Switching Trainers,172 to Warrior,PIREPS?

B

bigblockz8

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
429
Display Name
Display name:
Gore
I looked for a thread but couldn't find one so here it is. I'm swapping trainers and I was wondering if there is anything special about the Warrior? I LOVE the cockpit, I feel more like a pilot in it. Other than different V speeds and WB is there anything special?

When I left C172SP's (really just a 172S) with glass for "ancient" 172P's I had a bit of a shock. I left leather seats,airbags, G1000,2700 rpm,2550lbs, a long checklist, and fuel injection for duct taped varying colored seats, a six pack, a temperamental engine, cracks and dings everywhere, and a basic GPS. No big deal. I've come to love the old and simple. The trouble that I had was something called "carb heat" and "priming." I also was confused about the "lack" of power (20hp difference) and "lack" of weight (about 150lbs plus the feeling of a huge aircraft). I understand that the 172 has rather "sloppy" stall characteristics but nothing that will kill you (as in a bit forgiving). I feel like the 172 is a truck sometimes.

Aircraft switching to: 1978 PA-28-161

Are there any notable changes? Any tricks or warnings about what to watch out for?

So far I have these:

  • Preflight-basic changes in procedure, I like the low wing.
  • Visibility (Can't look behind or directly under)
  • Stability in stalls
  • Procedures, a given
From what I understand the Warrior is "better" by all accounts. What's the good and bad?

I just don't want another culture shock or flying like it's another plane incidents.
 
Last edited:
You didn't say what model or year Warrior. The early Warriors were 150HP. I have a 76' Warrior with 160HP upgrade and really enjoy it. In the end it is an airplane and will fly like one. The flaps are manually deployed with the Johnson bar, which I tend to like. When you cut the throttle you're coming down. Enjoy and have fun.
 
With the Warrior you will have to deal with the electrically-driven auxiliary fuel pump. In a Cessna, gravity moves fuel from the tanks to the engine; in a Warrior the trip is uphill. An engine-driven pump handles the task during normal operations, but in case it decides to take the rest of the day off at a bad time, the aux pump is turned on for take-off and landing, and when switching fuel tanks.

Which brings up the other major difference -- in a Warrior you run on the left tank or the right tank, but not both at the same time. This requires some planning and awareness on the part of the pilot not only as to how much fuel there is, but where it is. Fly too long without switching tanks and your arm gets tired holding the aileron against the heavy wing; fly much too long without switching tanks and things get very quiet long before you expect it.

Warrior's handling is very much like a 172, but the smaller flaps don't have as much effect as the Cessna's barn doors. You will probably like the manual flap operation, though.

bigblockz8 said:
From what I understand the Warrior is "better" by all accounts.
Click to expand...

They're both good airplanes, just different. Chocolate and vanilla.

Enjoy.
 
EppyGA said:
You didn't say what model or year Warrior. The early Warriors were 150HP. I have a 76' Warrior with 160HP upgrade and really enjoy it. In the end it is an airplane and will fly like one. The flaps are manually deployed with the Johnson bar, which I tend to like. When you cut the throttle you're coming down. Enjoy and have fun.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that! I added it, thanks. I do hate the 172's flaps since the notches are all worn out on the ones I fly. I get scolded if I look at the flap indicator, 20 degrees midfield and 30 on base it is I guess :( Hard to do in chop.

I haven't flown it yet but I was wondering about flaps. I enjoyed a ride in a 172N with the 40 degree flaps, talk about SLOW flight!
 
Pilawt said:
With the Warrior you will have to deal with the electrically-driven auxiliary fuel pump. In a Cessna, gravity moves fuel from the tanks to the engine; in a Warrior the trip is uphill. An engine-driven pump handles the task during normal operations, but in case it decides to take the rest of the day off at a bad time, the aux pump is turned on for take-off and landing, and when switching fuel tanks.

