Cherokee 140 w/ 160hp STC VS Warrior. Differences?

[Todd82]

If you've got a Cherokee 140 cruiser with the 160hp RAM STC vs a Warrior, same vintage, is there really a difference?

Did the 140 still have the "Hershey bar" by then vs the "Taper" in the Warrior? Also in this case, the 140 has metco tips anyways.

 

[Pilawt]

All Cherokee 140s, right up to the end of production in 1977, have the original short fuselage and Hershey-bar wings. All Warriors have tapered wings, the long cabin, longer stabilator, permanent (not snap-in) rear seats, a real baggage area and exterior baggage door, and a smaller nose wheel and tire.

 

[eman1200]

If you've got a Cherokee 140 cruiser with the 160hp RAM STC vs a Warrior, same vintage, is there really a difference?

Did the 140 still have the "Hershey bar" by then vs the "Taper" in the Warrior? Also in this case, the 140 has metco tips anyways.

if u are comfortable flying one, you should be equally comfy flying the other.

 

[Bonchie]

The hershey bar wing makes is harder to land IMO. It drops hard in the flare if you are high. The tapered wing lands itself.

The Warrior is much more comfortable inside for backseat passengers and it has a real baggage compartment.

The Warrior has a much better useful load even against a 140 with the 160 STC.

Having flown a 140 with the 160 conversion, I much preferred the Warrior.

 

[Ravioli]

Many physical differences as Pilawt has pointed out.

Given the choice between a 140 and a Warrior, I'd take an Archer every day. But since this PoA I'd pick a B35.

Back to the mission questions? The 140 and Warrior are equally capable.

 

[paflyer]

Many physical differences as Pilawt has pointed out.

Given the choice between a 140 and a Warrior, I'd take an Archer every day. But since this PoA I'd pick a B35.

Back to the mission questions? The 140 and Warrior are equally capable.

Disagree with your last statement, see Bonchie.

 

[Ravioli]

The numbers look pretty close... and this is with out the 160hp conversion.


____________________________________________________________________________

 

[frfly172]

It’s the wings,all about the wings.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

The hershey bar wing makes is harder to land IMO. It drops hard in the flare if you are high. The tapered wing lands itself.

The Warrior is much more comfortable inside for backseat passengers and it has a real baggage compartment.

The Warrior has a much better useful load even against a 140 with the 160 STC.

Having flown a 140 with the 160 conversion, I much preferred the Warrior.

On the other hand, in a stiff crosswind that Hershey bar is easier to land, as once the aircraft is planted on the runway, it tends to stay that way where the taper wing may float on you. Yes, flare too early and the earlier Cherk wil drop, but add a touch of power to cushion and it's not a problem. The 160hp has much better climb and high-density altitude performance than the 140, in cruise they are about even. The earlier design with a 160 conversion makes a nice two seat airplane with lots of baggage room. Four seats, you'll want the Warrior.

I've flown both, and I like the hershey bar wing. Different strokes.

 

[Bonchie]

The numbers look pretty close... and this is with out the 160 conversion

The -151 Warrior wasn't 160 Horsepower. It was 150, same as the 140. That's why your comparison is almost identical. The -161 is the 160hp version and is the more common one (almost double the production).

The big differences aren't performance though. It's the non amputee backseat room, better useful load, and the more benign wing.

 

[Ravioli]

OP said Warrior, not Warrior II. He also said 140 w/RAM upgrade. I didn't find performance for the RAM version, but the 10hp won't decrease the specs. (Might not make it match either)

The legroom observation is valid. The Warriors are improved in that regard (but really, I'm 6'0"... still tight back there).

"Hershey vs Tapered wing" might be as much of a religious debate as "High vs Low wing."

Anyway, I made the statement that they are equally capable planes and I'll stand by that.

 

[RussR]

I owned a 150 hp Warrior for many years and also have a few hundred hours in Cherokee 140/150's.

The rear-seat legroom and baggage door are a huge issue. In the Cherokee, with me at 6'2", the pilots seat is all the way back, almost touching the front of the rear seat. I am not certain how anyone could actually fit back there, even children, comfortable. In the Warrior, the fuselage stretch is almost entirely between the seats. Meaning, there is actual room back there. Sure, it's no limousine, but what airplane in this category is?

Flyability wise, no big deal. But comfort? Absolutely the Warrior.

