C172 VS Warrior

Pilawt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Takeoff performance at 2300 lb is the same regardless of whether the flap limiter is installed or not.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps you misunderstand what a "castering nose wheel" is.
Click to expand...

No, after several decades on this planet, I've got that English thing down really well. But thanks for the dictionary lesson all the same, do you feel better?

After reading the responses, I'm realizing that the way it was explained to me was very poor and therefore my understanding of the mechanism is incorrect. I know the Cessna nose wheel feels like it doesn't work compared to the piper and you need to use differential braking to get a turn going.

Btw, comparing performance between 172 and warrior isn't the same cost or engine. An Archer is a closer comparison, basically a warrior with 180 hp engine in it.
 
bflynn said:
No, after several decades on this planet, I've got that English thing down really well. But thanks for the dictionary lesson all the same, do you feel better?
Click to expand...
I don't often say this, but you know what?

Screw you.

After reading the responses, I'm realizing that the way it was explained to me was very poor and therefore my understanding of the mechanism is incorrect.
Click to expand...

You admit your understanding of the term was incorrect, but you still get nasty to me for saying exactly that.

Adios.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't often say this, but you know what?

Screw you.



You admit your understanding of the term was incorrect, but you still get nasty to me for saying exactly that.

Adios.
Click to expand...

No kidding, and you even corrected him in a respectful way. For some, you know what's worse than telling them they're wrong? Telling them they're wrong and then them realizing it.

Bflynn- why not just say, "I was mistaken, and thanks for the explanation". It doesn't matter what the dictionary says, sometimes aviation uses specific terms for specific meanings. This is aviation here, and 'castering' does NOT apply to Cessna nose wheels. Boy, you really saved face on this one. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Yeeesssss ... but 40 degrees of flap sure helps steepen the approach over obstacles. :)
Click to expand...
It does indeed. :yes: But is that worth giving up 250 lb of payload? Not to my thinking. My 172 experience suggests that if the field is so short/obstructed you need the extra 10 degrees of flap to land and stop, the only way the plane is leaving there is on the back of a flat-bed truck.
 
Ron Levy said:
My 172 experience suggests that if the field is so short/obstructed you need the extra 10 degrees of flap to land and stop, the only way the plane is leaving there is on the back of a flat-bed truck.
Click to expand...
Possibly, if you assume dimensional symmetry in the landing area. But there are lots of landing areas hereabouts where that doesn't necessarily apply. A displaced threshhold by definition gives you less runway on which to land than to takeoff; or there might be obstructions on the downwind end of the runway but not on the upwind end. One just has to take one's machine and environment into account when planning any operation.

And a 180 hp C-172 at 2300 lb does move right on out at Vx on takeoff. :yes:
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
No, after several decades on this planet, I've got that English thing down really well. But thanks for the dictionary lesson all the same, do you feel better?

After reading the responses, I'm realizing that the way it was explained to me was very poor and therefore my understanding of the mechanism is incorrect. I know the Cessna nose wheel feels like it doesn't work compared to the piper and you need to use differential braking to get a turn going.

Btw, comparing performance between 172 and warrior isn't the same cost or engine. An Archer is a closer comparison, basically a warrior with 180 hp engine in it.
Click to expand...

It's because the Cessna uses bungees to steer the nose wheel where the Piper uses solid linkage.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't often say this, but you know what?

Screw you.



You admit your understanding of the term was incorrect, but you still get nasty to me for saying exactly that.

Adios.
Click to expand...

No, I admit my understanding of the mechanics was bad. I understand very well what castering means.

Perhaps I should have taken the high road, but I wanted Ron to think about how he said something for once. I think I failed at that and got that nice screw you.

Ron, I'll make you a deal - if you are polite and don't throw insults my way, I won't return them. Deal?
 
bflynn said:
Btw, comparing performance between 172 and warrior isn't the same cost or engine. An Archer is a closer comparison, basically a warrior with 180 hp engine in it.
Click to expand...

Not quite right! Most 172s, aside from post 90s ones and older ones with the 180hp STC have 160hp or less installed.

Of course, there are a few older models with even more HP.
 
Last edited:
TUPilot said:
Wrong again buddy! Most 172s, aside from post 90s ones and older ones with the 180hp STC have 160hp or less installed.
Click to expand...

