Piper virgin

[Bonchie]

Typical 160 HP 172 numbers are 850 lb useful load and 750 FPM climb at sea level at max gross on a standard day at Vy.

I find 160 HP 172s and Warriors to be nearly identical in performance, unless something is wrong with them. It won't haul more. It's the same.

No comment on the price, but I'd expect that's a much stronger function of the panel and condition than the model.

Whatever. My experience checking into a flying club with an M model with a 160 was that they were in the high 700 range. Sounded low but who am I to argue with them? It's their plane.

And keep in mind, I said "regular 172." I didn't specify HP. In my experience, the 150HP models are what's usually sitting out there on the rental line and Warriors are comparable in price to those planes. The Cherokee 140s are cheaper then both usually.

160HP 172s, panels being nearly equal, almost always go for more then Warriors from my research. Or let me re-phrase that, they are typically listed for more. I can't comment on actual sales numbers.

 

[Bonchie]

I learned mostly on cessna's also. I have both cessna and piper now. I still don't like the system for steering on piper. I flew the piper yesterday nonstop from west Texas to the Tampa Florida area. When I left texas wind wasn't blowing to bad which is unusual there, but, florida had almost direct crosswind 18 gusting to 30 kts. I had bunch of rudder trim in and pedals were so stiff I could barely hold plane straight when nose wheel touched even though I was taking out trim as fast as I could. Love the plane but hate that part. Flew a warrior on ifr training and didn't seem to bother as much but I don't think I was in much wind. My experience in Texas is wind blows fairly hard often. Go fly few pipers and see if you even like them.

You'd be the first person I've ever heard say that the Piper handles worse then a Cessna in wind. But there's a first for everything.

Landing in 18G30 with a 90* crosswind in a Cherokee...you've got balls

 

[FlyingMonkey]

With the useful load you want to carry it sounds like you'd be looking at more than a Cherokee 180, especially if you'll be in high DA situations. I just got a 73 piper challenger 180 but my girls are all small and will remain so (their mom's genetics!).

Also forget about the Grumman tiger. The rear cargo area is way too small for a family of 4 to carry all their baggage. I flew one and really
Liked it but that cargo area is tiny. They have a really loyal fan/user base.

 

[RyanB]

A video I enjoyed watching, a passionate owner and a beautiful airplane. This may give you an idea of what a cherokee six is like.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVz1dv3wCE

 

[simtech]

I have a Cherokee 180 and we love it. Ive only flown 150/172's in training but when I flew in my buddies warrior I loved it! I have 1059lbs useful load and my serial number falls in to an expanded CG envelope. The other day I flew to Memphis with full fuel, Me my wife, and a buddy in the back seat. At Vy I had just over a 1000FPM climb. I climb way better than my warrior buddy, even he noticed it flying, but we agree we are about the same cruise speed.

The one door thing, meh, I haven't complained about it yet. The back seat is rather tight but I don't plan on being back there. haha The fuel pump and the fuel management isn't that bad. I fly for one hour on one side, switch to the other for two hours, and then back to the first tank for an hour. At that point I have 30 minutes fuel left in each tank. So start a timer when you start up. But doing a circle to land approach in a piper is WAY better than a Cessna, because you can see the runway the whole maneuver. You wont be disappointed with a piper.

 

[red4golf]

I have about 125 hours split between a Warrior and an Arrow and I like them both. I like the C172 (200 hours) for sightseeing and ease of entry over the Piper line but enjoy the way the Piper handles the bumps.

In other words, fly one and see if you like it. I bet you will....

 

[jonnyjetprop]

http://www.piperforum.com

http://cherokeechat.org

Both groups are free to join.

 

[Henning]

With loads like you described I don't think a Warrior would do it. Minimum 180 hp, I think, and 235 hp would work fine.

As others have suggested, look for the versions with the extended fuselage and cabin.

So these would be the candidates:

180 hp:
1973 PA-28-180 Cherokee Challenger
1974-75 PA-28-180 Cherokee Archer
1976-90 PA-28-181 Archer II (tapered wings)

235 hp:
1973 PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger
1974-77 PA-28-235 Cherokee Pathfinder

There was no 235 hp model for 1978. The taper-wing PA-28-236 Dakota came out in 1979, and it's a great airplane, but prices are considerably higher than for the earlier models. Earlier 235s can run on auto fuel; Dakotas cannot. Usable fuel capacity in the Dakota was reduced from 84 to 72 gallons.

