Hi, Folks...

I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.

Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
weekends?

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

Curt Fennell wrote:

> Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
> Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
> that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
> weekends?

That shouldn't be difficult, except for the "carry 4 people" part. Most
4-seaters won't really carry 4 adults unless you leave a lot of fuel
behind, which is OK if the hamburger isn't too far away.

Maybe your "older" is my "middle-aged", but I think you ought to be able
to find a late-70s, early-80s 172, Cherokee, Sundowner, etc etc in that
price range. I wouldn't have any heartburn about owning a plane in that
age range.

Dave

In a previous article, Curt Fennell > said:
>Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
>Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
>that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
>weekends?

Our flying club just sold our 1977 PA28-161 Warrior. We had it listed for
$43K but it ended up going for closer to $35K because the market is so
depressed. Except for the fact that it didn't have an autopilot, it was a
great plane and I was almost tempted to buy it myself. You can see from
the pictures at http://xcski.com/gallery/v/rfc/38290/ that it had great
paint and a good pre-GPS panel.

With full fuel, it could carry 595 pounds. Whether that's 4 people or not
depends a lot of the people.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Remember, you're dealing with developers. If they knew what they were
doing, they wouldn't be doing it.
-- Mike A

"Curt Fennell" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, Folks...
>
> I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
> on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
> on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.
>
> It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
> pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
> objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.

Consider this: If the airplane wasn't SAFE, it would not have lasted long
enough to be OLD.

(Bypassing al the gratituitous stuff about the biggest safety factor being
the pilot).

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

On 2006-10-27, Dave Butler > wrote:
> Curt Fennell wrote:
>
>> Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
>> Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
>> that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
>> weekends?
>
> That shouldn't be difficult, except for the "carry 4 people" part. Most
> 4-seaters won't really carry 4 adults unless you leave a lot of fuel
> behind, which is OK if the hamburger isn't too far away.

Actually, I won't be carrying 4 big people. My family is two medium
size adults and one 5 year old.

> Maybe your "older" is my "middle-aged", but I think you ought to be able
> to find a late-70s, early-80s 172, Cherokee, Sundowner, etc etc in that
> price range. I wouldn't have any heartburn about owning a plane in that
> age range.

Older is relative.... perusing the websites, most of the sub-$40k 4
seaters I've seen close to my age, which is to say pre-1960.

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

Curt Fennell wrote:

> Older is relative.... perusing the websites, most of the sub-$40k 4
> seaters I've seen close to my age, which is to say pre-1960.

I set out to prove you wrong and searched www.trade-a-plane.com for 172s
in the 30-40K range, and .... you're (almost) right. I found mostly 196x
with a sprinkling of early 197x, and a couple of late 197x.

I think you might be looking in the wrong places. Those people who
advertise on trade-a-plane are advertising there because they couldn't
sell their plane locally, maybe because their price is too high. Those
aren't sold prices, they are just advertised prices.

.... or else I'm out of touch with prices these days, always a possibility.

Try looking at local FBO bulletin boards and asking around at the FBO.

Dave

Curt Fennell > wrote:
: Actually, I won't be carrying 4 big people. My family is two medium
: size adults and one 5 year old.

If you're not in the mountains, a Cherokee 140 would do that at least for a
few years until the 5 year old gets bigger. A 160 or even better yet a 180 would do
that just fine.

: Older is relative.... perusing the websites, most of the sub-$40k 4
: seaters I've seen close to my age, which is to say pre-1960.

I just don't see what everyone's infatuation with "newer" aircraft is. The
fact of the matter, with the exception of the planes made since the GA revitalization
act, ALL GA planes are old! Does it really matter if it's a '76 or a '66 model? I
don't think so... one's 30 years old, the other's 40 years old. The *condition* of
the plane is what's important. Granted, an older plane has been around longer and has
had more opportunites to be unloved, but really does not intrinsically affect it's
quality IMO.

Now, that said, there are some things to look out for in older planes.
Unusual models can be difficult to find parts for. Some had cantankerous instrument
layouts (e.g. pre-'69 Cherokees didn't have the standard T-layout and instruments are
sorta scattered everywhere). Older has more opportunity for corrosion.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Curt Fennell > wrote in
:

> Hi, Folks...
>
> I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
> on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
> on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

Bought my 1976 Sundowner for 38K. It had a high time engine that I got
overhauled about 6 months later (partial engine failure help bump this up
to priority), but now it's pretty much a brand new plane for what I have
put into it.

The word limited budget and cheap in the same sentence very rarely computes
in the real world of ownership.

However the pride of walking out to YOUR plane on the ramp is priceless.

You can reach me at gmail with the addy of atlieb if you want / need more
info.

Allen

> I set out to prove you wrong and searched www.trade-a-plane.com for 172s
> in the 30-40K range, and .... you're (almost) right. I found mostly 196x
> with a sprinkling of early 197x, and a couple of late 197x.
>
> I think you might be looking in the wrong places. Those people who
> advertise on trade-a-plane are advertising there because they couldn't
> sell their plane locally, maybe because their price is too high. Those
> aren't sold prices, they are just advertised prices.

I set out to prove your right... ;-)

I went to controller.com and found a dozen 1970's 172's for $40,000 or
less.

http://tinyurl.com/yk8kxf

Visiting airports and looking at the local FBO bulletin boards is a
great way to find airplanes, as you suggested...

