Warrior vs. Archer

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,322
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
My question specifically relates to the taperwing versions of both. I know the Warrior has always been a taperwing aircraft but for the sake of discussion let's just consider the '76-mid 80s version of both(Warrior II and Archer II).

Dimensionally, are they identical? Cabin size/wingspan/overall length? I have searched and can find lots of performance information but nothing showing dimensions. Maybe my google skills are broken today.

I'm aware of the cowl difference, not sure how that plays into the dimensions, but I can't find anything that says that they are different externally or in the cabin.

While I'm at it, aside from engine HP, are there any other differences to note?
 
I fly them almost interchangeably.

The sight picture looks a little different due to the cowling shape.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Dimensionally, are they identical? Cabin size/wingspan/overall length?
Click to expand...
(1) Warrior has a bench seat in the back; Archer has individual back seats.
(2) Archer has a hat shelf in the bulkhead behind the baggage area; Warrior does not.
(3) All fixed-gear PA-28s and PA-32s have the same size wheel and tire on the nose gear as on the mains -- except the Warrior [edit: and the rare "Turbo Dakota"], which [have] a smaller nosewheel and tire.

Otherwise, except for the engines, cowls and spinners, the airframes and interiors of the '76 through late '80s Warriors and Archers are identical.

In its first two years of production (1974 and 1975, before the Archer got the tapered wing), Warriors had large external Frise-type hinges visible on the underside of the ailerons. These gave the Warrior a lighter feel in the roll axis, but they were more expensive to build. So for 1976 both the Warrior and Archer had tapered wings with plain piano hinges on the ailerons.

There were a few PA-28-161s built during 1987-91 as "Piper Cadets" for flight school fleets. This stripped-down version of the Warrior lacked the third window on each side, lacked baggage area and door, had pre-1978-style landing gear strut fairings (and no wheel or brake fairings), and had different instrument panels and paint schemes. The Cadet had only the front seats as standard equipment; the rear seat was an optional extra. This was similar in concept to the "Flite Liner" version of the Cherokee 140 in the early 1970s.

Flying-1990s-01012.jpg


I'm aware of the cowl difference, not sure how that plays into the dimensions
Click to expand...
Piper spec sheets for 1983 quote the same 23.8-foot length for both the Warrior II and Archer II.
 
Last edited:
Listed as 7 knots faster, more gross weight, split rear seat. Astonishingly more $$$ asking prices on the used market. The Warrior at 800-900 pounds useful load is a 3+ person plane. The extra ~100 pounds of useful load with the Archer pushes it into the 4 person plane list. I guess this is what gets the higher asking price.

I have seen Arrows asking prices similar to a Archer. I guess percieved simplicity trumps extra speed.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
My question specifically relates to the taperwing versions of both. I know the Warrior has always been a taperwing aircraft but for the sake of discussion let's just consider the '76-mid 80s version of both(Warrior II and Archer II).

Dimensionally, are they identical? Cabin size/wingspan/overall length? I have searched and can find lots of performance information but nothing showing dimensions. Maybe my google skills are broken today.

I'm aware of the cowl difference, not sure how that plays into the dimensions, but I can't find anything that says that they are different externally or in the cabin.

While I'm at it, aside from engine HP, are there any other differences to note?
Click to expand...

If you are looking at buying, just note that most Warriors are/were training aircraft. Archers, not so much. Many Archers are in clubs because they are cheap to run and maintain, but will give you 130 kts or so at 10 gph.

You are also looking at 1000lbs useful load in the Archer. It's a true 4 place plane. Warrior is 2 plus some bags.


Same priced planes, I'd buy an Archer with less equipment than a Warrior. It has more flexibility.

Also, I'd rather have a 180 hp bird I and pull back than a 160hp I'd want to run at wide open. Sometimes I'll pull it back to 2100 rpm and putter along at about 110kts around 6.5 gal/hr.
 
Unit74 said:
....Many Archers are in clubs because they are cheap to run and maintain, but will give you 130 kts or so at 10 gph. ...
Click to expand...