Which brings up the other major difference -- in a Warrior you run on the left tank or the right tank, but not both at the same time. This requires some planning and awareness on the part of the pilot not only as to how much fuel there is, but where it is. Fly too long without switching tanks and your arm gets tired holding the aileron against the heavy wing; fly much too long without switching tanks and things get very quiet long before you expect it.

Warrior's handling is very much like a 172, but the smaller flaps don't have as much effect as the Cessna's barn doors. You will probably like the manual flap operation, though.



They're both good airplanes, just different. Chocolate and vanilla.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information! I will definitely note that. I like the swapping tank design, better fuel management/awareness, at least in theory. I also like the aux. pump so far, free insurance.
 
I'd be more concerned with finding yourself an instructor you can work with then what the airplane is. That is what is holding you back. Who cares what the airplane is.

Personally I'd rather be flying a 172P. Or any model 172 for that matter. But it's not going to really make a difference in your training. As an instructor low wing pipers can be a little annoying because it's hard to teach someone good rudder control and nearly every piper only pilot I've flown with has no clue what rudder is as a result.
 
bigblockz8 said:
Thanks for the information! I will definitely note that. I like the swapping tank design, better fuel management/awareness, at least in theory. I also like the aux. pump so far, free insurance.
Click to expand...
It's not free insurance. It's complexity. The 172 system is by far simpler and doesn't depend on pumps.

Lose the mechanical fuel pump and the electrical system at the same time and you're going down in the Cherokee.
 
jesse said:
It's not free insurance. It's complexity. The 172 system is by far simpler and doesn't depend on pumps.

Lose the mechanical fuel pump and the electrical system at the same time and you're going down in the Cherokee.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah :yikes:
 
jesse said:
I'd be more concerned with finding yourself an instructor you can work with then what the airplane is. That is what is holding you back. Who cares what the airplane is.

Personally I'd rather be flying a 172P. Or any model 172 for that matter. But it's not going to really make a difference in your training. As an instructor low wing pipers can be a little annoying because it's hard to teach someone good rudder control and nearly every piper only pilot I've flown with has no clue what rudder is as a result.
Click to expand...

What makes it hard to teach rudder control? I can only think about not being able to slip to 5ft above the runway and kick it and seeing out the peripheral that you are aligned as well as that slight deck angle messing up center line. My inexperienced guess is the low wing and smaller rudder?
 
bigblockz8 said:
What makes it hard to teach rudder control? I can only think about not being able to slip to 5ft above the runway and kick it and seeing out the peripheral that you are aligned as well as that slight deck angle messing up center line. My inexperienced guess is the low wing and smaller rudder?
Click to expand...
They just don't need much rudder in turns and they're easier to land imo. (and I teach in both types)
 
My experience so far has been kind of weird. I started in a 1965 C172F for about 6 hours, then went to a 1979 Archer PA-28-181 for 29 hours, now I've been back in the 172F for the last 12 hours. When I switched from the Skyhawk to the Archer at first, I was overjoyed and I really felt like I was able to progress better through my training. However, when I switched from the Archer back to the Skyhawk, I didn't feel like there was any difference at all, other than the obvious things...

Skyhawk pros:
Can see down easily during ground reference maneuvers.
Easy to leave fuel selector on BOTH and forget about it.
No extra step for the electric fuel pump.
Easier to get vent air on my face (I'm in Florida).
Two doors is kind of nice, not s huge deal, though.
I prefer the way the brake axis works on the pedals over the Archer's "hanging" pedals.

Archer pros:
Flaps are ridiculously simple.
Better vision for everything except ground reference maneuvers.
Easier landings due to earlier ground effect? (? since I am not sure I notice this very much...not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't feel like it was as much of a help as I had been led to believe it would be)
Slightly easier to taxi since nose wheel is directly connected to pedals (this made an impression when I switched to the Archer, but I haven't missed it since I switched back to the Skyhawk).

To me, both feel like very solid trainers that handle in very predictable and (I would hazard to say) similar ways.
 
