PA-28 numbers - Archer / Warrior?

[bflynn]

A question for those who have flown both - are the V numbers significantly different between the Archer and Warrior? I'm on an extended project away from home and one of the local rental planes is an Archer (others are a 152 or champ). The majority of my time is in a Warrior, about 100 hours. Recently I've had about 30 hours in a modern 172S.

I expect the Archer to be a little more nose heavy, but so is the 172. I'd expect Va to be a little higher, maybe stall a knot or two higher. But overall the PA-28 airframe is a PA-28 airframe, so the aerodynamics are basically the same...right? Or is that a bad assumption?

Obviously I can spend a little time with the POH, but I don't have access to it right now. So I'll ask here since I trust you and verify later.

 

[Mattl]

100 hours in a warrior. Take 1.5 - 2 hours with an instructor and the archer is pretty much the same. There are differences. I find the archer is easier to get the nose up on landing and climbs better (additional 20HP has obviously nothing to do with that).

There isn't "much" difference between the two, however, my club check out in the archer is good for both the warrior and archer, my club check out in the warrior requires a separate check out in the archer.

Also- I find in maneuvers- the archer climbs in steep turns with the (student pilot mind) same sight picture/power as the warrior. I'm sure this was one of the many things my instructor enjoyed letting me "learn" and not pointing out, but same airframe different engine - not same plane- but pretty damn close. A smart pilot would at a min spend some time with a CFI in a "similar" plane, they do not have time in.

 

[dmspilot]

If you try hard enough you can find POH's for almost any plane via Google.

Since you've flown the 150 or 160hp Warrior, and the 180hp 172S, composite them in your mind and you've got an Archer.

However some of the really old Archers still had the hershey-bar wing. That would fly a bit different, mainly at slow airspeeds.

 

[JoseCuervo]

100 hours in a warrior. Take 1.5 - 2 hours with an instructor and the archer is pretty much the same. There are differences. I find the archer is easier to get the nose up on landing and climbs better (additional 20HP has obviously nothing to do with that).

There isn't "much" difference between the two, however, my club check out in the archer is good for both the warrior and archer, my club check out in the warrior requires a separate check out in the archer.

Also- I find in maneuvers- the archer climbs in steep turns with the (student pilot mind) same sight picture/power as the warrior. I'm sure this was one of the many things my instructor enjoyed letting me "learn" and not pointing out, but same airframe different engine - not same plane- but pretty damn close. A smart pilot would at a min spend some time with a CFI in a "similar" plane, they do not have time in.

What would one do in a 2 hour check ride in an Archer after having 100 hours in a Warrior?

 

[LDJones]

What would one do in a 2 hour check ride in an Archer after having 100 hours in a Warrior?

Spend the last 1 hour and 45 minutes wondering why you're still getting checked out in a slightly oversized Warrior?

 

[Mattl]

What would one do in a 2 hour check ride in an Archer after having 100 hours in a Warrior?

Spend the time improving on a deficiency that the extra 20HP brings out. Or just learn something new- I know I don't know it all, I can't speak for you.

And I don't think I said checkride.... A check out isn't just about the plane.... B

 

[poadeleted21]

Spend the last 1 hour and 45 minutes wondering why you're still getting checked out in a slightly oversized Warrior?

AFAIK the warrior and archer are the same size.

 

[Ted]

They fly pretty much identically. No problem. Any checkout would be more towards knocking off rust you may have anyway.

 

[John221us]

A question for those who have flown both - are the V numbers significantly different between the Archer and Warrior? I'm on an extended project away from home and one of the local rental planes is an Archer (others are a 152 or champ). The majority of my time is in a Warrior, about 100 hours. Recently I've had about 30 hours in a modern 172S.

I expect the Archer to be a little more nose heavy, but so is the 172. I'd expect Va to be a little higher, maybe stall a knot or two higher. But overall the PA-28 airframe is a PA-28 airframe, so the aerodynamics are basically the same...right? Or is that a bad assumption?

Obviously I can spend a little time with the POH, but I don't have access to it right now. So I'll ask here since I trust you and verify later.

There is an Archer I rent when my Cherokee is in for maintenance. I have maybe 10 hours in it (vs about 300 in my Cherokee). For me it is just figuring out the differences on the panel and doing the math in my head to convert from MPH to KTS for the pattern speeds. The Archer has an autopilot, which is nice, but P28s typically trim up pretty well, anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[poadeleted20]

Archer/Warrior/Dakota is significantly different aerodynamically from a Cherokee, so that's not a valid comparison. Archer vs Warrior? Numbers are close, handling is the same, just a bit more oomph with the same load aboard. No big deal from an airframe perspective. Just make sure you are good on any avionics differences.

