Decision time 150 vs 160

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador
I am looking at two Warriors. One is a straight 150 hp, the other is a -151 that has had a RAM 160 upgrade. I need some help evaluating the benefit of the 160 hp. I have heard that it helps a little in climb and a little on takeoff. Is there some more specific advantages. Anecdotes from those with a 160 hp would be helpful. Obviously, everything being equal the 160hp would be the choice to make. But while close, everything is not equal between these two choices and I am having a hard time picking and I need some help.:confused:

In the end there can be only one...
 
I fly a -151 with the upgrade and enjoy it. Not sure how much different it is from a 150. I flight plan for 105 kts. Isn't the straight 150 the hershey bar wing?
 
Mogas, mogas, mogas. If it's available where you live, this is a point on the side of the 150.
 
the extra 10hp probably helps a little with usable load, also. if the planes are similar condition and avionics, I would be willing to pay more for the extra ponies.

someone mentioned mogas, and that is something to consider. It's not an option for my mooney, so I don't know if it's much aggravation to find.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Buy as much horsepower as you can. 180, 235
Click to expand...
Concur. All else being equal, the only reason not to go with the 160 version is if you really really want to operate on 87 octane mogas (the 160 needs 91 or better). Further, the higher compression 160 digests 100LL better than the 150 does, so keeping the plugs clean is easier.
 
I do have access to EF 90 octane mogas with a $2.5 delta on the price. So, yes that is a big part of my decision making process. Peterson's STC treats it like a -161. In that he requires a $3K pump mod kit. I have not talked with EAA to see if their STC requires the same mod kit. If avgas goes away, I do not want an expensive lawn ornament. I can always unmod the engine but that seems silly to me.
 
EppyGA said:
Isn't the straight 150 the hershey bar wing?
Click to expand...
I think the "straight 150" in the OP was in reference to the engine, comparing it to the one that was upgraded to 160 hp.

Piper's model number convention adds '1' to the horsepower suffix to denote tapered wing. E.g., '-150', '-180', '-235' are all Hershey-bar-wing models, while the taper-wing models with the same horsepower are '-151', '-181', '-236'.
 
1 HP = 33,000 feet/min so 10 =330,000 fpm. Divide that by the max take off weight of the plane you are considering and that should give you the the theoretical limit of the increase in climb rate (about 150 fpm). You aren't going to get that because the prop isn't 100% efficient and the full 10 HP won't be available at the shaft under take off conditions. Maybe good for about 100FPM increase in climb rate.

Very little increase in speed which is mainly determined by aerodynamics.

The increase in take off and climb is very welcome in a plane that is marginal in hot weather at full load.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You can't legally put that in the 160HP engine which requires 91 octane minimum unless the STC says something I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Click to expand...

The Peterson STC allows for 91 octane but requires a supplemental fuel pump (costing $3K). The unmodified -151 needs no such modification. I know that I will never get that $3K back but I intend to have this aircraft until I am done flying. The ability to burn mogas is an important economy measure to me. I am trying to determine if the long term use of the extra 10 hp. is worth it.
 
Once you have experienced a few gross weight climb outs on 100 degree plus days, you will wish that you had that extra 10 HP and more.
 
Go with the 160, sometimes more is better.
 
Having flown the 150 hp and my friends 160 hp the same day I can tell you that the extra 10 hp is very noticeable on takeoff and in the climb. A little over 100 FPM extra climb . Unless you plan to use mogas buy the 160 .
 
jetedrick said:
I am trying to buy one with the 160hp :)
Click to expand...
If this STC is like the one for the Grumman Traveler/Cheetah to upgrade its 150HP O-320-E2G engine to the higher compression O-320-D configuration, giving an effective 160HP (even if the actual rating doesn't change -- long Grumman-specific story there), all it involves is a piston swap. Pulling four jugs, replacing four pistons, and putting the engine back together is not a dreadfully expensive process -- on the order of $3K including STC paperwork, parts and labor on the Grummans. If that's the same for the Cherokee upgrade, then getting a really nice 150HP Warrior and swapping the pistons after purchase might be a good choice if you can't find a good 160HP Warrior.
 
what about adding a powerflow exhaust to the 150? It may cost more than the 160HP upgrade and deliver less of a performance bump, but it may allow you to keep the mogas option.
 
PowerFlow does not make an exhaust for the Warrior or Archer series of aircraft.
 
The ability to mogas or not really is the issue for me. I won't be doing it right away but I foresee the day when avgas is unavailable or even more outrageous money. I do not want to have an expensive lawn ornament.

Working for the DOD I have learned to plan for failure.
 
A mogas STC is available for the 160 HP engine in a Cherokee but, last time I checked, required adding 1 or 2 electric fuel pumps. Not horribly expensive but I couldn't see how that improved anything. There is already an electric fuel pump in the engine compartment in addition to the engine driven pump. The only problem I've had with mogas is vapor lock. Putting electric pumps in the wing roots where there is no heat source would address that but not adding them in the engine compartment.
 
As others have said more HP is better. Increased useful
OAW and better climb. How much better? Not sure, but if one day 10 ft pr min makes the difference between you and the top of the tree then that's huge.