You better keep your feet on the rudder a PA28 can yaw dart that's about the biggest thing you need to worry about with it. For the most part the rudder is a non-event in a cherokee except in a stiff crosswind and they handle crosswinds better IMHO, My old one at least will run out of rudder in a really stiff crosswind if im not a touch hot coming in but it's much more forgiving than the cessna 150 I used to fly. Stalls are a non-event. Cherokees tend to be nose heavy and "harder" to keep the nose off the ground when landing if coming from a cessna. I like the wider wheel stance on the cherokee over the spring steel cessnas, the johnson bar flaps are superior to the electric motor ones on the cessnas. The cherokee flaps arent as effective as cessnas, even for the same setting. For me at least, the cessna overs a better view. Transition time for being signed off to solo a cherokee was 1hr. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. for training, it won't make a bit of difference except as Jesse said, you might get rudder lazy and not really appreciate a stall, though I've found a 172 stall to be docile compared to a C150 stall.
 
bigblockz8 said:
Thanks for the information! I will definitely note that. I like the swapping tank design, better fuel management/awareness, at least in theory. I also like the aux. pump so far, free insurance.
Click to expand...

Tank swapping tip... Refer to the panel mounted clock to track which tank to run on. Refer to the minute hand. :01 to :30, the right tank. :31 to :00, the left tank.

Other main differences:
• trim wheel in a more normal spot. Easier to remember which direction to move it to move the nose.
• Johnson bar flaps. I like the positive click and that I can control the rate of change.
• really good vis for flying. Trade off to poor downward sightseeing.
• nice handling. Once your proficient, you can get into and out of short fields really well. When dead on the approach speed, it takes very little runway to land and roll out.
• Absolutely no graceful way to exit. Your going to miss that LH door.
 
jesse said:
They just don't need much rudder in turns and they're easier to land imo. (and I teach in both types)
Click to expand...

Funny I learned in a Cezzna and have way more hours in a Cherokee, I find the Cessna easier to make good landings in but the cherokee easier to put down in a crosswind. With 200hrs in mine I still sometimes come in flat. I wish it had 40degrees of flap that works as well as the old cessna 150s.
 
I did my first 10 hours in a 172 and then bought a Cherokee 140 to finish my training. It was not a hard transition. The Cherokee does not float like a 172. When you pull the power it is going to drop to the runway. It is not a problem, once you get used to it. It is happier if you cross the numbers with a little power, then you can manage it a little better. The Cherokee is an easy plane to fly.
 
I won't mind not being able to look up too much. I will worry about looking down once in the pattern.

Heres a pic from the 172 in the DC SFRA. "Cessna 0GE traffic alert! Traffic is two miles at your 8 o'clock,KC135 at 1500 report them in sight!" We moved the wing, nothing! My CFI told me to turn, we turned, I took a pic. The picture does it no justice, scary a bit when you see it like that
251218_236792003001346_100000116446482_1142186_2575369_n.jpg


Here's a no issue traffic find
246903_236792159667997_100000116446482_1142191_5320005_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
You get "scolded" for visually confirming you put a flight control in the correct position?

(Bang head here...)
 
denverpilot said:
You get "scolded" for visually confirming you put a flight control in the correct position?

(Bang head here...)
Click to expand...
I know someone is going to take this the wrong way, but I'm gonna write it anyhow:

Sometimes students will dedicate WAY too much time to visually verify something that doesn't matter. As a result they spend too much effort trying to figure out if they're set to 20 or 30 degrees of flaps and in reality it doesn't matter.

I've told at least one student that it doesn't matter if they're at 20 or 30 degrees of flaps right now, and their focus on that is causing them to blow through final towards the parallel with the 747.

I teach students to apply some flaps abeam touchdown point on downwind, some more flaps on base, and the rest on final. Then later I tell them it doesn't matter and to do whatever it takes to get an airplane to do what you want. Eventually I end up with students that can actually fly the airplane instead of repeating the procedure people get slammed into their head which is generally always:
Abeam touchdown point
1. carb heat on
2. power 1700
3. flaps 10
4. turn base after runway is 30 to 45 degrees behind them
5. flaps 20.
6. turn final.
7. flaps 30. or 40.

