Good Used 4 Seaters

You don't need your flame suit Dave. Given all the off-topic posts and
the posts from
"let's-see-how-many-posts-I-can-from-these-over-eager-pilots" known as
Mxsmanic, your post is refreshing.

I've never owned a Cessna so I can only agree with the second-half of
your post but thanks for posting it. I don't think I've ever seen
anyone bring up many of the issues you have in this newsgroup. Makes me
glad I chose the -161.

Marco

Dave wrote:
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

Marco Leon wrote:

snip


Dave wrote:

Hehe.. sure..

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

snip


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


snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.


--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross Richardson wrote:



Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.



The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
"truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.

Ray Andraka wrote:
Ross Richardson wrote:



Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.



The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
"truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.

OK, I agee with that.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
"truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.

OK, I agee with that.

And if you REALLY want stability, fly a 235 in turbulence with 84
gallons of fuel in those short wings. We have flown with Warriors and
172s in "light to moderate chop" (per their reports) that we have
never, ever felt.

Wing loading sure helps in the bumps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

The Cherokees have a higher wing loading, which makes them more "stable"
in turbulence. On the other-hand, that also makes them feel a bit more
"truck-like". The Cherokees are more comfortable in turbulence.

OK, I agee with that.


And if you REALLY want stability, fly a 235 in turbulence with 84
gallons of fuel in those short wings. We have flown with Warriors and
172s in "light to moderate chop" (per their reports) that we have
never, ever felt.

Wing loading sure helps in the bumps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Yup, same with the straight wing Cherokee Six. I've been up numerous
times where I hear lots of complaints about the ride while I am flying
along comfortably hardly feeling any bumps. I've remarked a couple
times when getting tossed around in heavier turbulence that I wouldn't
want to be in a 172 then.

Only by comparison of these two aircraft..

The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.

The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
wings level flight without pilot input.

One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
to speak...

We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....

BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...

Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small
sample)

Cheers!

Dave

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
wrote:

Marco Leon wrote:

snip


Dave wrote:

Hehe.. sure..

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

snip


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


snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.

Dave,

I also appreciated an almost unbiased comparison between the C172 &
PA28-161.
What has really got my interest are the comments you make about the airframe
structural differences.
Obviously both aircraft were designed very well as I am not aware of any
AD's that have addressed major structural problems with either breed.
However,the Cherokee takes all the landing loads through its wing structure
whereas the Skyhawk takes landing loads onto its fuselage.
Your comments polarizes my view, that the Cherokee needs and [by your
observations] may be structural stronger than the Cessna.
I was never really sure why I personally preferred to fly a Cherokee but you
may have eluded to a significant difference between the airframes, that had
failed to sink in to my grey matter.
Thanks for an objective posting on this volatile subject.

Roy
Piper Archer N5804F



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Good Used 4 Seaters


Only by comparison of these two aircraft..

The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.

The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
wings level flight without pilot input.

One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
to speak...

We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....

BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...

Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small
sample)

Cheers!

Dave

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
wrote:

Marco Leon wrote:

snip


Dave wrote:

Hehe.. sure..

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

snip


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


snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.



"Dave" wrote in message
...
Only by comparison of these two aircraft..

The Warrior has more dihedral, and , when trimmed, seems to level
itself more readily than the Cessna when disturbed from level flight.

The difference was most noticible in minor turbulance that did not
require correcton from the pilot. The Cessna tended to stay "one wing
low" for a time after disturbed, the Warrior tends to return to
wings level flight without pilot input.

One of my partners in the Warrior was a partner in the Cessna, he had
commented on the same characteristic. This difference would probably
only be noticable to us, having flown both aircraft "back to back" so
to speak...

We literally stepped out of the Cessna and into the Warrior....

BOTH aircraft were very stable in the pitch and yaw attitudes. Only
difference we noticed was in the roll attitude...

Also please remember , this is ONE CessnaONE Warrior.... (small
sample)

Cheers!

Dave

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:13 -0600, Ross Richardson
wrote:

Marco Leon wrote:

snip


Dave wrote:

Hehe.. sure..

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

snip


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


snip

Why do you say a C-172 is less stable. I have a '65 model and find it
quite stable. And, I am familiar with Cherokees as I got my commerical
using the -140, -160, & -180s.

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?

1) Best comparison be between models in the same time frame. It's
not fair to compare a current 172 that's fuel injected, G1000,
and so on (at $250K+ USD) with an older PA28, etc.

2) Assuming same time frame - let's define it as early-mid 70s.
C172 advantages:
high wing sun shade
better for photos looking down
2 door access

PA28 advantages
2 gal. more fuel
slightly heavier
more stable in crosswind
slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)
glareshield lower - don't need as many pillows to look over
manual flaps (well, I think that's an advantage)
easier to fill the gas tanks & wash the windows - no need for
a ladder

Overall, it's really your personal religious decision. Go fly in
each and see what you like/dislike.

: 1) Best comparison be between models in the same time frame. It's
: not fair to compare a current 172 that's fuel injected, G1000,
: and so on (at $250K+ USD) with an older PA28, etc.

: 2) Assuming same time frame - let's define it as early-mid 70s.
: C172 advantages:
: high wing sun shade
: better for photos looking down
: 2 door access

: PA28 advantages
: 2 gal. more fuel
: slightly heavier
: more stable in crosswind
: slightly higher service ceiling (I live in Colorado-important!)

Even *I* don't know if I buy that. The Hershey-bar wing is pretty slug-like compared to the 172. It helps in turbulence, stall
characteristics, and crosswind, but not in climb-related things. In the early-mid 70's are you talking about taper-wing? Then that might
be the case (dunno... I'm only calibrated to Hershey-wing PA28's).

: glareshield lower - don't need as many pillows to look over
: manual flaps (well, I think that's an advantage)
: easier to fill the gas tanks & wash the windows - no need for
: a ladder

-Cory


--

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