PA-28 cabin is a skosh wider than a C-172 at the elbow; but the upper half of the fuselage is rounded in cross-section so it tapers inward, leaving less room at eye level and less headroom. C-172 cabin side is more-or-less vertical all the way up to the roof.

Power being equal, speeds of a C-172 and a Warrior are very close. Warrior may have a slight edge, but close enough that a C-172 with wheel pants might be faster than a Warrior without.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sometimes that analogy is far too accurate. We had an Grumman in our club that the nosegear shimmied like the cart you always hate to get at the grocery.

Now that's pretty easy to fix. See the AA-1/5 maintenance manual for details, but all you need are a few wrenches/sockets and a fish scale.

 

[Pilawt]

My heart softens with the C172SP. And since it will be only the missus & I, its the perfect size for comfort and distance.

The C-172 airframe with 180 hp is an excellent combination. Along with the 172S (not "172SP" -- the marketing name is "Skyhawk SP" but the model number is "172S") built since 1999, many older 172 aircraft have been converted to 180 hp, and can be a good value.

 

[JimNtexas]

C172 with a castering nosewheel? I don't think so. It's controllable with the rudder pedals same as the Piper.

There is a difference. The Piper nose gear is 'hard wired' to the rudder pedals, like the steering wheel on your car.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on most Cessnas the rudder pedals are connected to the nose gear by springs, so there is a castering effect.

On the C177RG that I fly when you extend the landing gear the nose wheel is locked along the long axis of the airplane. It unlocks and becomes steerable when the strut is compressed after landing.

If you land on the main gear and do F-15 style aero-braking it's possible to sail right by that first turn off if you have not put some weight on the nose gear. DAMHIK.

Of course no high wing Cessna has a true castering nose wheel like those on the Cirri etc.

 

[ESA1178]

I don't care if you're 7' tall, you aren't refueling a C172 standing on the ground. If you don't use a step ladder, you'll still need to do the fuselage step/wing strut maneuver to check fuel level and such. I've never fueled a C172, so I can't speak to that, but I've checked fuel plenty of times and haven't been able to do it from the ground yet at 6' tall myself.

Oh I know the refueling steps.. Have 30 hours already in the C172. Just saying that its a little easier to attend to the wing if you are alot taller than my 4"11" Mother

Mark

 

[asechrest]

My dad had claustrophobia and simply could not fly left seat in an airplane that did not have a door there. He had no problem with the C-172 that he owned for 20 years, but a PA-28 would have been impossible for him.

In my opinion, compared to a C-172, a PA-28 is easier for a student to land safely; but harder to land well (i.e., tail low, full-stall, no drift).

Very true. Visibility is my one biggest gripe about the C-172.

Yes. But preflight inspection can be tough on the ol' knees. Whenever I fly a low-wing I feel it in the knees and legs for days thereafter.

Warrior also has the clamshell-door cowl that opens wide for preflight inspection and maintenance, a good thing. Cherokee 140, the Grumman series and Bonanzas also have good cowl access; Cessnas and other PA-28s, not so much.

PA-28 cabin is a skosh wider than a C-172 at the elbow; but the upper half of the fuselage is rounded in cross-section so it tapers inward, leaving less room at eye level and less headroom. C-172 cabin side is more-or-less vertical all the way up to the roof.

Power being equal, speeds of a C-172 and a Warrior are very close. Warrior may have a slight edge, but close enough that a C-172 with wheel pants might be faster than a Warrior without.

Thanks for the comments. Your posts always exhibit a wealth of knowledge about airplanes.

Re: landing stability. To be fair, all my time in Piper products (which is not much -- I'm a low-timer), came after my PPL. So my skill level was much higher once I started flying them. I'm not sure I could express why it is so, but it just seems like I can land the PA28s consistently better than I can the 172. Perhaps it is a ground effect thing?

If I had my training to do again, though, I'd still choose the 172 if pricing was equal. The cabin of the Pipers is deathly hot down here in FL until you get the fan running and the door open, and I do "feel" a bit better having a door on my side.

 

[Pilawt]

There is a difference. The Piper nose gear is 'hard wired' to the rudder pedals, like the steering wheel on your car.

On fixed-gear PA-28s before the 1974 model year, you are correct. Bungees were added to the system in 1974, so it was no longer "hard-wired" -- but still stiffer than the Cessna system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on most Cessnas the rudder pedals are connected to the nose gear by springs, so there is a castering effect.

The system on the C-172 and nearly all other high-wings Cessnas does not caster. In order to caster, there has to be (1) a displacement of the wheel from the vertical axis of the suspension, opposite of the direction of travel, and (2) free swiveling through the connection between the suspension and the wheel. An example of that is the nose gear of the American Aviation/Grumman-American series, like the AA-1 Yankee below. The nose gear of the C-172 has neither.

On the C177RG that I fly when you extend the landing gear the nose wheel is locked along the long axis of the airplane. It unlocks and becomes steerable when the strut is compressed after landing.

The centering cam is on all of the fixed-gear high-wing Cessna singles, too.

If you land on the main gear and do F-15 style aero-braking it's possible to sail right by that first turn off if you have not put some weight on the nose gear. DAMHIK.

Or if you put too much air in the nose strut so that it's extended too far at rest, it can be very difficult to turn on the ground.

Of course no high wing Cessna has a true castering nose wheel like those on the Cirri etc.

There were these ...

 

[SoonerAviator]

There is a difference. The Piper nose gear is 'hard wired' to the rudder pedals, like the steering wheel on your car.

No doubt they are different designs between the C and P. I didn't mention anything to the contrary, I simply said they were both controlled by linkages to the rudder pedals, not a castering-style unit.

 

[Henning]

Apart from the obvious high wing, low wing difference what does each aircraft lead above the other? I'd like to hear from both C172 & Warrior pilots...


Mark

2 doors on the 172, that's the only half significant difference.

 

[MAKG1]

The C-172 airframe with 180 hp is an excellent combination. Along with the 172S (not "172SP" -- the marketing name is "Skyhawk SP" but the model number is "172S") built since 1999, many older 172 aircraft have been converted to 180 hp, and can be a good value.

Older 172s -- M's and N's are common. And they can hold 1000+ lbs of people and stuff that way, with full fuel, as long as the whole STC is complied with (mainly, limit flap travel to 30 deg).

172R and S models are fat pigs, especially with the G1000, and that negates all the extra engine performance.

But for trainers, they fly like any other 172. The 180 HP doesn't make a dang bit of difference. The performance is nice for mountains and cross countries.

 

[Pilawt]

as long as the whole STC is complied with (mainly, limit flap travel to 30 deg).

And if the flap limiter is not put in, useful load suffers (MGW remains at 2300 lb), but it's a heckuva short-field performer.