Is Piper bringing the Warrior back?

drotto said:
Is there any harm is brining back a cheap (in relative terms), reliable trainer? Yes, it is a yawn plane for anyone beyond there initial PPL, but it does not diminish the fact that it does what it was designed to very well. Anything to get modernized, safe new planes out there is good.
Click to expand...

So I guess by the same logic we need more Mavericks ???
 
Clark1961 said:
Is the 2 GPH really significant with so much time spent in the pattern? The faster climb to pattern altitude will offset some of the fuel burn. Downwind at 75 knots will burn the same in either plane.

For near sea level operations, I agree the 160 hp engine is fine. Above 5,000 msl for ground elevation, that 160 hp engine is not doing so well and ya better plan on a long taxi for departure.

I flew a 150 hp 172 for a flight review the other day. I wanted to get out and push on the runway...
Click to expand...

My real world fuel burn in the pattern with an Archer was 7-8gph. Cross countries at 75% cruise power are closer to 10.
 
I just want to know if they'll build me an Aerostar.... ;)
 
Man, I hate to see the Warrior trash-talked. I love the plane. Inexpensive, simple, doesn't want to spin, and not unattractive. It's such a forgiving plane too.
 
Henning said:
:lol: Price aside, I doubt they have the tooling, so the price would probably be what a WAG Aero kit is and assembly time. Who knows how desperate they are.:lol:
Click to expand...

They would probably buy one from Cub Crafters and put their data tag on it mark the price up and laugh all the way to the bank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top