Best Regards,
Todd

Curt,

have a look at Aviation Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide. You'll find
many models in your price range. The 172 tends to be more expensive
than others due to demand.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Consider this: If the airplane wasn't SAFE, it would not have lasted long
> enough to be OLD.

Exactly. Buy a good (i.e. decently maintained with logbooks) older plane,
add some TLC combined with good piloting skills and you'll have a safe
airplane.

I'll have to second Paul's recommendation on the Warrior and it's not
only because I own one. If you do the research, the Warrior has one of
the best useful loads for the price range. Typical full fuel payloads
hover around 600 lbs (give or take 50 lbs). That's the same as many
six-seater full-fuel payloads--albeit not as fast of course.

There are usually more Archers on the market than Warriors at any given
time but the Archers run about $20K-$40K more for similarly-equipment
airframes. The cruise speeds are only a few knots more but they have
about 100lbs more useful load. Again, pretty darn good.

Cessna 172's are of course good but similar models are usually about
$10 more than the Pipers.

As others have advised, the best place to find/get any aircraft is at
your local airport.

Marco

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Curt Fennell > said:
> >Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
> >Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
> >that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
> >weekends?
>
> Our flying club just sold our 1977 PA28-161 Warrior. We had it listed for
> $43K but it ended up going for closer to $35K because the market is so
> depressed. Except for the fact that it didn't have an autopilot, it was a
> great plane and I was almost tempted to buy it myself. You can see from
> the pictures at http://xcski.com/gallery/v/rfc/38290/ that it had great
> paint and a good pre-GPS panel.
>
> With full fuel, it could carry 595 pounds. Whether that's 4 people or not
> depends a lot of the people.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> Remember, you're dealing with developers. If they knew what they were
> doing, they wouldn't be doing it.
> -- Mike A

Marco Leon wrote:

> I'll have to second Paul's recommendation on the Warrior and it's not
> only because I own one. If you do the research, the Warrior has one of
> the best useful loads for the price range. Typical full fuel payloads
> hover around 600 lbs (give or take 50 lbs). That's the same as many
> six-seater full-fuel payloads--albeit not as fast of course.

Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
bird.

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
> tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
> comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
> and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
> bird.

(fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

"real_name" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
>> tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
>> comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
>> and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
>> bird.
>
> (fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

HUH, what???

: >> Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
: >> tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
: >> comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
: >> and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
: >> bird.
: >
: > (fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

: HUH, what???

What he's trying to say is that the "full fuel payload" is not necessarily a
good metric to compare different aircraft. It's much more useful to compare payload
for a specific mission. Some planes (like a friend's Piper Comanche) can hold 90
gallons of fuel, while it only burns 12-14 gph. Comparing the "full fuel payload" of
that aircraft to a 180 hp Mooney isn't a fair comparison, even though the speed is
similar.

Now, consider how much payload can be carried in aircraft A vs. aircraft B for
a 400nm cross-country flight. That's more fair. That's also one of the big reasons
why we chose to get a PA-28-180 instead of a Cessna 150 or even a 172. Having 50
gallons of fuel in a plane that burns 8.5 at 65% allows for lots of flexibility.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> wrote in message
...
A better
> : >> comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
> : >> and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills
> your
> : >> bird.
> : >
> : > (fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).
>
> : HUH, what???
>
> What he's trying to say is that the "full fuel payload" is not necessarily
> a
> good metric to compare different aircraft. It's much more useful to
> compare payload
> for a specific mission. Some planes (like a friend's Piper Comanche) can
> hold 90
> gallons of fuel, while it only burns 12-14 gph. Comparing the "full fuel
> payload" of
> that aircraft to a 180 hp Mooney isn't a fair comparison, even though the
> speed is
> similar.
>
> Now, consider how much payload can be carried in aircraft A vs. aircraft B
> for
> a 400nm cross-country flight. That's more fair. That's also one of the
> big reasons
> why we chose to get a PA-28-180 instead of a Cessna 150 or even a 172.
> Having 50
> gallons of fuel in a plane that burns 8.5 at 65% allows for lots of
> flexibility.
>
> -Cory

OK, I see that. I had misread, thinking he had said to fill both with "max
gas". :-)

Allen

[Much Great Advice Snipped...]

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. You've given me a lot to chew on...

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

Looking also for a good second hand acft for a possible partnership here in
OZ (4-5 people). The Warrior II looks like the best value for money (much
more limited market). Bog standard systems, reasonable useful load, every
LAME and his dog has worked on one, reasonable cost of ownership, speed and
capability, reasonable (for me anyway) mission profile. Hard to get into
trouble in one, relatively forgiving, and not bad looking. Bits and pieces
easy to find, and Piper are still building the Warrior (albeit the III).
Mods available and still getting new accessories made. Entry cost for a
1970s something job with reasonable times much less than the LSA options.

Seems the advent of LSA might just be driving the costs of these certified
beasts down. As one poster pointed out, his club's quite nice Warrior II
went for US$35K, that's gotta be a better than average price point.