That is the one I would be looking for, but with the family mission, I think a 182 would serve him better with 2 doors and high wing shelter availability.

 

[Henning]

Whatever. My experience checking into a flying club with an M model with a 160 was that they were in the high 700 range. Sounded low but who am I to argue with them? It's their plane.

And keep in mind, I said "regular 172." I didn't specify HP. In my experience, the 150HP models are what's usually sitting out there on the rental line and Warriors are comparable in price to those planes. The Cherokee 140s are cheaper then both usually.

160HP 172s, panels being nearly equal, almost always go for more then Warriors from my research. Or let me re-phrase that, they are typically listed for more. I can't comment on actual sales numbers.

The 172 brings a premium because it's easier to get in and out of as you get older, and older people are more likely to be buyers. There comes a point in life where ease and convenience trumps the fighter pilot fantasy.

 

[bflynn]

Just re-reading and saw a missed post abou two growing kids. For long term, you can pretty much rule out the Warriors and maybe even archers. They're nice, but they are not four place airplanes unless your average weight is in the 175 range. Great for you, wife and small kids but as they grow you're going to push against gross wgt v

 

[Jim_R]

Just re-reading and saw a missed post abou two growing kids. For long term, you can pretty much rule out the Warriors and maybe even archers. They're nice, but they are not four place airplanes unless your average weight is in the 175 range. Great for you, wife and small kids but as they grow you're going to push against gross wgt v

+1. I have a '73 Challenger and useful load is about 900 lbs. Full fuel is 300#; to the tabs is 204#, leaving about 600 or 700# for passengers and luggage. I can find a way to carry almost any combo of 3 adults and luggage on trips, but 4 twenty-first century American adults is not really practical for anything other than short sightseeing flights with an empty luggage bay and light fuel load (and the cabin gets kinda cramped then, too).

Warriors have less useful load than 180s/Archers. Great for a couple, bad choice for a family.

 

[OkieAviator]

You would have to learn fuel management as there is no Both setting.

I swap tanks in my 172, for whatever reason on both they don't drain evenly. I still use both for takeoffs and landings though.

 

[Henning]

I swap tanks in my 172, for whatever reason on both they don't drain evenly. I still use both for takeoffs and landings though.

It's due to the way the vent system is plumbed. If it isn't causing a handling problem, don't worry about it, it won't shut down your engine.

 

[FlyBoyAndy]

My original training was in a Tomahawk (I know) and then went on to a C172 later. I then joined a club that had a C182 and a Warrior 161. I really liked the Warrior and thought it was easier to land than the C172 or C182. I would have loved to move on to an Archer. I am currently flying a C182 and still would love to go back to a Piper, but something a little faster.

Pump and gas are the only things that I had to think about.

 

[kgruber]

I learned mostly on cessna's also. I have both cessna and piper now. I still don't like the system for steering on piper. I flew the piper yesterday nonstop from west Texas to the Tampa Florida area. When I left texas wind wasn't blowing to bad which is unusual there, but, florida had almost direct crosswind 18 gusting to 30 kts. I had bunch of rudder trim in and pedals were so stiff I could barely hold plane straight when nose wheel touched even though I was taking out trim as fast as I could. Love the plane but hate that part. Flew a warrior on ifr training and didn't seem to bother as much but I don't think I was in much wind. My experience in Texas is wind blows fairly hard often. Go fly few pipers and see if you even like them.

What? you were messing with the rudder trim during a landing roll?

Maybe you need to hit the gym. I've had hundreds of students in Cherokees, (GI Bill 1977) and never had ONE who had your trouble.

Cherokees are widely known for their good behavior in crosswinds.

 

[Henning]

What? you were messing with the rudder trim during a landing roll?

Maybe you need to hit the gym. I've had hundreds of students in Cherokees, (GI Bill 1977) and never had ONE who had your trouble.

Cherokees are widely known for their good behavior in crosswinds.

I was trying to figure out why the rudder trim was in to begin with.

 

[Theboys]

Well my piper is actually not a Cherokee, although I have flown them. I fly a malibu mostly. Seems to like trim on approach. It handles fine in the air. I just don't like ground steering. Pedals are really touchy.

 

[Henning]

There's no plane that doesn't like trim on approach.

 

[Bonchie]

What? you were messing with the rudder trim during a landing roll?

Maybe you need to hit the gym. I've had hundreds of students in Cherokees, (GI Bill 1977) and never had ONE who had your trouble.

Cherokees are widely known for their good behavior in crosswinds.

