Going from a 172 to a Warrior II

Thanks all. As for the flaps... The current Cessna I rent has manual flaps. So that should not be a big deal.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
 
ArnoldPalmer said:
Thanks all. As for the flaps... The current Cessna I rent has manual flaps. So that should not be a big deal.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, I prefer the manual flaps as well. I miss the C-172C I used to fly.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
So maybe if you're used to carb heat in the 172 in the pattern, just touch the fuel pump switch instead of carb heat on the Piper (based on what POA says about carb heat in the Piper).
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, I was thinking this on the way home from the airport after flying the 172 again. I'll try to tie those together in my mind...
 
I've flown a Piper Archer and a 172 and both airplanes are good but there are trade offs on each:

I like the visibility of the Archer I can pretty much see everything and from my experiences it's easy to land because I can see the runway while turning. I like the 172's double doors and what I do is help my passengers in first and make sure the door is secure before closing my own. Ground effect seems more apparent in an archer. Gravity is more reliable then a fuel prompt.

They also say, (I don't personally have any experience) that low wing airplanes are better during an emergency water landing. The wings will keep the airplane above the water.
 
I never really had a problem with visibility in the 172 with the rear window and skylights. No back window in the Archer was a little bothersome when I did the "free and correct" test and couldn't see which way, or if, the rudder was wagging. Losing sight of the runway was not a problem since it always came back where I expected it to be after I rolled out on base. I liked the big flaps on the 172 vs the Archer and the 172 just seemed more stable on final. The Archer seemed speedier in cruise. After taxiing with the door open in the Archer to get some air in the plane be SURE to secure BOTH latches. Leaving the top latch open causes some excitement on climbout.
 
jim.nelson said:
I never really had a problem with visibility in the 172 with the rear window and skylights. No back window in the Archer was a little bothersome when I did the "free and correct" test and couldn't see which way, or if, the rudder was wagging. Losing sight of the runway was not a problem since it always came back where I expected it to be after I rolled out on base. I liked the big flaps on the 172 vs the Archer and the 172 just seemed more stable on final. The Archer seemed speedier in cruise. After taxiing with the door open in the Archer to get some air in the plane be SURE to secure BOTH latches. Leaving the top latch open causes some excitement on climbout.
Click to expand...
I've left the top latch unlocked by accident and didn't even notice until I went to go unlatch it.
 
mkosmo said:
I've left the top latch unlocked by accident and didn't even notice until I went to go unlatch it.
Click to expand...

Can we not talk about piper door latches right now...

oopsie.jpg


I might have accidentally broken one off earlier this week. Oops.
:oops:
 
jim.nelson said:
No back window in the Archer was a little bothersome when I did the "free and correct" test and couldn't see which way, or if, the rudder was wagging.
Click to expand...

Not gonna see much rudder wagging on the ground in a PA-28 anyway, because of the nosewheel linkage. You can see the tips of the stabilator through the side windows, though. If you can't see out the back, look for the shadows on the ground.

The Archer seemed speedier in cruise.
Click to expand...
"Seemed" is probably the operative word. I've flown new, well-rigged Archer IIs that would get 130 KTAS. But most were more like 125, about the same as a clean 172 with the same engine and the full wheel fairing package.

Admittedly, in a low wing, you get that "winged Mercury" sensation with the wing roots seemingly attached to your heels. :D
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Can we not talk about piper door latches right now...

oopsie.jpg


I might have accidentally broken one off earlier this week. Oops.
:oops:
Click to expand...
The pilot side door handle (older style) on my Skyhawk broke off a couple of years ago... I can't believe that the cast part cost like $200!
 
Agreed with Pilawt, you will actually be able to steer the airplane on the ground, no need to use brakes as if taxiing a Cirrus or 172. :)

And your landings will improve. The oleo struts aren't as springy as the Cessna gear legs. (that's why the Navy went with struts - they didn't want the fighter jets bouncing over the arresting wires and not hooking ... :D )
 
I finally did it. After months of delays, I am fractional owner in the Piper.

Had my checkout flight couple weeks ago and enjoyed it. Landings were much better.

Look forward to getting in some time and getting the commercial and CFI ratings

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Can we not talk about piper door latches right now...

oopsie.jpg


I might have accidentally broken one off earlier this week. Oops.
:oops:
Click to expand...
Is that really only held on with a sheet metal screw? Especially on the only door?

(After 31 years in our MN based 172M)....... Might the incidence of a visual navigation error increase slightly by a low wing? and is obstruction taxi clearance around snowbanks, lights etc possibly an issue?

Q - Why with the same engines do Pipers get by with no carb heat routine? Our 172M would ice up frequently but only enough to slightly drop the EGT.
 
I've only flown one warrior.
When you pulled the power it fell out of the sky. Not much glide angle.
 
That transition took me just about an hour or so, I was in the same boat as you, lots of 172 time, I found the transition pretty uneventful
 
I have no experience with a tapered wing PA-28, all my time is in a Hershey Bar wing Arrow (1969 model). I never bounced a landing in the Arrow, when the mains touched the ground it was finished flying. And, as noted above, pull the power and it was coming down. Now. My CFI said it had a safe mode glide, it glided like a safe. And he was right.

Transitioning from a 172 or 182 isn't really hard. For me the primary problem with the Arrow was that 3 hours in it and my knees were shot. It was all I could do to crawl out of it. Angle of the rudders to the seat? I don't know. The club sold it a while back and I don't miss it for that reason alone. Otherwise, a perfectly fine airplane.
 
Any airplane will float if you get into the flare at high speed. They dont want to land until they get to touchdown speed.
 
Shepherd said:
I've only flown one warrior.
When you pulled the power it fell out of the sky. Not much glide angle.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Did it have the Hershey bar wing or tapered?

The Warrior I flew (tapered wing) as a student and early Private Pilot would float plenty if you came in too fast.

Now an Arrow or PA32....they will sink like a rock when you pull the power out.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting. Did it have the Hershey bar wing or tapered?
Click to expand...
All Warriors are tapered wing. When introduced for the 1974 model year the Cherokee Warrior was the first, and then only, PA-28 to have the new wing. Cherokee Archer II (1976) was next, then the Cherokee Arrow IIIs (1977) and Dakota (1979). The -140 (production ended after 1977 model year) never had it.
 
Pilawt said:
All Warriors are tapered wing. When introduced for the 1974 model year the Cherokee Warrior was the first, and then only, PA-28 to have the new wing. Cherokee Archer II (1976) was next, then the Cherokee Arrow IIIs (1977) and Dakota (1979). The -140 (production ended after 1977 model year) never had it.
Click to expand...
Well, in that case, Shep musta been ‘on speed’!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top