Yes but I've previous said I fly post recent Cessnas. Yes early ones would compare to mid year warriors. For a little while there was a common engine hp, before that the warrior was 140.
 
I apologize to everyone, I should not react that way to nastiness. I was wrong.

How about we all just stop?
 
bflynn said:
Yes but I've previous said I fly post recent Cessnas. Yes early ones would compare to mid year warriors. For a little while there was a common engine hp, before that the warrior was 140.
Click to expand...

Warrior never had 140. Even the Cherokee 140 actually had 150.
 
bflynn said:
Yes but I've previous said I fly post recent Cessnas. Yes early ones would compare to mid year warriors. For a little while there was a common engine hp, before that the warrior was 140.
Click to expand...
C-172:

1956-67 (172-172H): 145 hp
1968-76 (172I-172M): 150 hp
1977-86 (172N-172P): 160 hp
1983-84 (172Q): 180 hp
1996-2011 (172R): 160 hp
1999-present (172S): 180 hp

Warrior:

1974-76: 150 hp
1977-2010: 160 hp

TUPilot said:
Warrior never had 140. Even the Cherokee 140 actually had 150.
Click to expand...
In its first year of production, the Cherokee 140's engine was indeed de-rated to 140 hp at 2450 rpm, and it had a gross weight of only 1950 lb. That was to differentiate it from the otherwise nearly-identical four-seat Cherokee 150 (same engine, but with a different prop and rated at 150 hp at 2700 rpm), with 2150 lb MGW.

A year later the Cherokee 140 got the 150 hp/2700 rpm power rating and 2150 lb MGW, along with the optional snap-in rear seats. Now all Cherokee 140s are rated at 150 hp in the TCDS, though the early ones still have the 1950 lb MGW.

The earlier (1974-76) Cherokee Warriors also had the same 150 hp engine. The Warrior and the C-172 both switched to higher-compression 160 hp engines in 1977, because 80-octane fuel was being phased out, and the higher-compression engines were more compatible with the new 100LL fuel.
 
Last edited:
I'd take the C172 any day over the Warrior and I've flown and instructed in both plenty.

Why? They're basically the same thing except the C172 has soul.
 
Henning said:
It's because the Cessna uses bungees to steer the nose wheel where the Piper uses solid linkage.
Click to expand...

Which has its benefits. Rental Cherokee was always getting busted up by line guys exceeding tow limitations. Really has never been a problem on any of the Cessna trainers. For that reason alone I wouldn't buy a PA28 as a trainer, here at least...

Not a factor for those that don't have line guys yanking them in and out of hangars with trucks, sometimes a few times a day, with a pretty lengthy tow distance.
 
jesse said:
I'd take the C172 any day over the Warrior and I've flown and instructed in both plenty.

Why? They're basically the same thing except the C172 has soul.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 14
A Piper vs Cessna debate here is a bit like a Boeing vs Airbus debate over on airliners.net. A few people get really passionate about it and everyone else just rolls their eyes and sighs.
 
RyanShort1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


You can be rudely objectionable to my statement if you choose.:) I read this some years ago in a few good books about buying airplanes and a very experienced CFI that is a Piper fan told me the same thing.

Thanks for correcting me even though there are apparently others that do not agree with you.

Have a great day.:)
 
jesse said:
I'd take the C172 any day over the Warrior and I've flown and instructed in both plenty.

Why? They're basically the same thing except the C172 has soul.
Click to expand...

I learned to fly in a C-152, then rented C-150's, then transitioned into a C-172. All of them were great planes which I have a lot of hours in. However, once I got checked out in a Warrior, and an Archer, I never flew a high wing plane again. I just prefer sitting on top of the wing, and think they translate turbulence better. Also, I like the visibility. Don't know about soul or not. I think all airplanes have a soul, but that's just me. :)
 
I may have asked this question in the past but I'll throw it out again. I like everything about the low wings except the maneuver to get in and out the single door. Is it the kind of thing that you get better at over time? I'm still a noob and most of my time has been in 172s. Don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world, it just feels awkward. Getting in a 172 is like getting in a SUV. Getting in a Cherokee is like climbing up onto a platform and then entering a Corvette that's below street level from the passenger side.
 
noobJohn said:
I like everything about the low wings except the maneuver to get in and out the single door. Is it the kind of thing that you get better at over time?
Click to expand...