I'm sure he had lost most, if not all, rudder authority at that point. X-Wind limit for me in a Cherokee is 15 knots and that's pushing it. Gusting 30? Yeah, hell no. I'm not even sure it's possible.

 

[Henning]

I'm sure he had lost most, if not all, rudder authority at that point. X-Wind limit for me in a Cherokee is 15 knots and that's pushing it. Gusting 30? Yeah, hell no. I'm not even sure it's possible.

Pretty much every Cherokee I've flown runs out of rudder around a 25kt crosswind component. After that you're yawing off centerline like it or not. If it's gusty, and I have plenty of runway, I just add some throttle and float down until the gust subsides and put it down as it swings to center.

 

[rocketflyer84]

Pretty much every Cherokee I've flown runs out of rudder around a 25kt crosswind component. After that you're yawing off centerline like it or not. If it's gusty, and I have plenty of runway, I just add some throttle and float down until the gust subsides and put it down as it swings to center.

Agreed... Recently had winds nothing like 25kt crosswind compontent and had the pedal to the floor. Good thigh workout!

An actual sustain 30kt crosswind is I think not even possible baring some crazy acrobatics.

Generally though I really like the Warrior and Archer.

 

[Henning]

Agreed... Recently had winds nothing like 25kt crosswind compontent and had the pedal to the floor. Good thigh workout!

An actual sustain 30kt crosswind is I think not even possible baring some crazy acrobatics.

No such thing. You can almost always buy 15° (unless it's an unusually narrow runway) by approaching at an angle to the runway. If I have to abort 2 tries though, I just call the tower or whoever answers at the airport and ask if they mind if I land on a perpendicular taxiway or ramp. Not once have I not gotten back an "at pilot discretion" clearance/permission. Once you start getting the steady state winds above 30, your landing distances get pretty short in most GA planes.

One thing to remember in ugly conditions. Tricycle gear will self align to the inertia. Most planes you will not break them with some crab in the touchdown. The mistake people will make is to drop the nose gear in this process, and that upsets the apple cart by destabilizing the inertia. Hold the yoke back until you swing in alignment, then set the nose down.

 

[Bonchie]

Pretty much every Cherokee I've flown runs out of rudder around a 25kt crosswind component. After that you're yawing off centerline like it or not. If it's gusty, and I have plenty of runway, I just add some throttle and float down until the gust subsides and put it down as it swings to center.

I'm not gonna argue with you, but 25 knots is a hell of a crosswind for a Hershey bar Cherokee. I've flown other low wings with 25 knot X-wind limits, but the 140 and Warriors I've flown can't do that safely. I wouldn't touch gusting 30. All it takes is one strong gust.

 

[Henning]

I'm not gonna argue with you, but 25 knots is a hell of a crosswind for a Hershey bar Cherokee. I've flown other low wings with 25 knot X-wind limits, but the 140 and Warriors I've flown can't do that safely. I wouldn't touch gusting 30. All it takes is one strong gust.

It is. One interesting thing though. I was ferrying in a 28-180 into Wilkes Barre for the new owner, and he video taped me in a reported 25kt direct x-wind. I did a full cross control landing, and I still had a ton of room between the wing tip and runway, way more than I would have suspected.

 

[MAKG1]

One thing to remember in ugly conditions. Tricycle gear will self align to the inertia. Most planes you will not break them with some crab in the touchdown. The mistake people will make is to drop the nose gear in this process, and that upsets the apple cart by destabilizing the inertia. Hold the yoke back until you swing in alignment, then set the nose down.

On two wheels with a strong crosswind?

What keeps the airplane from weathervaning?

My own experience with soft field takeoffs in much smaller (~10 knot) direct crosswinds is that the airplane really wants to align with the relative wind, rather than the runway, on two wheels, and it takes a huge amount of rudder to counter that. At touchdown, you would have ~45 knots down the runway, plus 30 knots crosswind, so the airplane would want to point some 40 deg off straight ahead.

 

[rocketflyer84]

No such thing. You can almost always buy 15° (unless it's an unusually narrow runway) by approaching at an angle to the runway. If I have to abort 2 tries though, I just call the tower or whoever answers at the airport and ask if they mind if I land on a perpendicular taxiway or ramp. Not once have I not gotten back an "at pilot discretion" clearance/permission. Once you start getting the steady state winds above 30, your landing distances get pretty short in most GA planes.