So my vote would be a Warrior II over a C172M,N,P. Of couse YMMV:)

Cheers,
Kevin

"Curt Fennell" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, Folks...
>
> I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
> on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
> on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.
>
> It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
> pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
> objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.
>
> Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
> Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
> that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
> weekends?
>
> Curt
> --
> "Captain Curt" Fennell

The Cherokee 140 I used to own is now again for sale. It used to be the
famous orange and white checkerboard Cherokee. It received a brand new
paint, interior, and tinted windows in January of 2006. The fellow who
I sold it to last year, tragically perished in the crash of another
aircraft a couple months ago, and I'm assisting with the sale of the
aircraft for the estate since I know a lot about this particular
airplane. It's one of the sweetest flying and dependable little
Cherokees in the country. I wish I was financially equipped to buy it
back myself because me and my father had probably what will be our last
great father-son adventure in her, but alas, I cannot afford another
plane for probably at least another six more months at best.

N4646R needs to find a new owner who'll cherish her as much as I did.

Ad with pics at TAP:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/46996.html

Well... I hafta agree.....

We have one, (PA28-151)

After tons of research, and some luck, we got a good one.

It is affordable.. and good mission profile.

Does the job at a cost of operation that enables us to just go
flying without thinking twice about the cost for an hour of flying
fun...

We had a 172 for two yrs before the Warrior..

Our Cessna was a good aircraft, about the same mission profile, but
definately NOT the same aircraft.

The Warrior is better at just about everything we like..

YMMV!

:)

Dave



....On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:26:54 +1100, "KevinBlack"
> wrote:

>Looking also for a good second hand acft for a possible partnership here in
>OZ (4-5 people). The Warrior II looks like the best value for money (much
>more limited market). Bog standard systems, reasonable useful load, every
>LAME and his dog has worked on one, reasonable cost of ownership, speed and
>capability, reasonable (for me anyway) mission profile. Hard to get into
>trouble in one, relatively forgiving, and not bad looking. Bits and pieces
>easy to find, and Piper are still building the Warrior (albeit the III).
>Mods available and still getting new accessories made. Entry cost for a
>1970s something job with reasonable times much less than the LSA options.
>
>Seems the advent of LSA might just be driving the costs of these certified
>beasts down. As one poster pointed out, his club's quite nice Warrior II
>went for US$35K, that's gotta be a better than average price point.
>
>So my vote would be a Warrior II over a C172M,N,P. Of couse YMMV:)
>
>Cheers,
>Kevin
>
>"Curt Fennell" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi, Folks...
>>
>> I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
>> on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
>> on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.
>>
>> It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
>> pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
>> objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.
>>
>> Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
>> Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
>> that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
>> weekends?
>>
>> Curt
>> --
>> "Captain Curt" Fennell
>

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Well... I hafta agree.....
>
> We have one, (PA28-151)
>
> After tons of research, and some luck, we got a good one.
>
> It is affordable.. and good mission profile.
>
> Does the job at a cost of operation that enables us to just go
> flying without thinking twice about the cost for an hour of flying
> fun...
>
> We had a 172 for two yrs before the Warrior..
>
> Our Cessna was a good aircraft, about the same mission profile, but
> definately NOT the same aircraft.
>
> The Warrior is better at just about everything we like..
>
> YMMV!
>
> :)
>
> Dave

Dave,

I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
spawned from first hand experience.
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

TIA,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman wrote:

> Dave,
<snip>
> Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
> fits better?

I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
initial training in Cessnas.

Dave

Dave Butler > wrote:
: > Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
: > fits better?

: I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

: The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
: Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
: initial training in Cessnas.

I like to give a fellow pilot/cfi friend some ribbing about Piper vs. Cessnas (I have a PA28-180, he's got a straight-tail 172
and a 152 he does primary training in). As I like to put it, a Cessna is a pilot's airplane, and a Piper is an *owner's* airplane.
Everything about a specific Cessna design is pretty much from the ground up for that specific airframe. Piper on the other hand was
great about bolting on bigger engines, extending control surfaces, stretching fuselages, etc as incremental improvements. As such,
the Pipers a little big heavier, but also a little bit more overbuilt. Parts are a little more common, since they're used in a
variety of different models, often old and new.

Now before the Cessna crowd keel-hauls me, I'll say that the Piper might cruise slight faster, but the Cessna has a better
short-field and "overloading" capabilities. A Cherokee (my 180 at least) seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board. It's not stellar, but it's enough... at least until you load it up a bit
much. Then the climb goes to crap in a hurry. The Cherokee wing has such a benign stall, it's not a very good trainer IMO. The
Cessna glides better, but the Piper handles crosswinds better due to its slight faster approach, more "cushioned" ground effect, and
*lower* wing in the crosswind.

Oh, and a PA-28 goes for around $5K-$10K less than a comparable 172.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> <snip>
>> Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
>> fits better?
>
> I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:
>
> The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
> Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
> initial training in Cessnas.
>
> Dave

Shoot, sorry...

Did I mis-atribute the original post...?

My Bad.

Jay B

In article >,
wrote:

> A Cherokee (my 180 at least)
> seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
> with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board.

eh? maybe the 180 might not seem different, but a 140 (even with the
160hp) will performance noticably different lightly loaded in the winter
and fully loaded in the summer.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

: > A Cherokee (my 180 at least)
: > seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
: > with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board.

: eh? maybe the 180 might not seem different, but a 140 (even with the
: 160hp) will performance noticably different lightly loaded in the winter
: and fully loaded in the summer.