I haven't met an archer yet that gets close to 130kts. I mean, unless you consider 110 'close' to 130.
 
Unit74 said:
If you are looking at buying, just note that most Warriors are/were training aircraft. Archers, not so much. Many Archers are in clubs because they are cheap to run and maintain, but will give you 130 kts or so at 10 gph.

You are also looking at 1000lbs useful load in the Archer. It's a true 4 place plane. Warrior is 2 plus some bags.


Same priced planes, I'd buy an Archer with less equipment than a Warrior. It has more flexibility.

Also, I'd rather have a 180 hp bird I and pull back than a 160hp I'd want to run at wide open. Sometimes I'll pull it back to 2100 rpm and putter along at about 110kts around 6.5 gal/hr.
Click to expand...

My Warrior was never a trainer. My local school has an Archer, both of them fly between 100-105 knots indicated. The older Cherokees are 2+, but my Warrior has 907 lbs useful load, remove 205 pounds for fuel leaves 702 pounds payload. More than enough for my wife, daughter and me to make a 300 nm trip non-stop. Itreally comes down to is the extra 100 pounds of useful load worth the extra $15-20K. Consider the Arrow, similar asking prices, slightly better useful loads and an actual 130 kts at 10 gal/hr. Yes there is ssome more complexity/cost but less than you might think and you will probably keep it longer. Buy the last plane first.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Listed as 7 knots faster, more gross weight, split rear seat. Astonishingly more $$$ asking prices on the used market. The Warrior at 800-900 pounds useful load is a 3+ person plane. The extra ~100 pounds of useful load with the Archer pushes it into the 4 person plane list. I guess this is what gets the higher asking price.

I have seen Arrows asking prices similar to a Archer. I guess percieved simplicity trumps extra speed.
Click to expand...


Just like everything else in the aviation world, speed is gonna cost you.

Just as a benchmark, my 1979 Archer II will cruise full throttle, 129 TAS leaned at 10 gal an hour, climb from a 326ft MSL field with the needle just under the 1000 mark by a hairs width on a mid 70s day(saw almost 1100fpm on a 30 degree day) full fuel and just under gross by about 75 lbs.

Also, many Warriors were shipped as an VFR aircraft.

I'm actually planning on selling late 2016 and buying a Lance, as I need the 6 seats by then. But the Archer is a great XC plane if you cannot afford to get into Bo's, SRs, etc.
 
Unit74 said:
Your delusional.....seriously.
Click to expand...

really, that's the best you got?

well, I guess 'someone' has to have the fastest archer on the planet, congrats on having probably the only archer in the world that does 130kts. I guess morgan3820 is also delusional as is every other pilot who knows that archers don't get 130kts. arrows, yes, archers, nope. well, except yours of course.
 
eman1200 said:
really, that's the best you got?

well, I guess 'someone' has to have the fastest archer on the planet, congrats on having probably the only archer in the world that does 130kts. I guess morgan3820 is also delusional as is every other pilot who knows that archers don't get 130kts. arrows, yes, archers, nope. well, except yours of course.
Click to expand...


Let's go for a ride big man. Anytime. We will go grab lunch and you will have then seen this mythical archer.

Just thinking.... Are you confusing indicated vs TAS? On all XCs, I dial up TAS. If your not familiar with what TAS is, that's airspeed corrected for altitude and temperature.
 
Unit74 said:
Let's go for a ride big man. Anytime. We will go grab lunch and you will have then seen this mythical archer.

Just thinking.... Are you confusing indicated vs TAS? On all XCs, I dial up TAS. If your not familiar with what TAS is, that's airspeed corrected for altitude and temperature.
Click to expand...

But, isn't speed over the ground what really matters. But, have it your way.

My Warrior will run 123 kts true airspeed at wide open throttle and burn 9 gal/hr. :yikes:

Pick what ever kind of speed you want to quote and it is still 7 knots difference. So for the benefit of the OP, for every other Archer , other than Unit74's, that you might look to buy, expect 5-7 knots more cruise.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of the load and performance differences.