One thing to remember in ugly conditions. Tricycle gear will self align to the inertia. Most planes you will not break them with some crab in the touchdown. The mistake people will make is to drop the nose gear in this process, and that upsets the apple cart by destabilizing the inertia. Hold the yoke back until you swing in alignment, then set the nose down.

Don't disagree although at winds that high not coming straight down the runway wind sheer is really starting to be more of a concern for me than crosswind.

 

[Henning]

On two wheels with a strong crosswind?

What keeps the airplane from weathervaning?

My own experience with soft field takeoffs in much smaller (~10 knot) direct crosswinds is that the airplane really wants to align with the relative wind, rather than the runway, on two wheels, and it takes a huge amount of rudder to counter that. At touchdown, you would have ~45 knots down the runway, plus 30 knots crosswind, so the airplane would want to point some 40 deg off straight ahead.

The geometry of the gear to the CG as acted upon by inertia. You're on the rudder still. Just don't touch the nose down until it aligns.

 

[cowman]

Hey Archer II owner here. Feel free to ask me anything.

I bought my plane almost 2 years ago halfway through my training(before I'd only flown 172s). Transition... mind you as a a still student pilot who had just soloed in a 172... was nothing. Boost pump, carb heat, manual flaps, remember to switch fuel tanks... not a huge diff on systems, approach speeds are just a bit higher. It is overall an easier airplane to fly... just more responsive, more forgiving in a stall, more forgiving on landings too. Not a massive difference but noticeable. Also it's great to see the runway the entire time you're making turns in the pattern.

My first annual where we ironed out all the little new airplane problems was close to $3,000. My second annual was actually under $1000 but followed up almost immediately by a mag failure(on the ground) that cost just under $1500 installed.

My airplane usually settles out at around 120kts indicated in cruise. On a typical long haul flight I plan 10gph fuel burn and usually come out a bit under that. On a practice flight around the pattern or sightseeing with the throttle back I actually have seen a bit under 8. Fuel tanks hold 48 usable.

My useful load is 1004#. With full tanks I have 716# left. Tabs(34 usable) leaves me with 800# and 3.4hrs of fuel... I always fly with at least 1hr reserve so a little over a 2 hour flight. With full tanks I try to keep legs to 3 hours... I've got the fuel but not the bladder capacity.

So if you and your wife are 300#, you'd have 416# left for your kids and cargo in my plane with full fuel. Sounds entirely doable. I don't know of many(or any) airplanes that can beat the Archer on useful load on 10gph or less fuel burn. Most anything that can haul more is going to have 6cylinders, a CS prop, and 12-15gph or worse fuel burn.

 

[Henning]

Here's a consideration with that whole "Seeing the runway the whole way around the pattern, it has you looking the wrong direction.

Think about it. The runway isn't going anywhere, you don't need to see it, it's not going to smack into you by surprise. However the same is not true for the other direction. The Ouside of your turn is where you need to be looking for traffic,my ecause that is where you are going to get hit from in a pattern accident most likely. That last quick ook up extended final as you turn from base to final could be the one that saves your life.

 

[cowman]

The runway isn't going anywhere

You sound like a CFI I flew with.. definitely developed the habit as a student when I transitioned of using the window instead of the DG to know when to turn.

And true that you wouldn't see someone coming from the "up wing" side. On the other hand, you might see someone you wouldn't in a 172 on the down wing side too.... it's always a tradeoff.

 

[Henning]

You sound like a CFI I flew with.. definitely developed the habit as a student when I transitioned of using the window instead of the DG to know when to turn.

And true that you wouldn't see someone coming from the "up wing" side. On the other hand, you might see someone you wouldn't in a 172 on the down wing side too.... it's always a tradeoff.

Yep, in the pattern it's out the window. When I am making my turn to final, I am not looking at the runway to judge the turn, I am looking at the aim point where I want my turn to complete.

I don't disparage either high or low, it's just good to understand the limitations of them to guard against.

 

[MAKG1]

The Ouside of your turn is where you need to be looking for traffic,my ecause that is where you are going to get hit from in a pattern accident most likely. That last quick ook up extended final as you turn from base to final could be the one that saves your life.

Not always.

At least around here, either noise abatement or parallel runways usually puts patterns in both directions on the same side of the airport. Someone taking off in the opposite direction you intend on landing is going to come from the runway side and hit you.

Now, looking up extended final is still a really good idea. So is looking up the other final. And the opposing 45.

 

[Henning]

Not always.

At least around here, either noise abatement or parallel runways usually puts patterns in both directions on the same side of the airport. Someone taking off in the opposite direction you intend on landing is going to come from the runway side and hit you.

