View Full Version : difference between warrior and archer
12th Oct 2005, 11:11
I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me on the defference between these to aircraft. the archer has a 180hp engine but beyond that I am unsure. I fly from sherburn and fancied giving the archer a try. Is it likely to be faster than the warrior?
Final 3 Greens
12th Oct 2005, 11:38
Not many differences.
Engine inspections are easier in the Warrior, as the engine cowls are hinged and open, whereas the Archer has only an inspection hatch for the dipstick.
They fly in a similar manner, not much difference in speed at 2350 rpm, maybe 4-5 kts, but you will experience a superior rate of climb in the Archer.
I like the Warrior, but I like the Archer more :D and a Dakota (235HP, wobbly prop) is great!
12th Oct 2005, 11:39
The archer is a bit faster than the warrior (TAS of about 125 kts at altitude) but, in my opinion, the best advantage is its load carrying capacity. You can generally put about 800lbs in the cabin with full fuel.
Also, you'll probably find that more warriors have been used for primary training and have been bashed around whereas archers are more likely to have been used for touring and thus might be in better condition.
I've flown the aircraft you talk about, YO, OE, etc.
True YO has a bigger engine & slightly higher TAS, but it also has a higher hourly rate & I found it harder to book when I wanted it.
When I last used to hire SAC aircraft I was looking 3-4 months in advance to get YO for a weekend.
If capacity is your problem, you can get 4pob in the warriors but not full fuel & baggage. A careful W&B calc is needed, but it can be done.
I used to plan YO for 125knots as opposed to OE,etc @<hidden>
It makes a difference when you get bad headwinds on longer trips.
PM me if you have any other specific questions.
12th Oct 2005, 13:17
The Warrior also has the 'new' tapered wing whereas most (all?) Archers have the old plank style. The Warrior therefore floats more in the flare but is easier to han dle in the stall; the Archer tends to drop a wing more in the stall and will drop like a brick with full flap, but has better landing performance as a result.
12th Oct 2005, 13:43
YO is an Archer II and has AFAIR the tapered wing.
Archers, from memory, have a slightly different nose profile from the Warrior, giving you a slightly different perspective. No problems with flying that particular a/c though, it's a good example.
Performance, as said, slightly better than the Warrior.
Make sure you understand the Autopilot before t/o, though.
I've not studied it in detail, but I've flown both a fair bit. Aren't they virtually the same airframe with different engine size? Something like up to -161 is Warrior, 180 and up is Archer?
Add a wobbly prop and wheels and the Archer becomes an Arrow?
12th Oct 2005, 14:24
The Warrior also has the 'new' tapered wing whereas most (all?) Archers have the old plank style
I don't think this is true. The Archer I DOES have the hershey bar wing, but the later Archer II and III have the tapered wing just like the Warrior. As others have said, the main difference is the Archer has a 180 hp O-360, whilst the Warrior has the 160hp O-320.
I've only flown the Archer with the hershey bar wing (but not for a year or two now), and my memory of the stall was it was a non-event: no real g-break, it just sat there mushing down with a fairly high rate of descent.
For the saddos that like to know (like me) where Piper would normally put the horsepower in the designation (PA28-151 for Warrior I, PA28-161, for Warrior II, PA-28 235 for a Charger etc) the adding of a one indicates the semi-tapered wing. PA28-180 (in some guises an Archer I) thus became a PA28-181 Archer II.
Wow - I bore even myself sometimes.
12th Oct 2005, 19:50
The one difference that everyone has missed is that the archer (Pa28-181) has a larger nosewheel than the warrior (Pa28-161)
Hence no great gain in cruise speed!
12th Oct 2005, 20:47
This is gonna be a long topic.....
A and C
12th Oct 2005, 21:11
How about 20 HP
12th Oct 2005, 21:28
Archer i think is probably one of the best aircraft ever made.
Seems more solidly built than Warrior?
It has no vices.
We used them as basic training aircraft.
Cost more to operate but outweighed by the fact you could get to altitude and round the circuit quicker.
Very stable, easy for learners to control. Lots of power for the inexperienced without getting too complicated. Engines run for ever. The perfect owners machine.
Yes there are better aircraft, but for piece of mind the Archer has it.
Watchout some have stall strips that give mild wing drop.
We got 110kts compared to 100 on the Warrior.
But throttle back to give 100kts and you have warrior burn but with a little extra comfort.
Final 3 Greens
12th Oct 2005, 22:58
I used to plan YO for 125knots as opposed to OE,etc @<hidden> Must have been quite a ship.
I would plan an Arrow IV (non turbo) or a Cherokee 6 for 125knots.
Only ever saw that on an Archer when going downhill. 105-110 was the usual experience across a fleet of 5.
And for those who ever flew the famous Tango Fox at Southend (a Warrior 151), after Danny Wolff got the mags seen to, she would cruise at 110, no probs - lovely aeroplane, with Frise ailerons.
A the risk of being sad ......
PA28-151 Cherokee Warrior (150HP)
PA28-161 Warrior II (160HP)
PA28-180 (various 180HP Cherokees, but last model was Cherokee Archer with slab wing and modified wing tips)
PA28-181 Archer II/III (180HP)
13th Oct 2005, 08:13
Dakota (235HP, wobbly prop) is great!
And this is with out doubt the best fixed gear PA28 ever made (that I've flown). Tons better than all the Warriors / Archers out there....;) In fact I'd never buy a Warrior or Archer, but would definitely buy a Dakota.....
Final 3 Greens
13th Oct 2005, 08:52
And this is with out doubt the best fixed gear PA28 ever made Personally, I'd choose it over an Arrer too, unless I needed a turbo, due to lower maintenance costs (fixed gear) and similar performance.
13th Oct 2005, 10:06
Thanks for the replies everyone, I think I will see if I can do my revalidation "hour with instructor" in the archer to see for myself.
Problem I have with the PA28-235 is the fuel consumption. Maybe my representative sample of 1 was a dog, or something.
Arrow III, we get around 10 USG per hour. The -235 was burning nearer 15.
14th Oct 2005, 05:52
I flew a 236 for over 4½ hours once from Tabs. Dunno how that equates, and wouldn't recommend it ;)
Anyone want to buy a Dakota with me? $80,000 will buy a smashing low time, recent, N reg, IFR equipped model...:D
Final 3 Greens
14th Oct 2005, 07:17
13-14 usgph sounds about right.
6 pots vs 4 I'm afraid Keef! Nice and smooth though. Best of the bunch as has been said elsewhere (but I'm not a big fan of the Turbo)