 

[John221us]

Archer/Warrior/Dakota is significantly different aerodynamically from a Cherokee, so that's not a valid comparison. Archer vs Warrior? Numbers are close, handling is the same, just a bit more oomph with the same load aboard. No big deal from an airframe perspective. Just make sure you are good on any avionics differences.

I suppose it is a different wing, but the stall speed is only different by one knot and it feels pretty close to me. They both have a low wing, fixed gear and a fixed pitch prop. I don't think I would describe the flight characteristics as significantly different.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[kgruber]

Cherokee old Hershey Bar wing, pull flaps and the nose pitches down.

Warrior/Archer new "Cessna copy" wing....pull flaps and the nose pitches up.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Spend the last 1 hour and 45 minutes wondering why you're still getting checked out in a slightly oversized Warrior?

Pretty much.

Biggest difference between the two - you need slightly more right rudder on the climbout.

 

[JHW]

there is a reason the FAA gives them all the same name PA28A. Likewise insurance time-in-type. If it has a 4-cyl engine you should already be an expert, avionics differences notwithstanding.

 

[John221us]

Cherokee old Hershey Bar wing, pull flaps and the nose pitches down.

Warrior/Archer new "Cessna copy" wing....pull flaps and the nose pitches up.

That's true; at least the first couple of notches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Pilawt]

Cherokee old Hershey Bar wing, pull flaps and the nose pitches down.

Warrior/Archer new "Cessna copy" wing....pull flaps and the nose pitches up.

I wonder if that has more to do with the larger stabilator in the later models, than it does with the shape of the wing outboard of the flaps.

 

[NTT5418]

I did my private on the warrior, but currently rent a 1974 archer. Like others said, some panel differences, more useful load, and a few more hp. As far as handling, I really don't feel much of a difference, although the archer I rent has the "hershey-bar wing" and the flaps tend to make the aircraft react a bit differently during approach.

Basically, it's a warrior that's had a few cheeseburgers.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The biggest difference flight wise between the Hershey bar wings and the tapered Piper wings is on landing. The tapered wings tend to float more and are more sensitive to excess airspeed at touchdown. In the air they handle similarly, except the Hershey bar wing has a quicker roll response.

 

[poadeleted20]

I suppose it is a different wing, but the stall speed is only different by one knot and it feels pretty close to me. They both have a low wing, fixed gear and a fixed pitch prop. I don't think I would describe the flight characteristics as significantly different.

Low wing, fixed gear, and a fixed pitch prop is not, in my mind, much in the way of commonality, and it is the very different wing which creates significant and very noticeable differences in low speed handling and flight characteristics. The ancient design cockpits of the pre-68 Cherokees also require some getting used to.

 

[poadeleted20]

there is a reason the FAA gives them all the same name PA28A.

If you mean the P28A code for ATC, the reason is similar performance. But that has little to do with being proficient in type between a 1965 Cherokee 140 and a 1979 Archer.

Likewise insurance time-in-type.

I believe I've seen posts where folks ran into insurers felt otherwise.

If it has a 4-cyl engine you should already be an expert, avionics differences notwithstanding.

A Cessna 150 and a Piper Dakota both have 4-cylinder engines -- you saying someone who's flying a C-150 should already be an expert on a Dakota? Or are you just differentiating between the 4- and 6-cylinder PA28's?

 

[airdale]

it is the very different wing which creates significant and very noticeable differences in low speed handling and flight characteristics.

Yes. This thread is getting confusing.

But overall the PA-28 airframe is a PA-28 airframe, so the aerodynamics are basically the same...right

Maybe, maybe not.

According to Av Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide, the Warrior began replacing the Cherokee 140 in 1974, though both were offered for a while. The significant initial differences were that the Warrior had the tapered wing and an 10 extra HP. Later, another 10HP was added for a total of 160. Assuming this is correct, there are no Hershey-bar winged Warriors out there.

Again from Av Consumer, the Archer nameplate replaced the Cherokee 180/Challenger nameplate in 1973, with the airplane wearing Hershey bar wings until 1976. So there are both style wings out there with Archer branding.