 

[Bonchie]

OP said Warrior, not Warrior II. He also said 140 w/RAM upgrade. I didn't find performance for the RAM version, but the 10hp won't decrease the specs. (Might not make it match either)

The legroom observation is valid. The Warriors are improved in that regard (but really, I'm 6'0"... still tight back there).

"Hershey vs Tapered wing" might be as much of a religious debate as "High vs Low wing."

Anyway, I made the statement that they are equally capable planes and I'll stand by that.

Equally capable in climb rate and speed. Yeah. But the Warrior is a much more practical cross country airplane unless you just fly by yourself all the time because of the 100+ more useful load and the interior room.

That's all we are saying.

 

[Todd82]

Thanks for all the replies and by no means did I want to start a holy war like high vs low wings. (Besides everyone knows low wings are better that's why we are talking Pipers )

I've flown both 140's and Warriors too but only in a training environment so we were never at max gross. The Warrior in question is a 1975, so Warrior 1. I didn't realize those first run Warriors were only 150hp, so thanks for the heads up there. So with the Warrior 1 being heavier empty (because longer) and 10 less hp the Cherokee 140 goosed up to 160hp should be the "winner" performance wise. Yes I know I'm comparing two tortoises still.

As for backseat room, no kids here, typical back seat passenger will be a 50lb shepherd mix who'll lay down anyways. And when you add me + wife we average out to "2 standard adults" (I definitely need her to bring down the average for me).

Thanks for all the answers about the fuselage size I didn't realize there was that much difference at all between the two.

Maybe all in my head, but I've noticed a much bigger improvement with the metco tips in winds/landings than the rounded tips, regardless of taper vs Hershey.

Anyways, thanks for all your helpful answers

 

[skier]

The 140s I’ve flown with the larger engine felt nose heavy and would run out of elevator in the flare.

As to the 140 vs 161. I prefer the 140. I find them easier to land and they feel more solid (to me) in turbulence.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

The 140s I’ve flown with the larger engine felt nose heavy and would run out of elevator in the flare.

As to the 140 vs 161. I prefer the 140. I find them easier to land and they feel more solid (to me) in turbulence.

Maybe you're thinking of a 180? The 160 HP stc is done with high-compression pistons, doesn't really change the weight up front. The only drawback is mogas is not approved.

 

[paflyer]

Maybe you're thinking of a 180? The 160 HP stc is done with high-compression pistons, doesn't really change the weight up front. The only drawback is mogas is not approved.

True (I have 140 with STC.) But they still run out of elevator unless you heavily ballast towards rear.

 

[Bonchie]

True (I have 140 with STC.) But they still run out of elevator unless you heavily ballast towards rear.

That may just be a 140 issue and not anything to do with the STC. When I flew 140s, they were basically impossible to tail strike (no doubt some enterprising pilot could do it, but still). One of the 140s I flew that was non-160 STCed had 100 pounds of ballast in the rear specifically to stop it from being so nose heavy.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Perhaps that has something to do with why they're so hard to stall and spin. They just seem to mush along. I know a couple guys who have spun Cherks, and they had to work to get a full rotation. Never spun mine.

 

[skier]

Maybe you're thinking of a 180? The 160 HP stc is done with high-compression pistons, doesn't really change the weight up front. The only drawback is mogas is not approved.

Now that you say that, I think you're right. It has been a while since I flew that particular plane.

 

[SkyDog58]

Thanks for all the replies and by no means did I want to start a holy war like high vs low wings. (Besides everyone knows low wings are better that's why we are talking Pipers )

Then again, Piper’s best aircraft was the Super Cub, a high wing.

 

[SbestCFII]

If you've got a Cherokee 140 cruiser with the 160hp RAM STC vs a Warrior, same vintage, is there really a difference?

Did the 140 still have the "Hershey bar" by then vs the "Taper" in the Warrior? Also in this case, the 140 has metco tips anyways.

Both great planes. I had an E model Cherokee with the 150 HP and now have a Warrior with 160 HP. The Warrior is wider, longer and heavier, but the taper wing adds lift and the load is better. I have a friend with a Cherokee with the 160 HP upgrade and it is a little faster than his Cherokee 180. The main difference I have noticed between my two planes is that when you pull power and add flaps landing in the Cherokee, you will go down. When you are landing the Warrior and add flaps, if you're not at the right speed, you WILL float like a Cessna and since it's a little heavier, the Warrior is a little less bumpy. Otherwise both handle about the same. The difference in cruise is negligible, since speed is more an issue of airframe, rather that HP. One last thing, the fuel burn for the 150 and 160 HP are both essentially the same, about 8.6 GPH.

