172 vs. Warrior for private pilot training

[DieselDragRacer]

I've lurked here for year but this is my first post and this site helped me find the fire inside to fly once again that I've had since I was about 10 yo.

My small school had the lease of one of its two C-172's come up so the plane was returned since demand didn't quite justify two planes.

The problem for me is demand is about perfect for the other 172 so the plane is staying close to fully scheduled.

The school also has a 152 (not interested) and a Warrior available for training and they rarely see use compared to the 172. As a student pilot who will solo on his next flight (assuming the winds finally cooperate) how hard would it be to transition to a Warrior at this early point in the game? What am I trading off between the two planes (they rent at the same rate) generally speaking?

Thanks!

 

[cbflydog224]

The transition isn't bad....But as a student who hasn't soloed yet, DON'T attempt the change. The visual cues will be considerably different from the high wing 172 to the low wing warrior. My suggestion is stick with 1 plane, complete your private, then fly everything you can get your hands on.

 

[Metro752]

Cesspool 152 or Bellanca Citabria

 

[desertdog71]

I agree, stick to what you know for now. Once you get proficient in the C-172. I mean good enough to pass a checkride with ease. Then you could make the switch with little to no trouble. In fact you may find that the Arrow won't float near as much on landings.

 

[kf4amu]

Arrow? He said Warrior...

I like Pipers better, I dont like spring steel landing gear because it seems to bounce more as opposed to oleo struts.

Plus the wing struts are an extra support the pipers dont have, cutting down on wind resistance.

The 140's and Warriors I flew all had a direct link to the nose gear, as opposed to that spring thing 172s have making you swerve or use the brakes to turn.

And low wings just look more like a plane should look.

 

[Lazy8]

It's funny... almost four years in this biz and i still hear the same things.

1. Cessnas float longer on landings and Pipers don't
2. Pipers are easier to land and don't bounce
3. Pipers float longer on landings and Cessnas don't
4. Cessnas are easier to land and don't bounce

All are bogus.

Now since Diamond has entered the picture I'm hearing the same arguments for them. After flying all three quite a bit I can safely say they all land and fly just fine. I think if you've been flying a Piper for a while and jump into a Cessna, then yes it will be more difficult to land. There is a small noticeable difference in spring loaded gear vs. oleo struts, but none that would cause you to bounce down the runway. It's all about sight pictures, tactile feel in the control wheel, and knowing the airplane.

I would suggest you stick with the C172 since all your time is in it. If you can't then the C152 would be my next choice. It's just a smaller 172. Warriors aren't rocket science to fly- just remember to switch fuel tanks often!
I agree that low-wings feel and look more like an airplane should, but when it comes to flight training i'm Cessna all the way. Now if only they'd start making twins again...

g

 

[kf4amu]

Well of course by "bounce" I mean an inch or two...I've never bounced more than that..... :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Black Hawk]

Cessna's glide better than Piper's so you have an easier time with engine out procedures and forced landings. Stick with one airplane early on though to avoid confusion.

 

[epic!]

i prefered the warrior over the 172 when i was training. but i agree stick with the 172 for now and transition later, its good to break up the monotony of flying the same plane.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I would hardly say that Cessna's glide better....it's pretty much like what Grove pointed out. If you're used to one and then switch to the other it's going to handle differently. I got my private in a Warrior and had a perfectly easy time with simulated engine out landings....after getting my ticket I tried an engine out landing in a 172 and using the same procedures that I would in a Warrior found that compared to the Piper, a Cessna drops like a brick when you add flaps. It's not that one is better than the other, it's just a matter of slightly different procedures. If time/money is a factor, get your license in one and then fly as many different planes as you can to get experience.

 

[nosehair]

I like Pipers better, I dont like spring steel landing gear because it seems to bounce more as opposed to oleo struts.

Plus the wing struts are an extra support the pipers dont have, cutting down on wind resistance.
And low wings just look more like a plane should look.

