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: 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 CessnaONE 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 CessnaONE 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.