 

[Bonchie]

Same experience. The 140 doesn't float like the Warrior. In a Warrior, if you are high, you can just hold it off like a Cessna and it'll lightly touch down.

 

[Ravioli]

Sure. Right. Whatever.

The 140 wing is at relatively the same height as a Warrior. Therefore they enter ground effect at nearly the same height AGL.

Floating a Cherokee? Why?
Floating a Cessna? Why?

 

[RussR]

The 140 wing is at relatively the same height as a Warrior. Therefore they enter ground effect at nearly the same height AGL.

The Warrior wing is 5 feet longer, however.

Although, if you're floating, you're coming down final too fast in either case.

 

[Bonchie]

Sure. Right. Whatever.

The 140 wing is at relatively the same height as a Warrior. Therefore they enter ground effect at nearly the same height AGL.

Floating a Cherokee? Why?
Floating a Cessna? Why?

Geez dude, what's your deal? No reason to get so uptight. Have you even flown both kinds of Cherokees?

When there's half a dozen people saying they feel differences, maybe not being an ******* about it would be prudent. It's ok to just disagree.

And it's an objective fact that Hershey bar wing has a worse glide ratio and sinks faster.

Here's some more discussion of the differences and various poster's experiences:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-bar-cherokee-sinks-faster-than-archer.75772/

 

[Ravioli]

Geez dude, what's your deal? No reason to get so uptight. Have you even flown both kinds of Cherokees?

Actually yes.

My training started with PA-151 and PA-161, then I moved to CA and continued in PA-161 and PA-140 (150hp) and then I moved back to TX and completed my PPL in a PA-180D. I almost bought an Arrow but chose to go EXP for my personal plane. I co-own a Cherokee Six.

So yes. I think I know a little about Cherokees.

And I think there are numerous people who don't fear the wing shape the way you do.

 

[Bonchie]

Actually yes.

My training started with PA-151 and PA-161, then I moved to CA and continued in PA-161 and PA-140 (150hp) and then I moved back to TX and completed my PPL in a PA-180D. I almost bought an Arrow but chose to go EXP for my personal plane. I co-own a Cherokee Six.

So yes. I think I know a little about Cherokees.

And I think there are numerous people who don't fear the wing shape the way you do.

No one "fears" the wing differences. People were commenting on how they react differently. I'm sorry that got you so bunched up in the lower region.

Lighten up.

 

[Ravioli]

No one "fears" the wing differences. People were commenting on how they react differently. I'm sorry that got you so bunched up in the lower region.

Lighten up.

Oh snap. It's all my mindless banter about planes I have no experience in. That's it.

You are so right. <- Betcha hear that almost never

 

[Bonchie]

Oh snap. It's all my mindless banter about planes I have no experience in. That's it.

You are so right. <- Betcha hear that almost never

You win. You are clearly an expert pilot and there are absolutely no differences between a hershey bar wing and a taper wing. Only your experiences count and everyone else's are to be discarded.

Congrats.

 

[Stephen Shore]

I flew quite a bit in a 1980 Warrior II. Great airplane. It did of course have the tapered wing and it did seem a little hard to get down compared to what I fly now (Beech Sundowner with a hershey wing). From what I remember, though, is that it was very forgiving on speed - if you came in a little hot it did float a little bit, but if you just held it off it was really easy to land. I thought it was a great airplane.

 

[Ravioli]

You win. You are clearly an expert pilot and there are absolutely no differences between a hershey bar wing and a taper wing. Only your experiences count and everyone else's are to be discarded.

Congrats.

Help me out here.

The thread was discussing two airplanes.
Among the conversation of silly things like performance there came in cabin dimensions. I agreed to the advantage there (although it is a small advantage).

Then came the wing discussion. My assertion remains that the difference is minor.

The post you began challenging me on was about "floating" which I think is something we are trained not to do because it means you have excess altitude and or energy on landing.

If "floating" was meant to mean a greater distance while descending at Vbg I missed that in the discussion.

 

[Bonchie]

Help me out here.

The thread was discussing two airplanes.
Among the conversation of silly things like performance there came in cabin dimensions. I agreed to the advantage there (although it is a small advantage).

Then came the wing discussion. My assertion remains that the difference is minor.