Certainly... I've got a friend with a PA-28-150 (basically a PA-28-140 with a nice back seat). It's more or less the same
thing, although with a lower max gross. It seems to make a reasonable 500 fpm or so until it's loaded to a certain point... then it's
a pucker factor takeoff. All I'm saying is that I've rarely seen much more than 800 fpm or less than 400 fpm in my 180 no matter what
the load or DA (up to 4000').

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message

>>I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

> Shoot, sorry...
>
> Did I mis-atribute the original post...?
>
> My Bad.

Not at all. I just responded to a question that wasn't directed to me.
*My* bad. ;-)

Dave (but not *that* Dave)

Hehe.. sure..

At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)

OK.. the misssion of both aircraft is about the same, same engine,
(both 150 hp) We had the 172 for 2 yrs, into our 2nd year with the
Warrior.....

Cessna 172,(1974)

Pros - better at short field, better glide ratio (lighter wing
loading), easier to assist pax getting in . High wing is an umbrella
in rain.

Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
that!!)


172 Cons, - lightly/loosely built, squeaked and groaned. Ventilation-
awful , the "pop can controls" were umm... awful. Opening the window
(s) worked well though.. :(

Drafty, although ours was warmer than others we have flown...

Heater.. what heater? Could never convince the rear seat pax that it
had one....

Cockpit lighting seemed to be an afterthought.. The overhead red
light "lens" was a poor arrangement that had to be adjusted if you
changed the bulb, was sensitive to a change in filiment position..



Warrior.(1976)

Pros - Tougher, stiffer, no squeaks/groans while taxing, stabilator
has better authority in the flare.

Seems that everywhere we looked, (we had the interiors out /replaced
etc. in both planes) the piper is built stronger, stiffer, closer
spacing between structural members etc.

Wider landing gear stance, ....would not hesitate tackling a cross
wind with the Warrior that I would be aprehensive to try in the 172.

The oleos on the Warrior allow me to "plant" the Warrior down firmly
in difficult winds without getting kicked back into the air. (the
Cessna spring steel gear would reward me with a bounce)

More comfortable cross country aircraft. More stable in the roll axis,
(more dihedral) and HAS RUDDER TRIM! Cruise climb, - 3/4 turn of the
knob and keep your feet on the floor. Had to keep pressure with your
right foot with the 172 during climbs/decents.

Good cockpit lighting. Overhead red light has a proper (glass) lens,
light hits the right places. Separate controls for radio and
instrument lighting.

Better seat tracks/rollers.. no more needs to be said here...

Smoother ride in rough air, requires less attenton to keep
upright..(probably due to higher wing loading and less flat side area)

Controls feel more direct, responsive - yoke tube is an inch
diameter, or more, - Cessna yoke tube is 3/4 in dia... flexible by
comparison.

Interior is quieter, we can speak to each other with headsets off..
There is more fabric/vinyl in the Warrior interior, it absorbs some
sound..(.new Airtex headliner is wool) The 172's headliner was hard
plastic, in fact , most of the interior finish was hard plastic, not
very sound absorbing...

Faster than the 172 at same power settings (but not by much)

Ventilation is great! Overhead duct with individual, controllable
vents for each person, high volume floor (side) vents. And they can
all be truly "shut off" (no more 200 mph tape over the vents in the
winter)

A real heater! Will roast you if you crank it up. Has REAL heat ducts!
and rear seat pax have ducts too...(I live in Canada, we get winter
here)

Connection to nosewheel steering is more direct (no springs)


Warrior Cons...

Longer takeoff/landing distances, most difference noticed at heaver
weights, less if lighter

Other owners tell us that the Mattson VG's and gap seals (to be
installed soon) will close this gap significantly.

Ya HAFTA manage yer fuel! (no "both" setting) :)

Stalls are not much fun, can't spin it.. (rats!)

Single door... I can't help a (elderly?) pax much, I have to get in
first...

Oleo struts require care & maintenance.




Now, having said all this, remember, the is my OPINION, based on ONE
Cessna 172, and ONE Warrior. - ONLY

They are both good aircraft, but for the reasons/preferences above the
Warrior is my runaway choice..of the two designs.

Note I have tried to stay away from the high vs low wing thingy....
:)

I am not an aircraft design engineer, but I have looked into every
cavity of both aircraft, and (God forbid) if I had to put down in the
trees some night, I would sooner be in the Piper.

YMMV!

(Dave struggles into flame suit) :)

Dave





On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:55:17 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:
>
>I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
>but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
>spawned from first hand experience.
>Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
>fits better?
>
>TIA,
>
>Jay Beckman
>PP-ASEL
>Chandler, AZ
>

Dave > wrote in
:

Hey Dave,

Some "fixes" to two of your cons listed below *big smile*

> Warrior Cons...

> Single door... I can't help a (elderly?) pax much, I have to get in
> first...

Get a Sundowner. Two doors. I help the passenger in, and I close the
door.

> I am not an aircraft design engineer, but I have looked into every
> cavity of both aircraft, and (God forbid) if I had to put down in the
> trees some night, I would sooner be in the Piper.

Get a Sundowner. Built like a tank

By the way, did I say get a Sundowner *big smile*.