Speaking from well over 500 hours of experience in those types (out of 25+ total types), IMHO the taper-wing versions of the two are virtually identical to fly. If the OP's Archer has the Hershey-bar wing, though, that is a significant difference and worth spending some time with a CFI. On landing especially, that wing is significantly different than the taper-wing Warrior. I would say it is the same order of difference as between the Warrior and a 172, though I'm sure others may think it is more or less.

OT: The Dakota has a Lyc O-540 six cylinder engine.

 

[John221us]

According to Av Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide, the Warrior began replacing the Cherokee 140 in 1974, though both were offered for a while. The significant initial differences were that the Warrior had the tapered wing and an 10 extra HP. Later, another 10HP was added for a total of 160. Assuming this is correct, there are no Hershey-bar winged Warriors out there.

Just to pick a little nit, the Cherokee 140's have been 150 horsepower almost from the beginning (1964), they just didn't change the name. There is an STC for 160 HP, that requires higher compression cylinders that many have installed.

 

[bflynn]

Thank you to everyone...this is what I was thinking, but obviously I didn't google hard enough. Interesting point about the steep turn, it makes sense but I would have gotten caught by it.

As far as avionics, that's always an issue. Being VFR, I tend to use two Mk1-eyeballs plus the grey matter behind them. Anything on the panel after that is just extra.

 

[Pilawt]

According to Av Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide, the Warrior began replacing the Cherokee 140 in 1974, though both were offered for a while.

I don't think it's fair to say that the Warrior "replaced" the Cherokee 140. They were for different markets. The Cherokee 140 was basically a two-seat trainer with a couple of snap-in temporary seats in the back, while the Cherokee Warrior was a full-size four-seater intended to compete head-on with the C-172. Cherokee Warrior was introduced for the 1974 model year, and the Cherokee 140 remained in production through the 1977 model year, after which it was replaced by the Tomahawk as Piper's trainer.

The significant initial differences were that the Warrior had the tapered wing and an 10 extra HP.

As John mentioned, the post-1964 140s and the early ('74-'76) Warriors had the identical 150 hp O-320 engine -- common also to the earlier "Cherokee 150".

But there were many other significant differences between early Cherokee Warriors and their contemporary Cherokee 140s. From the get-go, Cherokee Warriors had the elongated fuselage introduced on the Cherokee Arrow II in '72 and on the Cherokee Challenger (180 hp) and Cherokee Charger (235 hp) in 1973; as well as larger stabilator, full-size rear bench seat, baggage compartment with baggage door, different cowl and smaller nose wheel. The Cherokee 140 never got the fuselage stretch or larger stabilator (it was the only model with the original PA-28 dimensions after 1972), and it never had a baggage door or full-size baggage compartment.

Assuming this is correct, there are no Hershey-bar winged Warriors out there.

There are no Hershey-bar winged Warriors out there. The first Cherokee Warrior (1974 model year) had the tapered wing, and it was the only model with tapered wing until the 1976 Cherokee Archer II.

Again from Av Consumer, the Archer nameplate replaced the Cherokee 180/Challenger nameplate in 1973, with the airplane wearing Hershey bar wings until 1976. So there are both style wings out there with Archer branding.

With the change to tapered wing for the 1976 model year, it was renamed "Cherokee Archer II".

The "Cherokee Challenger" and "Cherokee Charger" nameplates lasted only the 1973 model year, then were changed to "Cherokee Archer" and "Cherokee Pathfinder", respectively. I'd heard that came about because Chrysler Corp. squawked about use of their muscle cars' nameplates.

The name "Cherokee" was dropped after the 1977 model year on all PA-28s. There was a "Cherokee Six" for 1978, but for 1979 it was just "Piper Six 300".

 

[JoseCuervo]

Interesting discussion.

Interesting discussion in that we have somehow lost the ability to fly airplanes, and we now need 1.5 - 2 hour check outs and " a significant difference and worth spending some time with a CFI" on basic airplanes and moving among some very similar models.

Somehow we have lost the ability and the "license to learn" and to fly planes. The best pilots I have ever known would count the number of wings, make sure there was a "needle, ball, and airspeed", a stick and a rudder and take off. If you don't have the confidence, then there might be stuff to work on with a CFI if there is something lacking. But, I will assure you that many of the CFI's around have never flown all 87bazillion models of PA28's, so not sure why that would ever be a recommendation.

I would never want to encourage someone to be unsafe, but, I would encourage someone to develop their skills to the point where they can fly planes that are similar but have a 20 horse power difference or a different stack of radios.