The dependence on the above procedure, slammed into the majority of students out there, is pretty alarming sometimes. I've seen some pilots that simply cannot adapt to a change and just have to keep doing go-arounds until their procedure (above) works.

There is a place for procedure and visual verification of precise details and there are places where it's not critical and holds one back.

One should make sure the flaps are retracted on the touch and go, and it's surprising to me how many people check the flap position indicator instead of the best way, which is to just look at the damn wing. It's way more reliable :)
 
Heh. Fair enough. I know that I was trained to look outside and then got lazy and somewhere stopped doing it.

During a night flight a couple summers ago I did a T&G and they didn't come up.

I had enough runway left to plant it and deal with it off the runway, but it could have been more hair raising.

(Without getting into the T&G or full-stop at night debate.)

I went back to my original training and look outside now.

I guess I hadn't thought about students doing the confirmation really really slowly, but stopping the look altogether seems just a touch too far unless you're just building their confidence that they won't fall out of the sky if they keep airspeed up. ;)

I don't envy you guys having to figure out if you're breaking bad habits or good ones!! :) :) :)
 
bigblockz8 said:
I looked for a thread but couldn't find one so here it is. I'm swapping trainers and I was wondering if there is anything special about the Warrior? I LOVE the cockpit, I feel more like a pilot in it. Other than different V speeds and WB is there anything special?

When I left C172SP's (really just a 172S) with glass for "ancient" 172P's I had a bit of a shock. I left leather seats,airbags, G1000,2700 rpm,2550lbs, a long checklist, and fuel injection for duct taped varying colored seats, a six pack, a temperamental engine, cracks and dings everywhere, and a basic GPS. No big deal. I've come to love the old and simple. The trouble that I had was something called "carb heat" and "priming." I also was confused about the "lack" of power (20hp difference) and "lack" of weight (about 150lbs plus the feeling of a huge aircraft). I understand that the 172 has rather "sloppy" stall characteristics but nothing that will kill you (as in a bit forgiving). I feel like the 172 is a truck sometimes.

Aircraft switching to: 1978 PA-28-161

Are there any notable changes? Any tricks or warnings about what to watch out for?

So far I have these:

  • Preflight-basic changes in procedure, I like the low wing.
  • Visibility (Can't look behind or directly under)
  • Stability in stalls
  • Procedures, a given
From what I understand the Warrior is "better" by all accounts. What's the good and bad?

I just don't want another culture shock or flying like it's another plane incidents.
Click to expand...

fwiw - most of my primary training was in the 172 with 10 hours in the warrior before my checkride. It really wasn't that hard to deal with the difference.

Note that my primary CFI made sure that I used different 172's with different W&B configurations in order to make sure I didn't get too used to a particular aircraft.

From what I remember, the biggest thing was learning the different emergency checklists. Twenty-plus years later and I still can remember the 172 engine-out checklist better than for my cherokee 140 even though I haven't flown a 172 in more than 20 years.
 
I've never heard anyone describe the 172s stall as sloppy, it's about the most docile stall you will find in a trainer.
 
AggieMike88 said:
• really good vis for flying. Trade off to poor downward sightseeing.
Click to expand...
So we were flying a couple of days ago and my CFI says, "OK, right now we're directly over North O (3NO). Know how I know that?"

I made the mistake of saying that, no, I dind't know. About half a second later we're at a 60 degree bank to the right and I'm looking directly at the 3NO runway from 1400 AGL...

Once I got my heart rate back down I had to agree that the Cherokee was just fine for sightseeing, if you also like roller coasters. :)
 
DavidWhite said:
I've never heard anyone describe the 172s stall as sloppy, it's about the most docile stall you will find in a trainer.
Click to expand...

It is, but the Cherokee stall doesn't really buffet at all. It was hard for me to determine when I was in a full stall. In fact the DE dinged me a bit on my checkride, because he thought I waited too long to start my recovery.
 