As for the mo gas issue I did fly an Archer with a mogas STC, so I suspect you could get one for the Warrior as well.
 
I would run with the more horsepower crowd.
Our Cherokee 140, and our Cherokee 180 would cruise at the same speed (115kts) on the same fuel burn, but the 180 has a bigger usefull load, and better takeoff performance.
 
Henning said:
Some they do. http://www.powerflowsystems.com/products.php?cat_id=6
Click to expand...

I might be mistaken:dunno:
but I think every PA28-140 150,160 180 235 is a Cherokee( and Cruiser) or Challenger( fuse strectch) with Hershey Bar wings.
The Warrior, Archer and Dakota PA28- ( 151 maybe) 161,181,236 Warrior,Archer,Dakota all have tapered wings.
They didn't make power flow for the late models because Piper improved the flow on the newer exhaust systems.
Could have been some hybrids in the transition years maybe.
I didn't see a power flow for any 161 181 or 236 on the powerflow site.
I checked on Powerflow for my 1972 PA28-180 G model when I first got it--Nope.
 
Interesting, they offer it for the '73 140, but not the '72 180.
And also offered for the '63 180, but we didn't get one.
 
bluerooster said:
Interesting, they offer it for the '73 140, but not the '72 180.
And also offered for the '63 180, but we didn't get one.
Click to expand...

73 140 must have been the old exhaust style:dunno:
The 72 180 had the newer dual muffler .
Most any Cherokee you see with dual muffler extensionsout of the cowl ,no need for power flow as there is no performance improvements.
 
el con said:
73 140 must have been the old exhaust style:dunno:
The 72 180 had the newer dual muffler .
Most any Cherokee you see with dual muffler extensionsout of the cowl ,no need for power flow as there is no performance improvements.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. That system is not a tuned Scavenging system.
 
After about eight months of shopping and flying everything from a 140 to a 181, I ended up with a PA28-180--put simply, once we'd flown the 180hp model there was no going back to 150 or 160. We couldn't find a 181 equipped and in the condition we wanted in our price range, so we decided to get something a bit older but with the performance and avionics we wanted.

Ultimately, though, it depends on your mission. If you are doing short flights with two people out of a comfortably sized airfield the 150 horsepower engine will probably do what you need.

Keep in mind not all STCs for 10hp on the PA28-151 add to the gross weight--be sure to check that before assuming the 160hp has a higher useful load. That said, even if they both carry the same load, you'll feel better in the 160hp version when you take off on a hot day!

As far as cruise performance, the difference will likely be only a couple knots.

Still, before deciding, I'd suggest flying a 180hp model, either a -180 or -181 and checking out the numbers on each and how they fit your mission. For my partners and I it was worth the small premium to get a lot more useful load and a bit more speed.
 
Henning said:
Incorrect. That system is not a tuned Scavenging system.
Click to expand...

We have a guy on the field with a 180 with power flow "scavenging system" ,performance numbers are not any better than my Gen 2 stock Piper muffler.
Issues I have with all this performance stuff is if I bought it all and put it on my ol' Cherokee would do what? 165 kts? Right:wink2:
I think if the Power flow was better than the new stock pipes ,they would offer it on the newer Cherokee's, Warriors, Archers Dakota's
IMHO
 
el con said:
We have a guy on the field with a 180 with power flow "scavenging system" ,performance numbers are not any better than my Gen 2 stock Piper muffler.
Issues I have with all this performance stuff is if I bought it all and put it on my ol' Cherokee would do what? 165 kts? Right:wink2:
I think if the Power flow was better than the new stock pipes ,they would offer it on the newer Cherokee's, Warriors, Archers Dakota's
IMHO
Click to expand...

No, what horsepower does is give you a better rate of climb. You need to square your horsepower to double your speed, so small increases in HP do very little to your speed.
 
Henning said:
No, what horsepower does is give you a better rate of climb. You need to square your horsepower to double your speed, so small increases in HP do very little to your speed.
Click to expand...


agreed. Wind resistance is huge at airplane speeds. that's why a 180HP mooney is so much faster than a 180HP cherokee. It's also why 300HP mooneys don't fly twice as fast as mine.
 
Henning said:
No, what horsepower does is give you a better rate of climb. You need to square your horsepower to double your speed, so small increases in HP do very little to your speed.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, though I didn't notice when flying in it that it climbed any better (or worse) than mine.
Seems more like a way to scavenge dollars out of you savings account, then again just MHO. Might be a great thing if you were just 1ft higher than a 50ft. tree on take off instead of 1ft. below:wink2:
 
el con said:
Makes sense, though I didn't notice when flying in it that it climbed any better (or worse) than mine.
Seems more like a way to scavenge dollars out of you savings account, then again just MHO. Might be a great thing if you were just 1ft higher than a 50ft. tree on take off instead of 1ft. below:wink2:
Click to expand...

For equal speed at equal EGT you should also see a fuel savings with the tuned exhaust. The biggest speed and economy boost item per $ you can do to a plane is gap seals for the control surfaces. They can be done as simply as gluing in strips of sail cloth, anything to prevent the flow of air from bottom to top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top