Not sure if it is our litigious society, or being driven by insurance companies, or some sort of fundamental flaw, but something has changed. [/I guess I am an old man rant]

 

[dmspilot]

develop their skills to the point where they can fly planes that are similar

How does one develop the skill of flying airplanes that are different, without flying different airplanes?

 

[JHW]

A Cessna 150 and a Piper Dakota both have 4-cylinder engines -- you saying someone who's flying a C-150 should already be an expert on a Dakota? Or are you just differentiating between the 4- and 6-cylinder PA28's?

No i dont mean a c150 when i talk about rental pa28's in a pa28 thread. And there are no 4-cyl dakotas except the ones with tsio360's that have eaten 2 of their 6 cylinders. what is your point, again ?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What would one do in a 2 hour check ride in an Archer after having 100 hours in a Warrior?

This! They're the same plane with 20hp difference. Take your Archer, take off on a day where the DA is a couple thousand feet higher, you have a Warrior. Provided you're not dealing with a different wing on an early model, there's no reason to worry about it at all. In fact, when I got checked out in a Warrior the day after I got my PP-ASEL the CFI signed me off to rent both the Warrior and the Archers.

 

[Clark1961]

A Cessna 150 and a Piper Dakota both have 4-cylinder engines -- you saying someone who's flying a C-150 should already be an expert on a Dakota? Or are you just differentiating between the 4- and 6-cylinder PA28's?

Ummm, All Dakota's are sixes...

 

[Jay Honeck]

We transitioned from a Warrior to a Pathfinder. (The predecessor to the Dakota. Same engine.)

I remember my first departure vividly. Everything inside looked the same, but when I pushed the throttle to what felt like normal Warrior takeoff power, I still had 50% more to go. Whoa!

The difference between our 150 HP Warrior, and our 235 HP Pathfinder, was night and day. 56% more horsepower is a LOT more horsepower!

Archers are a half-step in between.

 

[flyingron]

I transitioned from 152/172's to PA-28-180 at the same time I moved from Colorado down to sea level. About ten minutes after takeoff, the CFI asked if I was ever planning on reducing power. "Now there's an interesting concept I thought."

 

[NTT5418]

This! They're the same plane with 20hp difference. Take your Archer, take off on a day where the DA is a couple thousand feet higher, you have a Warrior. Provided you're not dealing with a different wing on an early model, there's no reason to worry about it at all. In fact, when I got checked out in a Warrior the day after I got my PP-ASEL the CFI signed me off to rent both the Warrior and the Archers.

Same. Coming from a Warrior, my checkout in the 180 included the traffic pattern on a hot day. That's it. (.3 on the Hobbs). Can't imagine why it would ever take you 2 hours to find out the differences.

 

[JoseCuervo]

develop their skills to the point where they can fly planes that are similar

How does one develop the skill of flying airplanes that are different, without flying different airplanes?

Not sure what your question is, given that you took a snip out of context that had "similar" and used that as your basis for asking questions about planes that are "different".

If you would like, you can try re-phrasing your question, or, even better, answer it and share with the rest of the board.


If I spend 2 hours in an Archer with a CFI after flying for 100 hours in a Warrior, I would hope that I have a BFR signature in the back of my logbook.

 

[MSPAviator]

I transitioned from a C-152 to a Arrow-180 to a Warrior with the 160hp engine, to an Archer 180hp. The PA-28's all fly about the same.

 

[weilke]

I found different years of the Archer to be more of a transition compared with flying a Warrior. If an FBO or club makes you go for an elaborate sign-off the motivation is strictly financial, not safety related.

 

[dmspilot]

Not sure what your question is, given that you took a snip out of context that had "similar" and used that as your basis for asking questions about planes that are "different".

If you would like, you can try re-phrasing your question, or, even better, answer it and share with the rest of the board.

Similar = not the same = different.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Similar = not the same = different.

Got it. Word games for the win.

 

[dmspilot]

Got it. Word games for the win.

Nobody is playing word games except for you. If I had used the phrase, "different but similar", in my question, would you have answered it?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nobody is playing word games except for you. If I had used the phrase, "different but similar", in my question, would you have answered it?

Got it. Your lack of accuracy with the written language somehow compels me to answer unrelated questions.

Cool game. Is there a link to the rules?

 

[dmspilot]

Got it. Your lack of accuracy with the written language somehow compels me to answer unrelated questions.

Cool game. Is there a link to the rules?

I have new game for you. It's called ignore list. Thank you for playing.