Pros

Huge cabin for creature comfort. Back passengers even have leg room
after seats are moved up for front passengers.
Can take 4 adult passengers and full fuel. This doesn't allow for
luggage! If luggage, 3 adults and luggage.
Trailing link gears cushion your landings and make you look like a pro on
landings.
Performance like a 172 on low MANLY wings.
Not nearly as pricey as a Warrior or Cessna (that I have seen with what I
bought in mine)

Cons

EXPENSIVE when it comes to parts.

Ownership = priceless

Allen

You don't need your flame suit Dave. Given all the off-topic posts and
the posts from
"let's-see-how-many-posts-I-can-from-these-over-eager-pilots" known as
Mxsmanic, your post is refreshing.

I've never owned a Cessna so I can only agree with the second-half of
your post but thanks for posting it. I don't think I've ever seen
anyone bring up many of the issues you have in this newsgroup. Makes me
glad I chose the -161.

Marco

Dave wrote:
> Hehe.. sure..
>
> At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>
> OK.. the misssion of both aircraft is about the same, same engine,
> (both 150 hp) We had the 172 for 2 yrs, into our 2nd year with the
> Warrior.....
>
> Cessna 172,(1974)
>
> Pros - better at short field, better glide ratio (lighter wing
> loading), easier to assist pax getting in . High wing is an umbrella
> in rain.
>
> Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
> that!!)
>
>
> 172 Cons, - lightly/loosely built, squeaked and groaned. Ventilation-
> awful , the "pop can controls" were umm... awful. Opening the window
> (s) worked well though.. :(
>
> Drafty, although ours was warmer than others we have flown...
>
> Heater.. what heater? Could never convince the rear seat pax that it
> had one....
>
> Cockpit lighting seemed to be an afterthought.. The overhead red
> light "lens" was a poor arrangement that had to be adjusted if you
> changed the bulb, was sensitive to a change in filiment position..
>
>
>
> Warrior.(1976)
>
> Pros - Tougher, stiffer, no squeaks/groans while taxing, stabilator
> has better authority in the flare.
>
> Seems that everywhere we looked, (we had the interiors out /replaced
> etc. in both planes) the piper is built stronger, stiffer, closer
> spacing between structural members etc.
>
> Wider landing gear stance, ....would not hesitate tackling a cross
> wind with the Warrior that I would be aprehensive to try in the 172.
>
> The oleos on the Warrior allow me to "plant" the Warrior down firmly
> in difficult winds without getting kicked back into the air. (the
> Cessna spring steel gear would reward me with a bounce)
>
> More comfortable cross country aircraft. More stable in the roll axis,
> (more dihedral) and HAS RUDDER TRIM! Cruise climb, - 3/4 turn of the
> knob and keep your feet on the floor. Had to keep pressure with your
> right foot with the 172 during climbs/decents.
>
> Good cockpit lighting. Overhead red light has a proper (glass) lens,
> light hits the right places. Separate controls for radio and
> instrument lighting.
>
> Better seat tracks/rollers.. no more needs to be said here...
>
> Smoother ride in rough air, requires less attenton to keep
> upright..(probably due to higher wing loading and less flat side area)
>
> Controls feel more direct, responsive - yoke tube is an inch
> diameter, or more, - Cessna yoke tube is 3/4 in dia... flexible by
> comparison.
>
> Interior is quieter, we can speak to each other with headsets off..
> There is more fabric/vinyl in the Warrior interior, it absorbs some
> sound..(.new Airtex headliner is wool) The 172's headliner was hard
> plastic, in fact , most of the interior finish was hard plastic, not
> very sound absorbing...
>
> Faster than the 172 at same power settings (but not by much)
>
> Ventilation is great! Overhead duct with individual, controllable
> vents for each person, high volume floor (side) vents. And they can
> all be truly "shut off" (no more 200 mph tape over the vents in the
> winter)
>
> A real heater! Will roast you if you crank it up. Has REAL heat ducts!
> and rear seat pax have ducts too...(I live in Canada, we get winter
> here)
>
> Connection to nosewheel steering is more direct (no springs)
>
>
> Warrior Cons...
>
> Longer takeoff/landing distances, most difference noticed at heaver
> weights, less if lighter
>
> Other owners tell us that the Mattson VG's and gap seals (to be
> installed soon) will close this gap significantly.
>
> Ya HAFTA manage yer fuel! (no "both" setting) :)
>
> Stalls are not much fun, can't spin it.. (rats!)
>
> Single door... I can't help a (elderly?) pax much, I have to get in
> first...
>
> Oleo struts require care & maintenance.
>
>
>
>
> Now, having said all this, remember, the is my OPINION, based on ONE
> Cessna 172, and ONE Warrior. - ONLY
>
> They are both good aircraft, but for the reasons/preferences above the
> Warrior is my runaway choice..of the two designs.
>
> Note I have tried to stay away from the high vs low wing thingy....
> :)
>
> I am not an aircraft design engineer, but I have looked into every
> cavity of both aircraft, and (God forbid) if I had to put down in the
> trees some night, I would sooner be in the Piper.
>
> YMMV!
>
> (Dave struggles into flame suit) :)
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:55:17 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
> wrote:
> >
> >I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
> >but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
> >spawned from first hand experience.
> >Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
> >fits better?
> >
> >TIA,
> >
> >Jay Beckman
> >PP-ASEL
> >Chandler, AZ
> >

Marco Leon wrote:

snip

>
> Dave wrote:
>
>>Hehe.. sure..
>>
>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>>
snip

>>
>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
>>that!!)
>>
>>
snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.