The post you began challenging me on was about "floating" which I think is something we are trained not to do because it means you have excess altitude and or energy on landing.

If "floating" was meant to mean a greater distance while descending at Vbg I missed that in the discussion.

Sure.

I was the third response in this thread, where I mentioned the differences between the wings. It wasn't something I injected later to just argue with you.

I wasn't challenging your assertion about floating. I was pointing out that your response to me telling "SbestCFII" I had the same experience as him made you come off like a jerk. Saying "Sure. Right. Whatever" and "Floating a Cherokee? Why?" are just smart ass comments. If you've never been off your speed and floated a landing, good, but it's not against the rules to opine that one is more forgiving if the approach isn't on the numbers.

And it's not worth continuing to argue about.

 

[Ravioli]

Well thank you for calling me a jerk and a smart ass, and for questioning where my silly viewpoints may have been formed. Lest I forget your "expert" crap and your supposition that I don't regard the opinions of others.

You helped the conversation immensely and all should thank you. <-- Now you can add sarcastic to your list of grievances with me

 

[Bonchie]

Well thank you for calling me a jerk and a smart ass, and for questioning where my silly viewpoints may have been formed. Lest I forget your "expert" crap and your supposition that I don't regard the opinions of others.

You helped the conversation immensely and all should thank you. <-- Now you can add sarcastic to your list of grievances with me

If you don't want to be accused of being a jerk and a smart ass, try not acting like one.

 

[Ravioli]

If you don't want to be accused of being a jerk and a smart ass, try not acting like one.

Hadn't called you any names... but... it seems you are last word freak.

 

[GRG55]

To the OP:
If you decide on the 140 you'll have no trouble learning to land it consistently, and you won't miss not having the semi-tapered wing.

If you decide on the Warrior you'll have no trouble learning to land it consistently, and you won't miss not having the Hershey bar.

Back seat passengers in a Cherokee, any 4-cyl Cherokee, are second class citizens. If they have legroom they should consider it a bonus, and avoid bitching. That's just a personal opinion. Your spouse may feel differently, and you should listen to them instead of me.

The older planes are lighter partly the smaller fuselage, partly just less shzt in them (my 2200 lb gross weight 1961 was so light it had a 980 lb useful load). 10 extra hp and a lighter airframe would be my pick. BUT if it doesn't have the baggage door, that could be a PITA if you plan to do more than burger runs with it.

My credentials (since we seem to be into that sort of thing)? Owned and flew 4 different Cherokee derivatives, an original 1961 160 (they were all 160 hp to start with), a 1976 Archer (semi-tapered), a 200 hp Arrow and finally a Dakota, before I bought a Piper twin. Each was "the right airplane" for me at the time, and I loved owning and flying all of them.

 

[robert lomax]

i dont think that is right.
the 1st cherokees were really 140s,, cause RPM was restricted to 2450, i think gross weight was less too.
the Same engine became 150hp cause RPM was raised to 2700, and gross raised to 2150.
the 160hp was due to an STC for high compression pistons.
i have a 1966, 150hp, but due to power flow exhaust i may be making 160hp....

 

[GRG55]

i dont think that is right.
the 1st cherokees were really 140s,, cause RPM was restricted to 2450, i think gross weight was less too.
the Same engine became 150hp cause RPM was raised to 2700, and gross raised to 2150.
the 160hp was due to an STC for high compression pistons.
i have a 1966, 150hp, but due to power flow exhaust i may be making 160hp....

The first Cherokees off the line were all 160 hp.

I think our resident historian, @Pilawt, might independently verify that.

I owned Serial #30 with a 2700 RPM redline 0-320 and 2200 lb gross as it came off the then new Vero Beach assembly line. Still had the original registration from when it left the factory when I bought it in the 1990s.

 

[iflyvfr]

Maybe all in my head, but I've noticed a much bigger improvement with the metco tips in winds/landings than the rounded tips, regardless of taper vs Hershey. Anyways, thanks for all your helpful answers

Having owned 2 small Cessnas with Metco wingtips, including the one I fly now, I *thought* I had greater control in the flare. Some poster somewhere burst my bubble by saying that at the airspeeds we fly, we could never hope to appreciate the difference. I've watched enough vids of planes equipped with VG's and STOL kits to believe those mods work, but never seen anything more conclusive than the mfg's website on the advantages of this wingtip design. I bought them so I could mount strobes. . .