Now, looking up extended final is still a really good idea. So is looking up the other final. And the opposing 45.

Remember, this all only counts during the period of transition, you should have had a full scope of the situation before turn anyway, so the overall difference is negligible. It's kinda like looking both ways when you cross a street, if you do a good job of it, it doesn't really matter which way you look first, however one way provides a slight statistical advantage. In this case flying it's because one way the viewing area concentrates, and one way the viewing area expands, with distance.

If you really want to have fun in the pattern, get a biplane, you get the disadvantages of both with the advantages of neither. The only thing you have going for you is that the plane drops twice as fast as either, so you fly really tight, steep, patterns. This way your assured that in any mated landing, you will always be 'the top'.

 

[deyoung]

I don't know of many(or any) airplanes that can beat the Archer on useful load on 10gph or less fuel burn. Most anything that can haul more is going to have 6cylinders, a CS prop, and 12-15gph or worse fuel burn.

True, given that fuel burn. In my -235 I can get the fuel burn down to around 11 gph if I lean well and am willing to give up a few knots, but that's about as low as I can do. If you really want to squeeze out those last few knots of possible speed, the fuel cost starts to become non-linear....

But, my trade for that is 1350# load, which I have been glad for here and there. (Not always because I have to carry that much; also because 1350# useful means that if I only have 800# I can still take off from a 10,500 DA airport.)

 

[Henning]

True, given that fuel burn. In my -235 I can get the fuel burn down to around 11 gph if I lean well and am willing to give up a few knots, but that's about as low as I can do. If you really want to squeeze out those last few knots of possible speed, the fuel cost starts to become non-linear....

But, my trade for that is 1350# load, which I have been glad for here and there. (Not always because I have to carry that much; also because 1350# useful means that if I only have 800# I can still take off from a 10,500 DA airport.)

They are always non linear. From L/D max on, doubling the airspeed squares the power required.

 

[paflyer]

The 172 brings a premium because it's easier to get in and out of as you get older, and older people are more likely to be buyers. There comes a point in life where ease and convenience trumps the fighter pilot fantasy.

But then the older buyers find they can't get/keep a medical without jumping through all kinds of idiotic loop$.

 

[Henning]

But then the older buyers find they can't get/keep a medical without jumping through all kinds of idiotic loop$.

That is not true for the majority. I know lots of guys who held a medical the day the died as old men. Usually you will lose your ability before you lose your medical especially if you have a long standing relationship with your AME who is also an aging pilot. There are AMEs out there who will pencil whip a medical to keep you flying, same as an IA with an annual. Besides, that whole dynamic is fixing to take a big swing anyway. I predict a strong market for modernized 172s when the Third Class starts at 6000lbs GW and up.

 

[paflyer]

I predict a strong market for modernized 172s when the Third Class starts at 6000lbs GW and up.

You're more optimistic than I am. And probably a lot younger.

 

[Henning]

You're more optimistic than I am. And probably a lot younger.

Probably should have said stronger, it'll never be strong again. The technology for GA is about to be replaced.

 

[ahkahn]

Probably should have said stronger, it'll never be strong again. The technology for GA is about to be replaced.

What do you mean by that, Henning? ADS-B?

To answer OP's question, I am a Cessna guy that purchased a Piper. There are a few differences that I picked up... but otherwise, it's an airplane.

First difference is that in a Cessna where your instructor always taught you to flare to the stars, stall horn, and lay the mains down gently is totally out the window. That is a Cessna technique. When I transitioned to my Lance I felt like I was landing flat. Completely flat. I have terrible landings when I revert back to my old training and "flare" it... but when I feel like I am landing flat, I grease them.

Second is small, but an FYI. The amp gauge in Cessnas reads "0" which shows discharge/overcharge. In a Piper, it shows generation draw. So, if you see "0" in a Cessna, that is good. If you see "0" in a Piper, that is a big problem!

Third difference is the ground steering difference. Cessnas almost feel like power steering compared to a Piper. You do get used to it. The difference is that Piper uses a solid pushrod from the pedals whereas a Cessna uses springs and cables. On this one, I'm not sure if this is across the entire line or if it's just on PA-32's, but mine took a few hours to get used to. I was all over the place in the beginning.

Otherwise, now that I have many hours in both, I find that I prefer the low-wing. It's more comfortable, feels more solid, and looks good. I wouldn't call myself a fanboy for either Piper or Cessna, because both are great airplanes.

I hope this helps!