It's no big deal going either way, and both types are perfectly fine for PP training. Only thing I'd say is don't switch in the middle of training unless you have a really good reason to do so, and the comparative characteristics of those planes do not do so unless you're a "wheelchair pilot" who's going to have a lot more trouble getting in and out of a Cherokee.
 
Last edited:
Let me second Jesse's comments...
Way too many CFI are teaching rote procedures only and not moving on...
(ya, ya, ya, the student has to have a starting point and I agree with those procedures for starting out)
Not being a CFI I can do anything I want, and it usually involves sink stoppers (wonderful devices)...
The look on a fellas face when he realizes he just too off, flew the pattern, and landed with nothing but his engine instruments and a whiskey compass is wonderful to behold... And the laugh of delight when he greases a landing with partial flaps is worth the price of admission - "I didn't know you could land without full flaps. I thought you would crash or something."

I have had a CFI or two over the years complain that I am messing with his student... Funny thing - the students did not see it that way and often said to me, "Why didn't he just show me this?"
My answer to that is to always praise the CFI and tell the student that he has to get you to fly the PTS by the numbers in the shortest time possible and it doesn't leave time for this 'other stuff'...

denny-o
 
How is well != safe?:dunno:

Let me have a stab at this - the airplane is useable again after only minor repairs?:D
 
Depends on what you're looking for. The warrior teaches fuel management which is a plus, but 172s require slightly more attention on landings...90% of my time is in cessnas(150,152,172,172RG,177RG, and 182), so I'm a bit biased towards them
 
I flew the Warrior today. CFI didn't touch the controls once except for helping me to rotate and for the landing flare (bit heavier of a pull than I'm used to, plus trim wasn't set). I flew the entire 1.6 hours and personally I think that the aircraft will complement my new CFI. With his guidance we did some stalls, a steep turn, and some ground ref (never done this before) and in all it's like a 172 but a bit different.

I really like the stability. We did a 120nm trip and it was pure joy. Our return had heavy chop and the plane was still at 2900-3000ft without issue. I will say that there's a slight difference in being bounced in a low wing. The landing was nice, AMAZING to see the runway as I turned!

I love the cockpit set up and the quadrant. I like the feeling over all. Maybe there was a good variable wind but I saw 110kts in cruise and 126GS.
 
Last edited:
I also finally have the CFI that I have always dreamed of. He's practical, has salty humor, and he has vast experience. He has 2000hrs in Cessna's so he knows that side as well. He also tows for a glider club that I affiliate with. He quickly adapted to my learning style and even called to see if I wanted to fly earlier than planned in order to avoid high winds and heavy chop. Never had a CFI ask me that even when they were open and at the airport.

Stalls were surprisingly a non-event and akin to a 172.
 
jesse said:
I know someone is going to take this the wrong way, but I'm gonna write it anyhow:

Sometimes students will dedicate WAY too much time to visually verify something that doesn't matter. As a result they spend too much effort trying to figure out if they're set to 20 or 30 degrees of flaps and in reality it doesn't matter.

I've told at least one student that it doesn't matter if they're at 20 or 30 degrees of flaps right now, and their focus on that is causing them to blow through final towards the parallel with the 747.

I teach students to apply some flaps abeam touchdown point on downwind, some more flaps on base, and the rest on final. Then later I tell them it doesn't matter and to do whatever it takes to get an airplane to do what you want. Eventually I end up with students that can actually fly the airplane instead of repeating the procedure people get slammed into their head which is generally always:
Abeam touchdown point
1. carb heat on
2. power 1700
3. flaps 10
4. turn base after runway is 30 to 45 degrees behind them
5. flaps 20.
6. turn final.
7. flaps 30. or 40.

The dependence on the above procedure, slammed into the majority of students out there, is pretty alarming sometimes. I've seen some pilots that simply cannot adapt to a change and just have to keep doing go-arounds until their procedure (above) works.

There is a place for procedure and visual verification of precise details and there are places where it's not critical and holds one back.

