Good Used 4 Seaters

"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

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

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 , 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

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/unprote...ecs/46996.html