Issue being, as already mentioned, pricing disparity... That is why I was asking about the dimensions. 95% of the time it's me or me and one pax.

I think one could also argue that quite a few Archers are flight school aircraft too. My local FBO has two of them(and one Warrior). In any case, I'm striking 10,000 hour airframes off my list, lol.

Local club has a halfway decent Archer but sadly I can't get in as the membership is capped.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I'm aware of the load and performance differences.

Issue being, as already mentioned, pricing disparity... That is why I was asking about the dimensions. 95% of the time it's me or me and one pax.

I think one could also argue that quite a few Archers are flight school aircraft too. My local FBO has two of them(and one Warrior). In any case, I'm striking 10,000 hour airframes off my list, lol.

Local club has a halfway decent Archer but sadly I can't get in as the membership is capped.
Click to expand...

The physical dimensions between the two, are identical.

Everything equal, you can buy a lot of avgas for the difference in $$$. And if true economy is your goal, the 28-151 qualifies for a mogas stc.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
But, isn't speed over the ground what really matters. But, have it your way.
.
Click to expand...

Ok... Well, in that case, yea, your right. GS is the real performance standard. That means my trip to Pine Bluff last fall with a GS of 176kts at 8k puts me in there with the A36. And those silly fools are burning 16 gph.... What fools!!!!:rolleyes2:
 
Pilawt said:
(3) All fixed-gear PA-28s and PA-32s have the same size wheel and tire on the nose gear as on the mains -- except the Warrior, which has a smaller nosewheel and tire.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting bit...the nose and mains are not the same size on the -201T.

For the OP, I haven't done extensive search but I have found common part numbers for fuselage structure part numbers on the taper wing PA-28's. They are as identical as Piper could make them...
 
I've rented, I have about 20 hours total time in the Archer. They're nice birds! Good load, not blazing fast but not slow. Love the low wings. I was considering a 182 but filling the tanks would make me cry, LOL.
 
Unit74 said:
Ok... Well, in that case, yea, your right. GS is the real performance standard. That means my trip to Pine Bluff last fall with a GS of 176kts at 8k puts me in there with the A36. And those silly fools are burning 16 gph.... What fools!!!!:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

The miles/gal. Is about the same. They burn more but get there faster. Total fuel burn is about the same. Seats per mile is about the same. What does a cherokee six burn? :dunno:
 
Same airplane with some cosmetic tweaks. Easy to fly. Speed is comfortable a little slow for long cross countries.
 
Interesting post..... I owned a 28-151 for 7 years and am learning things I never knew..

Ps... It was a great first plane for me...:yes::):):)
 
Faster no? Climb better? Yes.

My amusing Archer story was when I moved from Colorado (where I learned to fly) to near Baltimore Airpark, I got checked out there. The Archer was a blast over the 152's I had learned with and the 5000' altitude difference bolstered that. After about five minutes into my checkout the instructor asked if I was ever intending to throttle back. "Now there's an interesting concept" I say. In Colorado the knob stays in until we get abeam the numbers on downwind.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
... any other differences to note?
Click to expand...
I have about 700 hours in various taper-wing PA-28s, which is about 2/3 of my total time. My experience is this:

Rarely will one achieve the factory book numbers for speed, but the relative numbers (Warrior<Archer<Arrow) are pretty accurate. Looking at taper-wing Warrior and Archer POHs that I have here, the Archer is about 10% faster at 75% power. Obviously YMMV with rigging, engine, and other factors.

I'll not join the speed argument, but a friend and I took an Archer for a $100 hamburger yesterday. Winds out and back were light and about the same both ways. I would say that ground speed averaged in the neighborhood of 120kt though admittedly I wasn't paying close attention. In a Warrior under similar circumstances I would have expected to see 105-110.
 
airdale said:
I have about 700 hours in various taper-wing PA-28s, which is about 2/3 of my total time. My experience is this:

Rarely will one achieve the factory book numbers for speed, but the relative numbers (Warrior<Archer<Arrow) are pretty accurate. Looking at taper-wing Warrior and Archer POHs that I have here, the Archer is about 10% faster at 75% power. Obviously YMMV with rigging, engine, and other factors.

