warrior or 172?

O

overwingexit

Guest
I have a question which has probably popped up in the old low wing vs. high wing threads. I have been doing my flight training for a while in a 172 and a 152. However i have also tried the schools warrior before. But i cannot decide on which aircraft to choose. Is there is a good reason to choose the warrior instead of the cessna or visa versa?
 
My home guys have an STC for the Warrior that gets it to 985 pound useful load.


Do that with a 152.
 
Last edited:
Train in a 172/152, then buy a Warrior. The 172 has more aggressive stall tendencies and you'll learn more. The Warrior is slightly more docile in stalls and better for carrying family & going places, plus it costs less.
</opinion>
 
Agree to train in the 172, but why not get checked out in BOTH when you're done so you have more options when you want to go fly?

Personally, I also trained in the 172 and got checked out in the Pipers right away. The Pipers barely stall and are way too easy to land. :) I still fly both - My club has two Archers and a 182. Good planes, all.
 
I like my Warrior , did training in Grumman AA5's. i fell they are more stable then Cessna's . Plus since i do most of my flying at or below 4500 ' i like to see whats above me. But Thats my opinion.If you are planning to rent for awhile i agree get checked out in both that leaves you the option if one or the other is booked.
Have Fun and FLY SAFE
Dave G.
 
overwingexit said:
I have a question which has probably popped up in the old low wing vs. high wing threads. I have been doing my flight training for a while in a 172 and a 152. However i have also tried the schools warrior before. But i cannot decide on which aircraft to choose. Is there is a good reason to choose the warrior instead of the cessna or visa versa?
Click to expand...
Not enough information to answer the question.

Assuming your are not too big to fit in the aircraft, similar quality of maintenance, and the subjective what you think looks cool, the choice of initial trainer needs only come down to comparing availability and cost, neither of which you told us about.
 
My club has a 172 and an Archer II (similar to the Warrior). They only allow students to train in the 172, but I have some right seat time in the Archer. A lot of it seems to come down to preference. Many people in the club prefer the 172 for various reasons (easier entry and egress, better view of the ground as a high wing seem to be the main ones), however I tend to prefer the way the Archer flies, and find it to be more comfortable for trips.

Interestingly enough, more people in the club seem to prefer the 172. A lot of that I think has to do with entry/egress, and similarly ease of loading the plane with cargo. That is certainly a nice feature if you have a small child who needs to be in a baby seat.
 
I have flown nearly 50 different models of airplane, including every Cessna single except the Caravan (well, OK, and the 207, which is a stretched 206). I own a Piper. I would fly a Cessna only if there was no other choice. I just don't like the cockpit ergonomics at all. It ain't high wing/low wing, it's good cockpit design vs bad cockpit design.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not enough information to answer the question.

Assuming your are not too big to fit in the aircraft, similar quality of maintenance, and the subjective what you think looks cool, the choice of initial trainer needs only come down to comparing availability and cost, neither of which you told us about.
Click to expand...
Well iam renting these airplanes and i have no desire to buy an airplane for a while. The piper warrior costs the same as the 172. The cost to rent is either the 172 or warrior is around 132 because they have GPS in both of them.
 
I would have guessed by your name that you'd prefer the Pipers. If you start flying the Cessna, are you going to change it to "underwingexit?" :dunno::rofl:
 
Fly whatever you're more comfortable in while training - and stick with it through your training. Then, once you're done, get checked out in the other one so you have more options. Both have their pros-and-cons. I like Archers for longer trips over a 172, but I like the 172 for shorts hops b/c of ease of getting in-and-out. I also prefer the 172 if I'm taking new folks up for a ride - simply b/c it's easier for getting in-and-out and the view is better to get people hooked. The low-wing warrior/archer has a more 'sexy' appearance I think, and it seems to handle a bit better on long trips than the truck-like 172.

That's just my .02 worth.
 
My $.02

Pick one and stick with it for a while then fly the other and get proficient in it as well. They basically are the same plane but with subtle differences in flight characteristics. Under some conditions one is better than the other but they are so close it is hardly worth the energy to debate.