--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross Richardson wrote:


>
> Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
> quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
> using the -140, -160, & -180s.
>
>

The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
"truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.

Ray Andraka wrote:
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
>> quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
>> using the -140, -160, & -180s.
>>
>>
>
> The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
> in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
> "truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.

OK, I agee with that.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

> > The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
> > in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
> > "truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.
>
> OK, I agee with that.

And if you REALLY want stability, fly a 235 in turbulence with 84
gallons of fuel in those short wings. We have flown with Warriors and
172s in "light to moderate chop" (per their reports) that we have
never, ever felt.

Wing loading sure helps in the bumps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
>>>in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
>>>"truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.
>>
>>OK, I agee with that.
>
>
> And if you REALLY want stability, fly a 235 in turbulence with 84
> gallons of fuel in those short wings. We have flown with Warriors and
> 172s in "light to moderate chop" (per their reports) that we have
> never, ever felt.
>
> Wing loading sure helps in the bumps.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Yup, same with the straight wing Cherokee Six. I've been up numerous
times where I hear lots of complaints about the ride while I am flying
along comfortably hardly feeling any bumps. I've remarked a couple
times when getting tossed around in heavier turbulence that I wouldn't
want to be in a 172 then.

Only by comparison of these two aircraft..

The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.

The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
wings level flight without pilot input.

One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
to speak...

We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....

BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...

Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
sample) :)

Cheers!

Dave

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
> wrote:

>Marco Leon wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>>Hehe.. sure..
>>>
>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>>>
>snip
>
>>>
>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
>>>that!!)
>>>
>>>
>snip
>
>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
>using the -140, -160, & -180s.

Dave,

I also appreciated an almost unbiased comparison between the C172 &
PA28-161.
What has really got my interest are the comments you make about the airframe
structural differences.
Obviously both aircraft were designed very well as I am not aware of any
AD's that have addressed major structural problems with either breed.
However,the Cherokee takes all the landing loads through its wing structure
whereas the Skyhawk takes landing loads onto its fuselage.
Your comments polarizes my view, that the Cherokee needs and [by your
observations] may be structural stronger than the Cessna.
I was never really sure why I personally preferred to fly a Cherokee but you
may have eluded to a significant difference between the airframes, that had
failed to sink in to my grey matter.
Thanks for an objective posting on this volatile subject.

Roy
Piper Archer N5804F



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Good Used 4 Seaters


> Only by comparison of these two aircraft..
>
> The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
> itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.
>
> The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
> require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
> low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
> wings level flight without pilot input.
>
> One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
> commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
> only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
> to speak...
>
> We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....
>
> BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
> difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...
>
> Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
> sample) :)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
> > wrote:
>
>>Marco Leon wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hehe.. sure..
>>>>
>>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>>>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>
>>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
>>>>that!!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>snip
>>
>>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
>>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
>>using the -140, -160, & -180s.
>
>

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Only by comparison of these two aircraft..
>
> The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
> itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.
>
> The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
> require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
> low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
> wings level flight without pilot input.
>
> One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
> commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
> only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
> to speak...
>
> We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....
>
> BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
> difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...
>
> Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
> sample) :)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
> > wrote:
>
>>Marco Leon wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hehe.. sure..
>>>>
>>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>>>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>
>>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
>>>>that!!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>snip
>>
>>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
>>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
>>using the -140, -160, & -180s.
>
>

Jay Beckman > wrote:

>I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
>but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
>spawned from first hand experience.
>Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
>fits better?

1) Best comparison be between models in the same time frame. It's
not fair to compare a current 172 that's fuel injected, G1000,
and so on (at $250K+ USD) with an older PA28, etc.

2) Assuming same time frame - let's define it as early-mid 70s.
C172 advantages:
high wing sun shade
better for photos looking down
2 door access

PA28 advantages
2 gal. more fuel
slightly heavier
more stable in crosswind
slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)
glareshield lower - don't need as many pillows to look over
manual flaps (well, I think that's an advantage)
easier to fill the gas tanks & wash the windows - no need for
a ladder

Overall, it's really your personal religious decision. Go fly in
each and see what you like/dislike.

: 1) Best comparison be between models in the same time frame. It's
: not fair to compare a current 172 that's fuel injected, G1000,
: and so on (at $250K+ USD) with an older PA28, etc.

: 2) Assuming same time frame - let's define it as early-mid 70s.
: C172 advantages:
: high wing sun shade
: better for photos looking down
: 2 door access

: PA28 advantages
: 2 gal. more fuel
: slightly heavier
: more stable in crosswind
: slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)

Even *I* don't know if I buy that. The Hershey-bar wing is pretty slug-like compared to the 172. It helps in turbulence, stall
characteristics, and crosswind, but not in climb-related things. In the early-mid 70's are you talking about taper-wing? Then that might
be the case (dunno... I'm only calibrated to Hershey-wing PA28's).

: glareshield lower - don't need as many pillows to look over
: manual flaps (well, I think that's an advantage)
: easier to fill the gas tanks & wash the windows - no need for
: a ladder

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

In article >,
wrote:

> : slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)
>
> Even *I* don't know if I buy that. The Hershey-bar wing is pretty slug-like
> compared to the 172. It helps in turbulence, stall
> characteristics, and crosswind, but not in climb-related things. In the
> early-mid 70's are you talking about taper-wing? Then that might
> be the case (dunno... I'm only calibrated to Hershey-wing PA28's).