It's true. Pipers land easier - that's precisely why you don't want to learn to fly in one. In my years and years of teaching and having students trained in Pipers come to check out in a Cessna and it is a much harder transition from Piper Warrior to Cessna 172. Not just for the landing gear, but also because the crosswind gets up under the high wing Cessna.

Learn in the Cessna, then change to the Piper.

 

[Steve]

Cessna's glide better than Piper's so you have an easier time with engine out procedures and forced landings. Stick with one airplane early on though to avoid confusion.

You may want to look that fact up in the POH's. You are incorrect.

 

[BoilerUP]

It's true. Pipers land easier - that's precisely why you don't want to learn to fly in one. In my years and years of teaching and having students trained in Pipers come to check out in a Cessna and it is a much harder transition from Piper Warrior to Cessna 172. Not just for the landing gear, but also because the crosswind gets up under the high wing Cessna.

Learn in the Cessna, then change to the Piper.

As somebody who did all my formal training in Piper products and has hundreds of hours dual given in Cessnas, I wholeheartedly agree. The Cherokee is a great stable airplane (very forgiving) but it can make a new pilot lazy with basic piloting skills. I did always think the stabilator excuse for PA28 pilots transitioning to Cessnas and vice versa was bogus, though...

The best nosewheel airplane for training IMO is the Cessna 150/152. You learn to manage power & airspeed, learn how to land in a crosswind, and most importantly learn how to use the damn rudder!

 

[BoilerUP]

You may want to look that fact up in the POH's. You are incorrect.

IIRC, the 172R has a higher aspect ratio than the PA28-161. Regardless, I could care less what the POH says - a Cessna 172 *will* glide better than any Cherokee, even one with the tapered Warrior wing. I've seen it with my own two eyes. I've even caught a thermal in a 150 and climbed 1500ft with it, and you won't ever do that in any PA28...

 

[Eagle-ista]

The difference a student pilot will notice is that you don't use carb heat as often in a Cherokee.

Come on guys! He was asking if he should transition to a new plane because of scheduling issues, not which plane glides farther...

If you can get in the Cherokee, and price is not a factor, I'd take the Warrior. There are some that say the Cessna is the best aircraft for training. I think it's a wash. It won't do you any good at all if your interval between lessons is increased waiting for it.

If you can have the Warrior without scheduling issues, transition and get moving. I'd wait until after you solo, but that's just my opinion.

 

[jdlilfan]

In fact you may find that the Arrow won't float near as much on landings.

They dont really float, they sink like a rock. Pulling the power on a 180 Accuracy landing results in sink rates to the like of a learjet. Thats just my experience with it.

 

[2Inverted]

If you can get in the Cherokee, and price is not a factor, I'd take the Warrior. It won't do you any good at all if your interval between lessons is increased waiting for it.

If you can have the Warrior without scheduling issues, transition and get moving. I'd wait until after you solo, but that's just my opinion.

Eagle-ista hit it on the nose, and you'll like the Warrior. Once you get your ticket, get checked out in everything you can and make up your own mind as to which you like better.

 

[DieselDragRacer]

Thanks for all the responses! I'll stick with the 172 and hopefully solo in it Saturday.....weather accomodating that is.

 

[Black Hawk]

IIRC, the 172R has a higher aspect ratio than the PA28-161. Regardless, I could care less what the POH says - a Cessna 172 *will* glide better than any Cherokee, even one with the tapered Warrior wing. I've seen it with my own two eyes. I've even caught a thermal in a 150 and climbed 1500ft with it, and you won't ever do that in any PA28...

Good points. Although the manuals do claim similar glide ratios for similar airplanes (I looked up a C172RG and Arrow IV because I had them handy) I wouldn't count on that in practice. In a real life engine out situation I'll take a Cessna product over a comparable Piper product any day regardless of any claims their manual might make.