I trained in both, when I went to buy I looked at both and would have bought the one that was the best value for that particular plane. I ended up with a Warrior.
 
overwingexit said:
Well iam renting these airplanes and i have no desire to buy an airplane for a while. The piper warrior costs the same as the 172. The cost to rent is either the 172 or warrior is around 132 because they have GPS in both of them.
Click to expand...
By "availability" I mean such things as how easy it is to schedule and it's maintenance history (is it in the shop more than out?).

Initial training is about learning basic skills and consistency is a key to doing it efficiently. I've seen things as little as different seat heights and the more nose-heaviness of larger engines be enough to throw a student pilot off (including very good student pilots).

There's a lot of different aircraft out there to fly. And they're all fun. But transitions are easier once basic skills are developed (and remember that the checkride doesn't test anything more than that).

So, my bottom line advice is, assuming cost and availability are equal, pick the one that gives you the most ware fuzzies and stick with it until after the private checkride unless you have a good reason to switch.
 
The only reason to choose one over the other for training is that you personally enjoy flying one or the other more, because the differences between a 172 and Warrior are, in most cases, totally subjective and have no effect on your training as long as you pick one and stick with it until you get your license. Perhaps the best reason to pick one over the other for training is the availability of that type on the schedule -- less competition for the plane means more flexibility in scheduling. Only if you have a regular passenger who has difficulty getting up on the wing to enter/exit, your you plan on doing a lot of aerial photography, or some other such specific issue, do the differences really matter. When you finish and decide you want to buy a plane, you can start exploring the other options by flying them all and choosing the one you like best.
 
Chairboy said:
The Warrior is better for carrying family & going places, plus it costs less.
</opinion>
Click to expand...


May cost less, but you will get an argument on better for carrying family and going places. The 172 has much more head and leg room in the back and the 172 has reclining seats in the back as well, not sure if the warrior does.
 
To echo some of the other posts, with my own 0.03 thrown in.

A Warrior and a 172 fly basically the same. The flaps are more effective in the 172, and the 172 needs a little more care with the feet to coordinate turns.

I own a 1973 cherokee 180, but have 40 hours or so in 172's. A cherokee 180 has more power and oomph than a 172 so I'll compare a Warrior and a 160 HP 172.

Roomwise: The 172 has more legroom for the front passengers, but less shoulder room. The shoulder room can equalize out if you can stagger the front seats fore and aft. Leg room in the 172's back seat is less than the Warrior. The Warrior has much better width in the rear seats as the fueselage does not taper there as much as the 172's.

As a pilot, I prefer the flight visibility the low wing provides. I would rather have a better view of the pattern thanof the ground, but frequent aerial photography or other mission concerns could favour a high wing for you. Lifting the wing in the pattern for visability can be a learned habit.

Landings are consistent in the 172 due to the good deceleration in a flare with full flaps deployed, and I have landed them in 19kt direct X-winds, so while you will be banked more,they will handle a wind almost as well if not as good as a Warrior. Also the high wing results in slightly less float due to ground effect.

Warriors will not require the use of carb heat as often as a 172. I use carb heat on all downwind power reductions on a 172. The Warrior is not as carb ice prone. This is moot if you are well heeled enough for a post-1996 fuel injected 172R.

I MUCH prefer the mechanical flaps of the cherokee line. More direct and positive control over their deployment and one less *&%$* electrical thing to go screwey. Really older 172's have mechanical flaps, but probably have to go back to an 1960's model with the continental O-300 engine for that. I'll leave correction of my 172 lineage guess to the 172 afficiandos.

I prefer the cowling on the Warrior for preflight access reasons, and miss that on my cherokee 180, though getting the cowling off is a 20 second operation. More like a minute to get it back on. Much more of a pain on the 172 with all the screws/quaterturns.

I second some other advice given:

Learn in one type of aircraft. Get checked out in both types. See which one then fits your mission the best. You will not go wrong with either type, you can only get more right for your type of flying.
 
Beedo180 said:
Roomwise: The 172 has more legroom for the front passengers, but less shoulder room.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I usually feel the opposite.

Leg room in the 172's back seat is less than the Warrior.
Click to expand...

Disagree - In the Warrior there may be more space fore-aft, but there's much less vertically so your knees are gonna be up in your face anyway. The 172's more vertical seating position tends to be more comfortable.