As was explained to me (years ago, when the change to taper-wings
occurred), the Hershey-bar wing is a better climber, up to 10,000 feet.
The taper-wing advantage takes over above 10,000.

In article >, Blanche >
wrote:


as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing
aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to
walk around in the hangar.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

john smith wrote:

>
> As was explained to me (years ago, when the change to taper-wings
> occurred), the Hershey-bar wing is a better climber, up to 10,000 feet.
> The taper-wing advantage takes over above 10,000.



Yeah, you get 200 fpm instead of 150.

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing
>aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to
>walk around in the hangar.

Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Welcome to Global Warming, everyone. It appears to be globally
warmer, and if that isn't Global Warming, then What The Fsck Is?
-- Mike Andrews

I'm 5' 10" and can easily walk under the entire wing of (my) 1960 C-172 A...
d²


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message ...
: In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
: >as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing
: >aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to
: >walk around in the hangar.
:
: Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?
:
:
: --
: Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
: Welcome to Global Warming, everyone. It appears to be globally
: warmer, and if that isn't Global Warming, then What The Fsck Is?
: -- Mike Andrews

..Blueskies. wrote:
> I'm 5' 10" and can easily walk under the entire wing of (my) 1960 C-172 A...
> d²
>
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message ...
:
> : Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?
> :
> :
>
I'm 5'11 and got may fair share of diamond shaped injuries when I was
renting 172's prior to buying my Six. My only real beef with a high
wing (or a T tail) is getting ice or snow off of it.

> wrote:
>: slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)
>
> Even *I* don't know if I buy that. The Hershey-bar wing is pretty
>slug-like compared to the 172. It helps in turbulence, stall
>characteristics, and crosswind, but not in climb-related things. In the
>early-mid 70's are you talking about taper-wing? Then that might
>be the case (dunno... I'm only calibrated to Hershey-wing PA28's).

Cory:

I, too, have the cherokee 180D (hershey bar). The published ceiling
is 16K (ok, on a 1969 document) but I've had it up to 15K. I've
noticed that the newer the cherokee, the lower the ceiling due to
more weight of the aircraft. Overall max weight of 2400 has
remained the same.

Example, according to the 180G docs, absolute is 15K and service is 13K.
Yet in the similar docs for my 180D, the numbers are 16K/14K. I've been
up above 14.5K many times (Leadville, for example).

I dunno...

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?

Nope. I own a cherokee.

And I'm not a tall guy.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Hi Roy!

Your observations make sense....

The structures of the 2 aircraft are very different in the details.
Our Warrior seems to have more braces/gussets throughout its structure
than the Cessna..

And it ..well ..just feels "solid" in all aspects of operation.

....not an engineering analysis....just layman observation..

Obviously, both are more than adequate in the strength department..

But they sure "feel" different, both in the air and on the ground

Dave


On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:48:54 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
> wrote:

>
>Dave,
>
>I also appreciated an almost unbiased comparison between the C172 &
>PA28-161.
>What has really got my interest are the comments you make about the airframe
>structural differences.
>Obviously both aircraft were designed very well as I am not aware of any
>AD's that have addressed major structural problems with either breed.
>However,the Cherokee takes all the landing loads through its wing structure
>whereas the Skyhawk takes landing loads onto its fuselage.
>Your comments polarizes my view, that the Cherokee needs and [by your
>observations] may be structural stronger than the Cessna.
>I was never really sure why I personally preferred to fly a Cherokee but you
>may have eluded to a significant difference between the airframes, that had
>failed to sink in to my grey matter.
>Thanks for an objective posting on this volatile subject.
>
>Roy
>Piper Archer N5804F
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave" >
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
>Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 PM
>Subject: Re: Good Used 4 Seaters
>
>
>> Only by comparison of these two aircraft..
>>
>> The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
>> itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.
>>
>> The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
>> require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
>> low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
>> wings level flight without pilot input.
>>
>> One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
>> commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
>> only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
>> to speak...
>>
>> We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....
>>
>> BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
>> difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...
>>
>> Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
>> sample) :)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Marco Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hehe.. sure..
>>>>>
>>>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>>>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
>>>>>that!!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
>>>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
>>>using the -140, -160, & -180s.
>>
>>
>
>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>> Only by comparison of these two aircraft..
>>
>> The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
>> itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.
>>
>> The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
>> require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
>> low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
>> wings level flight without pilot input.
>>
>> One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
>> commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
>> only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
>> to speak...
>>
>> We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....
>>
>> BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
>> difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...
>>
>> Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
>> sample) :)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Marco Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hehe.. sure..
>>>>>
>>>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
>>>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
>>>>>that!!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
>>>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
>>>using the -140, -160, & -180s.
>>
>>
>
>

HAH!

No argument there..

Our Warrior is snuggled in among a Tiger, a 441, Navaho, RV6, a
WestWind jet and a Hughes 300..

All low wing. (except the Hughes) ...

It is a LONG walk accross the hangar floor!

:)

Dave


On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:56:17 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Blanche >
>wrote:
>
>
>as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing
>aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to
>walk around in the hangar.

