Good Used 4 Seaters

Well... I hafta agree.....

We have one, (PA28-151)

After tons of research, and some luck, we got a good one.

It is affordable.. and good mission profile.

Does the job at a cost of operation that enables us to just go
flying without thinking twice about the cost for an hour of flying
fun...

We had a 172 for two yrs before the Warrior..

Our Cessna was a good aircraft, about the same mission profile, but
definately NOT the same aircraft.

The Warrior is better at just about everything we like..

YMMV!



Dave



....On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:26:54 +1100, "KevinBlack"
wrote:

Looking also for a good second hand acft for a possible partnership here in
OZ (4-5 people). The Warrior II looks like the best value for money (much
more limited market). Bog standard systems, reasonable useful load, every
LAME and his dog has worked on one, reasonable cost of ownership, speed and
capability, reasonable (for me anyway) mission profile. Hard to get into
trouble in one, relatively forgiving, and not bad looking. Bits and pieces
easy to find, and Piper are still building the Warrior (albeit the III).
Mods available and still getting new accessories made. Entry cost for a
1970s something job with reasonable times much less than the LSA options.

Seems the advent of LSA might just be driving the costs of these certified
beasts down. As one poster pointed out, his club's quite nice Warrior II
went for US$35K, that's gotta be a better than average price point.

So my vote would be a Warrior II over a C172M,N,P. Of couse YMMV

Cheers,
Kevin

"Curt Fennell" wrote in message
.. .
Hi, Folks...

I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.

Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
weekends?

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Well... I hafta agree.....

We have one, (PA28-151)

After tons of research, and some luck, we got a good one.

It is affordable.. and good mission profile.

Does the job at a cost of operation that enables us to just go
flying without thinking twice about the cost for an hour of flying
fun...

We had a 172 for two yrs before the Warrior..

Our Cessna was a good aircraft, about the same mission profile, but
definately NOT the same aircraft.

The Warrior is better at just about everything we like..

YMMV!



Dave

Dave,

I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
spawned from first hand experience.
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

TIA,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman wrote:

Dave,
snip
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
initial training in Cessnas.

Dave

Dave Butler wrote:
: Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
: fits better?

: I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

: The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
: Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
: initial training in Cessnas.

I like to give a fellow pilot/cfi friend some ribbing about Piper vs. Cessnas (I have a PA28-180, he's got a straight-tail 172
and a 152 he does primary training in). As I like to put it, a Cessna is a pilot's airplane, and a Piper is an *owner's* airplane.
Everything about a specific Cessna design is pretty much from the ground up for that specific airframe. Piper on the other hand was
great about bolting on bigger engines, extending control surfaces, stretching fuselages, etc as incremental improvements. As such,
the Pipers a little big heavier, but also a little bit more overbuilt. Parts are a little more common, since they're used in a
variety of different models, often old and new.

Now before the Cessna crowd keel-hauls me, I'll say that the Piper might cruise slight faster, but the Cessna has a better
short-field and "overloading" capabilities. A Cherokee (my 180 at least) seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board. It's not stellar, but it's enough... at least until you load it up a bit
much. Then the climb goes to crap in a hurry. The Cherokee wing has such a benign stall, it's not a very good trainer IMO. The
Cessna glides better, but the Piper handles crosswinds better due to its slight faster approach, more "cushioned" ground effect, and
*lower* wing in the crosswind.

Oh, and a PA-28 goes for around $5K-$10K less than a comparable 172.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
Jay Beckman wrote:

Dave,
snip
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
initial training in Cessnas.

Dave

Shoot, sorry...

Did I mis-atribute the original post...?

My Bad.

Jay B

In article ,
wrote:

A Cherokee (my 180 at least)
seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board.

eh? maybe the 180 might not seem different, but a 140 (even with the
160hp) will performance noticably different lightly loaded in the winter
and fully loaded in the summer.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

: A Cherokee (my 180 at least)
: seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
: with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board.

: eh? maybe the 180 might not seem different, but a 140 (even with the
: 160hp) will performance noticably different lightly loaded in the winter
: and fully loaded in the summer.

Certainly... I've got a friend with a PA-28-150 (basically a PA-28-140 with a nice back seat). It's more or less the same
thing, although with a lower max gross. It seems to make a reasonable 500 fpm or so until it's loaded to a certain point... then it's
a pucker factor takeoff. All I'm saying is that I've rarely seen much more than 800 fpm or less than 400 fpm in my 180 no matter what
the load or DA (up to 4000').

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message

I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

Shoot, sorry...

Did I mis-atribute the original post...?

My Bad.

Not at all. I just responded to a question that wasn't directed to me.
*My* bad. ;-)

Dave (but not *that* Dave)

Hehe.. sure..

At the risk of starting something... but looks like I did any way.