The Warrior has much better width in the rear seats as the fueselage does not taper there as much as the 172's.
Click to expand...

Huh? Disagree again...

Landings are consistent in the 172 due to the good deceleration in a flare with full flaps deployed,
Click to expand...

Agree on the deceleration, but I think Pipers are easier to land. Of course, I have heard the saying "Cessnas are easier to land, Pipers are easier to land *well*" and since I'm really hard on myself when it comes to judging landings, I find the Pipers easier.

and I have landed them in 19kt direct X-winds, so while you will be banked more,they will handle a wind almost as well if not as good as a Warrior.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think they're better in winds, because:

Also the high wing results in slightly less float due to ground effect.
Click to expand...

I MUCH prefer the mechanical flaps of the cherokee line. More direct and positive control over their deployment and one less *&%$* electrical thing to go screwey.
Click to expand...

And I prefer the electric flaps because I don't have to lean over, I can just push a switch. Also, because of the nice smooth extension, it's easier to fly smoother through the extension.

Really older 172's have mechanical flaps, but probably have to go back to an 1960's model with the continental O-300 engine for that. I'll leave correction of my 172 lineage guess to the 172 afficiandos.
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia, the electric flaps showed up in the 1965 F model.

So the point of all this is not to refute any of the points presented above, but to show that the 172 and Warrior are almost indistinguishable. There is no "better," only your personal preference.

I will reiterate that I think the 172 is better for training, simply because it is *just* a hair harder to fly IMHO (stalls actually break, good landings are a hair more difficult, and you actually need to use the rudder LOL) and will give you good habits. When you're done, get checked out in the Warrior and have fun with both. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Of course, I have heard the saying "Cessnas are easier to land, Pipers are easier to land *well*" and since I'm really hard on myself when it comes to judging landings, I find the Pipers easier.
Click to expand...
I see it the other way around. The Cherokee line is so forgiving as to yield safe, passable landings despite truly awful technique -- so forgiving that many instructors consider them inferior trainers for that reason. On the other hand, a solid-gold, gentle, nose-high, minimum-speed, tracking-straight-down-the-runway touchdown requires more effort in a PA-28 than in a C-172.

Also, bear in mind that a PA-28 might surprise an unwary pilot on a crosswind landing, as the directly-connected nosewheel might touch down pointed toward the downwind side of the runway.
 
Pilawt said:
I see it the other way around. The Cherokee line is so forgiving as to yield safe, passable landings despite truly awful technique -- so forgiving that many instructors consider them inferior trainers for that reason.
Click to expand...

Yup... Exactly. :yes:
 
At my airport I am happy to have the one that will clear gigantic piles of snow on tight-squeeze taxiways...

Edit: This is with students doing the driving, so all the more comforting!
 
Last edited:
skyflyer8 said:
At my airport I am happy to have the one that will clear gigantic piles of snow on tight-squeeze taxiways...

Edit: This is with students doing the driving, so all the more comforting!
Click to expand...
210 would be even better, with its strutless design!:yes:
 
No time in a Warrior, but a bit over 60 hours in an Arrow. And much more in Cessnas (172/182). For training, you pays your money and you takes your chances. As noted by many, it probably isn't a big issue. But I will say that I have stunk up the joint landing a 172 more than once, but the worst you can say about my Arrow landings is that I've "arrived" a few times. Bounced? Never. When the mains touch down, it is finished flying.

As to comfort - I'll take the Cessnas any day. 3 hours in the Arrow and my knees need a break. Don't know exactly what the problem is, but I'm crawling out of the plane. Don't have that problem in the Cessnas (and, obviously, the 182 is much more comfortable than the 172). And I wouldn't subject my own worst enemy to the back seat of the Arrow, especially behind me. Legroom? Heck, it makes coach in Lufthansa look downright roomy. Shoulder room is OK up front, can't speak about the back. And I haven't been in the back seat of the 172, but have ridden in the back of a 182 a couple of times. Lots of room back there.

So, back to the original question. 172 or Warrior? You choice. Both good honest airplanes (I'm assuming the Warrior is like the Arrow in that respect). Which meets your needs best and can be had for the best price, that's the question to answer.

Either way, have fun and fly safe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top