: Cory:

: I, too, have the cherokee 180D (hershey bar). The published ceiling
: is 16K (ok, on a 1969 document) but I've had it up to 15K. I've
: noticed that the newer the cherokee, the lower the ceiling due to
: more weight of the aircraft. Overall max weight of 2400 has
: remained the same.

Remember that these published service ceilings are alegedly at max gross. I really doubt there are many 180's that can
actually make it up 15K at full gross. I've had mine up there before, but it was only with 2 people and 3/4 tanks... had about
50-100fpm is all.

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane
Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate
the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but
all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through
under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet
if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad
news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to
the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary
structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case
you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles
are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been
only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years
ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural
engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did
the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he
lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed
with minimum weight in mind.

Bud


Roy N5804F wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I also appreciated an almost unbiased comparison between the C172 &
> PA28-161.
> What has really got my interest are the comments you make about the airframe
> structural differences.
> Obviously both aircraft were designed very well as I am not aware of any
> AD's that have addressed major structural problems with either breed.
> However,the Cherokee takes all the landing loads through its wing structure
> whereas the Skyhawk takes landing loads onto its fuselage.
> Your comments polarizes my view, that the Cherokee needs and [by your
> observations] may be structural stronger than the Cessna.
> I was never really sure why I personally preferred to fly a Cherokee but you
> may have eluded to a significant difference between the airframes, that had
> failed to sink in to my grey matter.
> Thanks for an objective posting on this volatile subject.
>
> Roy
> Piper Archer N5804F
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Good Used 4 Seaters
>
>
> > Only by comparison of these two aircraft..
> >
> > The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
> > itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.
> >
> > The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
> > require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
> > low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
> > wings level flight without pilot input.
> >
> > One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
> > commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
> > only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
> > to speak...
> >
> > We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....
> >
> > BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
> > difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...
> >
> > Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
> > sample) :)
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Marco Leon wrote:
> >>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dave wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hehe.. sure..
> >>>>
> >>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
> >>>>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
> >>>>that!!)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
> >>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
> >>using the -140, -160, & -180s.
> >
> >
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Only by comparison of these two aircraft..
> >
> > The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
> > itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.
> >
> > The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
> > require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
> > low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
> > wings level flight without pilot input.
> >
> > One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
> > commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
> > only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
> > to speak...
> >
> > We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....
> >
> > BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
> > difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...
> >
> > Also please remember , this is ONE Cessna<>ONE Warrior.... (small
> > sample) :)
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Marco Leon wrote:
> >>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dave wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hehe.. sure..
> >>>>
> >>>>At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way. :)
> >>>>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
> >>>>that!!)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
> >>quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
> >>using the -140, -160, & -180s.
> >
> >

wrote:
> Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
> disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane
> Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate
> the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but
> all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through
> under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet
> if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad
> news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to
> the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary
> structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case
> you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles
> are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been
> only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years
> ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural
> engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did
> the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he
> lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed
> with minimum weight in mind.

All true, and I'm a Mooney owner ('81 M20J) and fan. In fairness,
though, I think it's important to point out that the Mooney structure is
steel instead of aluminum, and therefore more vulnerable to moisture
related corrosion.

DGB

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>
>>as a cherokee owner and having had a hangar for a little while, any high wing
>>aircraft has an advantage vs low wing aircarft wrt hangars. It's way easier to
>>walk around in the hangar.
>
>
> Do you have a line of diamond shaped scars in your forehead?
>
>

I do!

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

The fuselage is steel tube on a Mooney, but the strength of the wing
and landing gear attachment at the main spar, I am pretty sure is all
aluminum, just like most light GA aircraft. The only problem having the
gear attached to the wing on the Mooney, is it causes fuel tank leaks
due to the pounding of hard landings on the wet wing it uses for fuel.
My Cardinal has a wet wing, and they do not have as much problem with
tank leaks as Mooneys since the gear is attached far away from the
wing.

Bud

Dave Butler wrote:
> wrote:
> > Having the landing gear attached to the wing spar has advantages and
> > disadvantages, mostly the later. In this month's Light Plane
> > Maintainence, there is an article about an Arrow owner trying to locate
> > the source of a vibration. He looks everywhere for something loose, but
> > all he finds is a crack all the way through the spar carry through
> > under the pilot seat. Probably caused by a hard landing it says. I bet
> > if alot of low wing owners looked close enough, many would find bad
> > news. Musketeers are notorious for cracks at the gear attach point to
> > the wing. If you hard land a Cessna, all you bend is secondary
> > structure that doesn't affect in flight strength of the wing, in case
> > you get caught in bad turbulence. The hands down strongest GA singles
> > are Mooneys. In over 50 years of metal wing Mooneys, there has been
> > only 1 in flight failure of a Mooney wing and that was about 5 years
> > ago when someone tangled with a Tstorm over the Sierras. The structural
> > engineer who designed the Mooney was Ralph Harmon, the same guy who did
> > the Bonanza. He over designed the Mooney because of all the friends he
> > lost due to in flight breakups of early Bo's, which had been designed
> > with minimum weight in mind.
>
> All true, and I'm a Mooney owner ('81 M20J) and fan. In fairness,
> though, I think it's important to point out that the Mooney structure is
> steel instead of aluminum, and therefore more vulnerable to moisture
> related corrosion.
>
> DGB