Arch/Warrior

[flhrci]

My club just got a "1974 Arch/Warrior, or as it is also sometimes called, a BOLD Warrior." Turns out this plane has had a lot of mods including a 180hp engine and constant speed prop. Anyone ever heard of this being done? To me this is a first. Never have heard of a Warrior being upgraded this way in my 19 or so years of flying.

The owners sent out an email saying that the useful load is only 840lbs compared to 1040lbs for an Archer. Not sure there is a return on the investment here but who cares. Something different to fly.

David

 

[sourdough44]

From what I hear some aren't as cautious at the upper limits, performance wise, compared to the average 160 hp Warrior. The 180 HP engine weighs more, so it lowers the useful load. There is a gross weight increase STC available for some Warriors, which is another issue.

 

[cowman]

I always thought the only difference between a warrior and an archer was the engine.

 

[MAKG1]

I always thought the only difference between a warrior and an archer was the engine.

No, the cowling shape is also different, and the elevator authority is a little different in the flare.

They don't usually have CS props.

 

[Pilawt]

I always thought the only difference between a warrior and an archer was the engine.

No, the cowling shape is also different, and the elevator authority is a little different in the flare.

Yes, the Cherokee 180/Challenger/Archer cowl from 1964 through the mid-'90s is a more streamlined, fiberglass affair, but the top half had to be removed in one piece for access to the engine (aside from a tiny oil door). Warrior cowls are more angular and stubby (designed to look cheaper, I guess), but big clamshell doors provide excellent access for inspection and maintenance.

Behind the firewall, the Archer had individual rear seats with a hat shelf behind the baggage area. Warriors had a bench rear seat and no hat shelf.

They don't usually have CS props.

None of the Warriors or Archers did from the factory.

 

[denverpilot]

I always thought the only difference between a warrior and an archer was the engine.

Warrior:

http://youtu.be/FhVb54ha6Po

Archer:

 

[oregonboy109]

My club just got a "1974 Arch/Warrior, or as it is also sometimes called, a BOLD Warrior." Turns out this plane has had a lot of mods including a 180hp engine and constant speed prop. Anyone ever heard of this being done? To me this is a first. Never have heard of a Warrior being upgraded this way in my 19 or so years of flying.

The owners sent out an email saying that the useful load is only 840lbs compared to 1040lbs for an Archer. Not sure there is a return on the investment here but who cares. Something different to fly.

David

Hey we're in the same club!

 

[flhrci]

Hey we're in the same club!

Uh-oh. LOL

Cool. I just reactivated my membership today and am going to CFI there again. Had a current student change instructional locations to the club and he wanted me to come with him.

David

 

[StinkBug]

I seem to remember seeing a plane like this for sale back when I was shopping. Never seen one in the flesh though. As far as ROI I suppose if the original engine was toast anyways the upgrade wouldn't be that huge a step up in dollars. Not sure how much the prop would help though, would be interesting to compare to a fixed pitch and find out.

 

[Jim_R]

The 180 HP engine weighs more, so it lowers the useful load.

The 180hp upgrade to the Warrior doesn't lower the useful load; the Warrior came with a lower useful load than the Archer, and the STC for the larger engine doesn't change that.

That's why there aren't many Warriors that have this STC upgrade. It's very expensive, but without the useful load increase, it's not a great bang-for-the-buck expenditure. Better to have bought an Archer in the first place.

 

[Pilawt]

The 180hp upgrade to the Warrior doesn't lower the useful load; the Warrior came with a lower useful load than the Archer, and the STC for the larger engine doesn't change that.

The upgrade does not change the maximum gross weight. To the extent the new engine and prop are heavier than the original, useful load is reduced. Generally, an O-360 is about 30 pounds heavier than an O-320.

 

[Jay Honeck]

When we owned our Warrior (150 HP Lycoming O-320) and our kids were growing like weeds, I looked into covering it to an "Arch-Warrior".

The cost was high, and the return was sketchy. Without a gross weight increase, you couldn't legally carry more -- although "in real life" the addition of the O-360 engine meant that you actually could carry dramatically more.

I don't remember anything about converting to a CS prop. Methinks that may be a separate STC.

Anyway, it wasn't cost justifiable. Instead, we sold the Warrior, bought the Pathfinder (Lycoming O-540), and never gave another thought to "useful load". That plane could carry anything that would fit through the door.

 

[TUPilot]

When shopping for our PA28-180 we looked at several 140s, 150s, 151s, and 161s with all sorts of STCs. I saw a PA28-180 that had a constant speed prop STC and some Warriors or older Cherokees with a 180HP STC. In general neither made sense.

The constant speed prop cost more to maintain, was heavier, and the only material benefit it provided was dealing with the restricted RPM range on older Cherokees: you could run at a variety of power settings while setting RPM outside of the "red arc".

180HP on a Warrior or small engine Cherokee gives a nice performance boost, but without an increase in gross weight to go with it utility is limited.

If I happened to see one of these airplanes at the right price I'd consider it, but I can't imagine ever paying for the upgrades. Selling a Warrior and buying a 180 or 181 would probably be more cost effective than the STC anyway.

 

[Mike5250]

What is the real world cruise speed?

 

[oregonboy109]

I'm debating getting checked out in it. If I do I'll let ya know.