One should make sure the flaps are retracted on the touch and go, and it's surprising to me how many people check the flap position indicator instead of the best way, which is to just look at the damn wing. It's way more reliable :)
Click to expand...

I learned this today. This CFI told me to discard all of the trivial crap and just focus on what needs to be done to safely fly the aircraft. I have a couple of habits ingrained from CFI's either yanking the controls away or laying me out for not listening. Stuff like one insisting on a 1000rpm setting no matter what. Even doing power off stalls, 1000rpm :nono:
 
jesse said:
I know someone is going to take this the wrong way, but I'm gonna write it anyhow:

Sometimes students will dedicate WAY too much time to visually verify something that doesn't matter. As a result they spend too much effort trying to figure out if they're set to 20 or 30 degrees of flaps and in reality it doesn't matter.

I've told at least one student that it doesn't matter if they're at 20 or 30 degrees of flaps right now, and their focus on that is causing them to blow through final towards the parallel with the 747.

I teach students to apply some flaps abeam touchdown point on downwind, some more flaps on base, and the rest on final. Then later I tell them it doesn't matter and to do whatever it takes to get an airplane to do what you want. Eventually I end up with students that can actually fly the airplane instead of repeating the procedure people get slammed into their head which is generally always:
Abeam touchdown point
1. carb heat on
2. power 1700
3. flaps 10
4. turn base after runway is 30 to 45 degrees behind them
5. flaps 20.
6. turn final.
7. flaps 30. or 40.

The dependence on the above procedure, slammed into the majority of students out there, is pretty alarming sometimes. I've seen some pilots that simply cannot adapt to a change and just have to keep doing go-arounds until their procedure (above) works.

There is a place for procedure and visual verification of precise details and there are places where it's not critical and holds one back.

One should make sure the flaps are retracted on the touch and go, and it's surprising to me how many people check the flap position indicator instead of the best way, which is to just look at the damn wing. It's way more reliable :)
Click to expand...


Agree with this Jesse. When you're flying in and out of a "D" all the time you don' often get to fly a pattern anyway. These guys need to be able to figure it out when they get "report 3 mile final for XX".
 
Dr. O said:
How is well != safe?:dunno:

Let me have a stab at this - the airplane is useable again after only minor repairs?:D
Click to expand...
I said, the Warrior is easier to land safely; the 172 is easier to land well.

The Warrior and other low-end PA-28 models are very forgiving of poor technique and student mistakes -- some might say too forgiving, that they cover up mistakes and deprive the student of valuable "teaching moments."

In the classic "pilot incapacitation" scenario, my vote for the one airplane in which a non-pilot passenger would have the best chance of making a passable landing without damage to machine or occupants, would be a PA-28-140/151/161.

So yes, it's the easiest to land safely.

The 172 is less nose-heavy on the ground, has lower stall speeds, more effective flaps, more rudder authority, more precise pitch handling, and the nosewheel is always centered on touchdown. Thus it is easier, in my opinion, to land well -- minimum speed, well-controlled ground contact, tracking properly along the runway, and minimum ground roll.

Lest the spinmeisters of the board try to claim I've said a Cherokee can't be landed "well", please re-read the above carefully. Sure it can be landed well and with great precision; it just takes a little more work to do so.
 
One thing that I did notice was how it's a bit more forgiving. My stalls were less than perfect. I haven't done any in about a year but the airplane didn't mind.Jesse was right...Rudder isn't need too much. The pedal design is a bit weird but I was used to it after taxi. This is kind of a cheating aircraft in a sense. The nosewheel steering amazes me. The airport that I was previously based out of had a slanting hill about 20ft high and it was a challenge in the 172 not to go left (the direction of the slant and the direction of the turn) with full right rudder and hitting of the brakes while adding a fair amount of power. If a small slope is telling the nosewheel being connect would help there.

I do wonder about X-wind landings...I keep thinking of a unusual situation in which rudder is deflected one way and then down comes the nose wheel and a subsequent veer or ground loop. What happens here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top