I'll not join the speed argument, but a friend and I took an Archer for a $100 hamburger yesterday. Winds out and back were light and about the same both ways. I would say that ground speed averaged in the neighborhood of 120kt though admittedly I wasn't paying close attention. In a Warrior under similar circumstances I would have expected to see 105-110.
Click to expand...

Almost exactly in line with my recollections from rental Warriors (most beat to death) and Archers (usually a little nicer).

And now, my Bonanza, I cruise at 12.1 GPH, 162 knots true.
 
I flew lots of mid-'80s Warriors and Archers when they were fairly new. With strong engines, straight, well-rigged airframes and full wheel/brake fairing packages, and with one or two aboard, 123-125 KTAS cruise was common in the Warriors and 128-130 KTAS in the Archers. Change any of those variables, then not so much.
 
Pilawt said:
I flew lots of mid-'80s Warriors and Archers when they were fairly new. With strong engines, straight, well-rigged airframes and full wheel/brake fairing packages, and with one or two aboard, 123-125 KTAS cruise was common in the Warriors and 128-130 KTAS in the Archers. Change any of those variables, then not so much.
Click to expand...

I have a fair amount of time in both flavors, and this has been my experience. I've flown at least one Archer that could reliably cruise at 130 knots.

I think the PA-28 is sensitive to control rigging, and with the big ailerons it's easy for them to get out of trim. It's pretty easy to lose five knots of speed if the PA-28 is out of rig, the engine is tired, or the airplane is just bent from decades of low timer landings.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I've rented, I have about 20 hours total time in the Archer. They're nice birds! Good load, not blazing fast but not slow. Love the low wings. I was considering a 182 but filling the tanks would make me cry, LOL.
Click to expand...

I tried to buy a sweet 182Q before buying the Archer. Dollars to doughnuts, the Archer will do 95% what the 182 will for 30% less. Besides, I really don't like the look of Cessnas.
 
Morgan3820 said:
The miles/gal. Is about the same. They burn more but get there faster. Total fuel burn is about the same. Seats per mile is about the same. What does a cherokee six burn? :dunno:
Click to expand...

That's my internal struggle right now. My heart is set on a Saratoga, but I can't afford the panel I want. I will take a Lance with a solid IFR platform, but I can forgo the fancy gear switch and go with a Six and use the insurance and MX savings to burn more gas to get there 15 minutes later.

Six should burn somewhere near 16gph-ish firewalled in cruise.
 
Unit74 said:
I tried to buy a sweet 182Q before buying the Archer. Dollars to doughnuts, the Archer will do 95% what the 182 will for 30% less. Besides, I really don't like the look of Cessnas.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly the 182 is more versatile but I don't like the look of em either. And prices are up there if you want a lower time engine and a decent panel. I don't need a 777 cluster but I don't want a Cub panel either:)
 
Interesting debate on the cruising speed of the Warrior and Archer. At 6000 feet a couple of months ago and maybe 12 degrees centigrade outside, and more or less full throttle at that altitude, where the manual says that you cannot get more than 75 percent power I saw the 123 knots true air speed that a previous poster mentioned. I do have wheel pants on the Warrior, which does make a significant difference. Mine is a 1978 Warrior II with 160 HP.

I also tried to experiment with leaning (I have a one cylinder egt), and hopefully the engine was properly leaned for my 123 knots.

One of my instructors suggested putting some weight in the baggage compartment for better performance, and I was by myself also doing this 123 knots with some weight but much less than the maximum allowed in the baggage compartment.
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine bought a Warrior fixed it up and sold it. Before he sold it we took a trip 40 miles or so from town landed on a beach and dug for clams. Took back a 5 gallon bucket full. Good performance on take off from the beach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top