OK.. the misssion of both aircraft is about the same, same engine,
(both 150 hp) We had the 172 for 2 yrs, into our 2nd year with the
Warrior.....

Cessna 172,(1974)

Pros - better at short field, better glide ratio (lighter wing
loading), easier to assist pax getting in . High wing is an umbrella
in rain.

Fun to fly, less stable, probably a better trainer, spinable (miss
that!!)


172 Cons, - lightly/loosely built, squeaked and groaned. Ventilation-
awful , the "pop can controls" were umm... awful. Opening the window
(s) worked well though..

Drafty, although ours was warmer than others we have flown...

Heater.. what heater? Could never convince the rear seat pax that it
had one....

Cockpit lighting seemed to be an afterthought.. The overhead red
light "lens" was a poor arrangement that had to be adjusted if you
changed the bulb, was sensitive to a change in filiment position..



Warrior.(1976)

Pros - Tougher, stiffer, no squeaks/groans while taxing, stabilator
has better authority in the flare.

Seems that everywhere we looked, (we had the interiors out /replaced
etc. in both planes) the piper is built stronger, stiffer, closer
spacing between structural members etc.

Wider landing gear stance, ....would not hesitate tackling a cross
wind with the Warrior that I would be aprehensive to try in the 172.

The oleos on the Warrior allow me to "plant" the Warrior down firmly
in difficult winds without getting kicked back into the air. (the
Cessna spring steel gear would reward me with a bounce)

More comfortable cross country aircraft. More stable in the roll axis,
(more dihedral) and HAS RUDDER TRIM! Cruise climb, - 3/4 turn of the
knob and keep your feet on the floor. Had to keep pressure with your
right foot with the 172 during climbs/decents.

Good cockpit lighting. Overhead red light has a proper (glass) lens,
light hits the right places. Separate controls for radio and
instrument lighting.

Better seat tracks/rollers.. no more needs to be said here...

Smoother ride in rough air, requires less attenton to keep
upright..(probably due to higher wing loading and less flat side area)

Controls feel more direct, responsive - yoke tube is an inch
diameter, or more, - Cessna yoke tube is 3/4 in dia... flexible by
comparison.

Interior is quieter, we can speak to each other with headsets off..
There is more fabric/vinyl in the Warrior interior, it absorbs some
sound..(.new Airtex headliner is wool) The 172's headliner was hard
plastic, in fact , most of the interior finish was hard plastic, not
very sound absorbing...

Faster than the 172 at same power settings (but not by much)

Ventilation is great! Overhead duct with individual, controllable
vents for each person, high volume floor (side) vents. And they can
all be truly "shut off" (no more 200 mph tape over the vents in the
winter)

A real heater! Will roast you if you crank it up. Has REAL heat ducts!
and rear seat pax have ducts too...(I live in Canada, we get winter
here)

Connection to nosewheel steering is more direct (no springs)


Warrior Cons...

Longer takeoff/landing distances, most difference noticed at heaver
weights, less if lighter

Other owners tell us that the Mattson VG's and gap seals (to be
installed soon) will close this gap significantly.

Ya HAFTA manage yer fuel! (no "both" setting)

Stalls are not much fun, can't spin it.. (rats!)

Single door... I can't help a (elderly?) pax much, I have to get in
first...

Oleo struts require care & maintenance.




Now, having said all this, remember, the is my OPINION, based on ONE
Cessna 172, and ONE Warrior. - ONLY

They are both good aircraft, but for the reasons/preferences above the
Warrior is my runaway choice..of the two designs.

Note I have tried to stay away from the high vs low wing thingy....


I am not an aircraft design engineer, but I have looked into every
cavity of both aircraft, and (God forbid) if I had to put down in the
trees some night, I would sooner be in the Piper.

YMMV!

(Dave struggles into flame suit)

Dave





On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:55:17 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
spawned from first hand experience.
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

TIA,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Dave wrote in
:

Hey Dave,

Some "fixes" to two of your cons listed below *big smile*

Warrior Cons...

Single door... I can't help a (elderly?) pax much, I have to get in
first...

Get a Sundowner. Two doors. I help the passenger in, and I close the
door.

I am not an aircraft design engineer, but I have looked into every
cavity of both aircraft, and (God forbid) if I had to put down in the
trees some night, I would sooner be in the Piper.

Get a Sundowner. Built like a tank

By the way, did I say get a Sundowner *big smile*.

Pros

Huge cabin for creature comfort. Back passengers even have leg room
after seats are moved up for front passengers.
Can take 4 adult passengers and full fuel. This doesn't allow for
luggage! If luggage, 3 adults and luggage.
Trailing link gears cushion your landings and make you look like a pro on
landings.
Performance like a 172 on low MANLY wings.
Not nearly as pricey as a Warrior or Cessna (that I have seen with what I
bought in mine)

Cons

EXPENSIVE when it comes to parts.

Ownership = priceless

Allen