It is what it is and it doesn't change over time. Either it doesn't bother you or it does. To me, it's sort of like eating sushi: some people get all riled up at the thought of it and call it bait, the rest of us know that it is good.

There is the physical maneuver side of it: if you have physical "challenges" then a Cherokee prolly isn't for you.
 
noobJohn said:
I may have asked this question in the past but I'll throw it out again. I like everything about the low wings except the maneuver to get in and out the single door. Is it the kind of thing that you get better at over time? I'm still a noob and most of my time has been in 172s. Don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world, it just feels awkward. Getting in a 172 is like getting in a SUV. Getting in a Cherokee is like climbing up onto a platform and then entering a Corvette that's below street level from the passenger side.
Click to expand...

Like anything else, you get used to it. Over time you learn where to step and when to bend.
 
MBDiagMan said:
You can be rudely objectionable to my statement if you choose.:) I read this some years ago in a few good books about buying airplanes and a very experienced CFI that is a Piper fan told me the same thing.

Thanks for correcting me even though there are apparently others that do not agree with you.

Have a great day.:)
Click to expand...

Well, I think you guys are talking about two different things. A 152 or 172 has a very subtle stall buffet and much more substantial break. A Cherokee is the other way around. So, do you teach stalls to first indication or the break?
 
bflynn said:
No, I admit my understanding of the mechanics was bad. I understand very well what castering means.

Perhaps I should have taken the high road, but I wanted Ron to think about how he said something for once. I think I failed at that and got that nice screw you.

Ron, I'll make you a deal - if you are polite and don't throw insults my way, I won't return them. Deal?
Click to expand...

As RoscoeT pointed out, I was polite, and you publicly insulted me anyway. Why should I expect anything different from you now? So I think you're the one who needs to make the first move by publicly apologizing.

And saying you were only reacting to nastiness shows you really don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Systems-wise, C-172 (since 1965) has electric flaps; Warrior has simple, reliable manual flaps. C-172 landing gear has only one oleo strut to maintain; Warrior has three. Warrior needs engine-driven and auxiliary electric fuel pumps, while carbureted (pre-1996) C-172s feed fuel to the engine via gravity, which has a somewhat better maintenance and reliability track record. :D
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
You can be rudely objectionable to my statement if you choose.:) I read this some years ago in a few good books about buying airplanes and a very experienced CFI that is a Piper fan told me the same thing.

Thanks for correcting me even though there are apparently others that do not agree with you.

Have a great day.:)
Click to expand...
LOL. I guess I'm just silly.
 
MAKG1 said:
Well, I think you guys are talking about two different things. A 152 or 172 has a very subtle stall buffet and much more substantial break. A Cherokee is the other way around. So, do you teach stalls to first indication or the break?
Click to expand...
61.87 says both... and both can be done in either airplane just fine. I think I had about an equal number of students pass checkrides in Cessna 172s and a hershey-bar Cherokee 180 and a 161 Archer. Not a big deal.
(e) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a multiengine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a multiengine airplane rating must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:

(snip)

(10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall;
Click to expand...
 
RyanShort1 said:
61.87 says both... and both can be done in either airplane just fine. I think I had about an equal number of students pass checkrides in Cessna 172s and a hershey-bar Cherokee 180 and a 161 Archer. Not a big deal.
Click to expand...

I agree... I have about 400 hours instructing in Cherokee 180s, about 300 instructing hours in tapered wing PA28s, and probably 500 hours teaching in 172 variants. As long as the instructor is familiar with the stall behavior of the airplane and teaches the student to recognize and recover from it you are in good shape.

I could see a new CFI who has learned in and taught in 172s and is thrown into a straight wing PA28 without an briefing being uncomfortable teaching stalls in it, but folks that have experience with a broader variety of aircraft going in or get some practice in the PA28 will have no problem doing or teaching stalls.
 
jesse said:
I'd take the C172 any day over the Warrior and I've flown and instructed in both plenty.

Why? They're basically the same thing except the C172 has soul.
Click to expand...

The only soul that matters is that it has a generous soul in a crash and protects me. Outside of that, it just needs to fly and do what I ask.
 
There is that..... I moved out to the sticks and went from a 10 minute commute to a 35 minute commute. A coworker assured me I'd get used to it. It's been over 10 years and I think it's ticking me off more and more.

Clark1961 said:
It is what it is and it doesn't change over time. Either it doesn't bother you or it does.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top