Whats the difference?

Will Kumley

Will Kumley

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
750
Location
Pacific Southwest
Display Name
Display name:
Will
The plane search has gotten more serious and it looks like I'm in the market for a Grumman AA5 series, Beech Sundowner, or Piper Cherokee/Warrior.

But after doing some research I'm curious what the difference is specifically between the Cherokee 180 and a Warrior ii. The Warrior has a 160hp engine but overall looks to have a nearly identical useful load, climb, cruise, etc... Just seemed to me like the Cherokee 180 would have better numbers. Am I missing something?
 
Hi Will.

I can't answer your question, but just wanted to point out (in case you missed it) there is a Traveler for sale by a POA'er. It is listed in a thread here.
 
somorris said:
Hi Will.

I can't answer your question, but just wanted to point out (in case you missed it) there is a Traveler for sale by a POA'er. It is listed in a thread here.
Click to expand...
Yep, I saw it. Gotta show it to the wife and decide if we want to purchase a plane on the opposite coast.
 
Will Kumley said:
But after doing some research I'm curious what the difference is specifically between the Cherokee 180 and a Warrior ii. The Warrior has a 160hp engine but overall looks to have a nearly identical useful load, climb, cruise, etc... Just seemed to me like the Cherokee 180 would have better numbers. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I assume you're comparing manufacturer's "book" performance. Those numbers lose their relevance as these airframes and engines age. Unlike the days when these airplanes were rolling off the assembly line, it's now hard to find two examples even reasonably alike in equipment or performance.

But looking at those old "book" numbers ... First, the Warrior has a slightly more aerodynamically-efficient wing than the Cherokee 180's "Hershey-Bar" wing. Second, if you are looking at Warrior numbers from 1978 or later, they have the redesigned wheel and brake fairings that add several knots compared to the older style on all fixed-gear PA-28 and PA-32 models.
 
Good point, yes I am comparing book numbers. Although I figure book numbers from a mid 70s Cherokee 180 and a mid 70s Warrior would have similar degradations.
 
I have an 82 Warrior and one of the few if only aircraft that the wheel pants add about 6-7 knots and make it fly so much better…prior models were more like 3 knots…otherwise the 180 vs the 160 is simple more is better…and I have owned both wings…
 
A Warrior has a tapered wing and an O-320 engine, while a Cherokee 180 has a straight chord wing and an O-360.
 
The best wing was on the early tapered Piper wing. I think only 74' and 75'. They had expensive and effective "Frise" ailerons. To cut costs they were eliminated on the later wings.
 
I don't know which years they switched, but some older PA-28's had the trim above your head rather than below, and on older ones some have the Cessna pull/push throttles vs the levers, if any of that matters to you. I think both of those options are only on the straight wing planes. To me, the trim location isn't much, and the straight/taper doesn't matter that much. 180 vs 160 HP can be significant, hot or short/obstructed fields as others have mentioned. Book numbers can be pretty optimistic for takeoff distance, in my opinion, in any of them. Kinda like HP ratings on box store air compressors.
 
The later version of the Cherokee 180 is called the Archer (in keeping with the Native American theme). The Archer II like the Warrior II sports the tapered wing. The difference being the extra 20 horses.
 
as many have said, the warrior has a tapered wing with more span. the early ones did have the spring loaded ailerons, they have great control feel. the taper wing does not have the trait of the straight wing to just stop flying in you get slow in the flair. its actually too easy to land. it also has the most benign stall characteristic of any airplane I have ever flown, i doubt you could spin one of you tried. mine is a very early one, serial number 15. the earlier ones have a few strange things in them that were changed in later runs, the fuel header tank for one. it makes getting parts an interesting thing some times.
 
Personally, I love my 1979 Warrior II (PA-28-161). I've taken it all over the country and the 20 HP less than the Archer II (PA-28-181) only affected me once on a midday takeoff from Douglas, WY at over 90+F at MGW. Was sweating the anemic climb, but at least the land all around was flat with a nice straight road under us in our travel direction. Leaned out the Warrior is better on fuel than the Archer. I'm not telling you what to buy, just passing on my experience. My buddy has a sweet Dakota I love and a joy to fly, but I wouldn't want to own it.

In terms of your mission, for simplicity, flight characteristics, economics, and maintenance, I think the Warrior II and Archer II are the sweet spots in the Piper tribe. There is a paper-only STC to increase the Warrior II MGW another 115 pounds to 2440 pounds.

What unsafervguy said about benign stall characteristics is very true of the both the Warrior and Archer. Unless you horse it into the stall, it will flutter on the edge until the engine overheats.
 
Domenick said:
Personally, I love my 1979 Warrior II (PA-28-161). I've taken it all over the country and the 20 HP less than the Archer II (PA-28-181) only affected me once on a midday takeoff from Douglas, WY at over 90+F at MGW. Was sweating the anemic climb, but at least the land all around was flat with a nice straight road under us in our travel direction. Leaned out the Warrior is better on fuel than the Archer. I'm not telling you what to buy, just passing on my experience. My buddy has a sweet Dakota I love and a joy to fly, but I wouldn't want to own it.

In terms of your mission, for simplicity, flight characteristics, economics, and maintenance, I think the Warrior II and Archer II are the sweet spots in the Piper tribe. There is a paper-only STC to increase the Warrior II MGW another 115 pounds to 2440 pounds.

What unsafervguy said about benign stall characteristics is very true of the both the Warrior and Archer. Unless you horse it into the stall, it will flutter on the edge until the engine overheats.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the very informative reply. The school I rent from has a couple warriors and an archer, I’ve only flown the archer and agree. The stall seems very gentle. Actually took it out yesterday in gusty winds. I probably made myself more concerned thinking about it than was needed as it was still a very smooth landing according to my daughter. Internally, I was working for that smooth landing with winds at 16G28 and a PIREP from a plane 2 minutes in front of me of severe wind sheer at 300ft AGL at the time of landing.
 
Another vote for the AA5 series. Great support network for parts and advice and the sliding canopy beats the single door IMHO
 
I would suggest an archer as the best of both worlds, but archer price are nuts right now. My club just spent $130k to buy a 78 archer. It has a new engine, but otherwise pretty average. I believe the warrior has some options for increasing the power later if you want.

As mentioned the tapered wing is slightly more efficient, so I could believe I warrior could keep up with a regular 180.
 
I flew an Archer in a four person club for almost four years. The Archer had a good useful load and took me and my bride everywhere. The only downside for me was the single door, hated it. Then again I had a hip replaced at an early age and my knees weren't much better. Where were those knee savers when I was catching?? We decided to finally buy or own plane and purchase a 1980 Sundowner. We loved the two doors and all the room, easy in and out. Flight planed for 110 kts and we took that plane on many trips, filling in a good many of the states on my map. After nine years we decided on more speed for retirement travels and after a short stint with a debonair we purchased a Commander. PLenty of room and comfort, two doors, flight plan for 130 kts.

Good luck in your search!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top