 

[CX880]

DieselDragRacers, good luck on you first solo and make sure to bring friends or family to share the experience. Just remember that the plane will want to fly faster so things will happen more quickly and you need more rudder without the person next to you, just tips from my experience at solo. As far as your question, take the C172. Both are good planes but the 172 is very easy plane to fly, although I hear the arrows are easier to land. Plus the 172 has 2 doors while the arrow only has one, could get real ugly if your forced to make a emergency landing and your trapped in the plane because the only door you have can't be opened or is obstructed by dead CFI or Pax. Have fun!

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Just remember that the plane will want to fly faster so things will happen more quickly and you need more rudder without the person next to you......................Plus the 172 has 2 doors while the arrow only has one, could get real ugly if your forced to make a emergency landing and your trapped in the plane because the only door you have can't be opened or is obstructed by dead CFI or Pax. Have fun!

Um........where to begin here..........oh the heck with it.:erm:

 

[Fearless Tower]

Um........where to begin here..........oh the heck with it.:erm:

My thoughts exactly

 

[cezzna]

Coke, Pepsi, or, RC. They are all colas and while different, basically the same thing. Do yourself a favor and find a taildragger. Learning how to use the rudder is key, lots of pilots still don't get it. When training say no to glass and head for the grass.

 

[kf4amu]

Coke, Pepsi, or, RC. They are all colas and while different, basically the same thing.

BLASPHEMOUS!!! ITS ALL CALLED COKE!!!

 

[Fearless Tower]

BLASPHEMOUS!!! ITS ALL CALLED COKE!!!

That's awesome....reminds me of when I was in Texas and they used to ask "what kind of Coke ya'll want"

 

[Amish RakeFight]

The Warrior is a more forgiving and easier plane to fly than the 172 IMO. Stall characteristics are different as well. During power-on stalls in a warrior the nose really doesnt pitch down fully, it sort of hangs up there. The 172 will break down and you'll get a little more wing drop.

The 172 can get a lot closer to a spin inadvertantly than the warrior if you mishandle the stall.

 

[kf4amu]

The Warrior is a more forgiving and easier plane to fly than the 172 IMO. Stall characteristics are different as well. During power-on stalls in a warrior the nose really doesnt pitch down fully, it sort of hangs up there. The 172 will break down and you'll get a little more wing drop.

I agree...and is it me, or does anybody else think that when you put flaps in a Piper, the nose pitches down, or doesnt pitch at all...whereas with a cessna, there is a relatively violent pitch up with the first/second notch of flaps....

 

[Amish RakeFight]

deleted.

 

[gkrangers]

I agree...and is it me, or does anybody else think that when you put flaps in a Piper, the nose pitches down, or doesnt pitch at all...whereas with a cessna, there is a relatively violent pitch up with the first/second notch of flaps....

I think I agree, been a while since I've flown a warrior, but I recall this as a difference. The nose will pitch down a bit before ballooning...I think....maybe....

 

[papanovember]

I'd take the 172 any day over a warrior. I have 400 hours dual given in brand new Warrior III's. The 172 is wider up front and the new ones have high back seats that let you sit up. The warriors are like being in a hole.

Performance wise the 172 is far above the warrior. The warriors (and most other new Pipers) tapered wing is great for docile stalls but it is terrible for performance. Yesterday I climbed at 150 FPM from 4000 to 7000 feet at ISA +15. I've flown a carbed 160 HP 172 at 500 FPM up to 7500 no problem. The extra 20 HP of the fuel injected SPs are even better. If you want to fly a low wing grab a Beech Mouse (19,23) or Cherokee 140 or 180 with the old Hershey bar wing, not as good at low speeds but great for climb and cruise performance.

Another example of the poor wing design of the pipers is the Seminole. Comparing it to the Duchess (basically same plane, 180HP side four place light twin) The Duchess can carry an extra 100 lbs (3900 vs 3800 MGTOW) and the single engine service ceiling (8300 DA for the BE76 3800 DA for the PA44) The only sacrifice the Duchess gives up is a higher Red line 65 vs 56.