View Full Version : Warrior or 150
14th Jul 2001, 01:05
Hi guys, hope some of you can help.
Im currently half way through my PPL and up till now have been flying the 150 with a couple of hours in the 172.
Today I found out the club are changing their training aircraft to a Warrior. Should I be concerned? I enjoy the 150, love the 172, but costs have kept it away from me, so what should I do?
They are keeping the 172 so it will be between that and the warrior and I am a little apprehensive about changing between high and low wing aircraft.
My CFI spoke to me about it today and seemed to think I would do better on the warrior and had nothing but praise for it.
This is his opinion, what are your views on the differences between the two?
Any advice on this subject is appreciated. :(
14th Jul 2001, 01:17
You will love the Warrior. Its a very stable aircraft, really nice to fly and with a "proper" throttle quadrant. Slightly different landing technique. Won't take long at all for you to feel comfortable in it. I'd take a Warrior over a C172 any day!!
Genghis the Engineer
14th Jul 2001, 01:48
If finances permit, I'd recommend the Warrior. It's a more comfortable flying environment, and if you're going for more complex stuff later, it's a better learning platform.
Doesn't like short runways though.
14th Jul 2001, 02:08
The Warrior is essentially a 4 seat tourer, with very benign handling characteristics. In the approach and landing the a/c is very forgiving with a great tendancy to float (especially when fast or without full flap). Quite good short-field landing performance - average short-field take-off. Personally I feel that a training aircraft should be a little tougher to fly (like the PA38 Terrorhawk!), but the Warrior is a better aircraft than the C172. Also the lookout is infinitely better in low wing aircraft.
Whichever a/c you choose, good luck with the PPL!
14th Jul 2001, 04:10
I have to be biased and say the Warrior. I've done most of my flying on these, along with the PA-38 Tommahawk. They are a very stable platform for flight training, especially the PA-38. If you can fly that, you can fly anything!
14th Jul 2001, 05:11
Just like to point out that the lookout on a warrior is vastly inferior to a 150/172 down to either side!
I flew all three in training and found the Cessna's to be easier to land, but the warrior a lot closer to something like a Seneca which you will probably progress on to.
If you're on a tight budget go for the cheapest, if you want to plan that far ahead, plan for what may save you money when you get onto the twins..........it's all a personal thing; they're all light aircraft and they all go up when you pull back and down when you push forward.
Plan hard, fly easy,
14th Jul 2001, 06:05
what's wrong with a tomahawk? i've never had any problems with them...
14th Jul 2001, 07:32
...and if you do decide to go with the warrior- don't forget to switch tanks!
15th Jul 2001, 01:23
High wing lookout is only good down either side! Overall lookout is much better in low wing a/c. Agree that really it's better to go with the cheapest option.
Excellent posts on the new job by the way. Informative and inspirational in equal measures.
15th Jul 2001, 05:34
Go for the Warrior
15th Jul 2001, 09:28
Fly the Aircraft you feel most comfortable in. You can get checked out in the other after your PPL.
15th Jul 2001, 12:44
If you are taller/bigger than average, go for the Warrior purely for comfort.
Plus the Warrior looks like a plane. ;)
Without any kind of exaggeration,
the cessena is a lawn mower.
The warrior is a jet.
15th Jul 2001, 20:45
I agree with Bow5.
PLus if you have any fat friends (we all have them hidden away somewhere), they won't fit on the 150...
Giving people a free flight (that you would have done yourself anyway), is great for getting free beers, so the fat pax thing can be important!
16th Jul 2001, 02:54
I've taught & flown both types & my choice is different to most of the above.
For ab-initio training, the C150/152 or C172. For x/country then a C172 in preference to a Warrior.
16th Jul 2001, 07:14
compared to the warrior, the cessna's a pram.
its only a contest for the hard of thinking!
Good Luck amigo! :cool:
16th Jul 2001, 14:27
Using scottish logic I would go for what evers cheapest. An hour in your log book SEP is worth the same when it comes to CPL hour building what ever the plane type.
Speaking from experence the door on the warrior is decent, no blowing open and sucking your charts out. And circuits are easy because you never lose sight of the runway.
But if you are doing alot of hours / night i will always take the cessna. No fannying around with fuel pumps and swaping tanks every 30mins. And for x-c its alot easier spotting landmarks.
Genghis the Engineer
16th Jul 2001, 14:36
Tinstaafl, out of interest, why?
17th Jul 2001, 14:07
Warrior everytime. After all it's what Pussy Galores flying circus use!!!
17th Jul 2001, 14:15
Pussy actualy flew Cherokee's not Warriors. Same fusalage, but different wing and handling.
Personaly, I'd go for the Warrior, but only because I prefer to sit on the wing rather than under it, although from a fuel management point of view, the high wing comes up trumps. The Warrior is likely to cost more too. You pays yer money......
[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Polar_stereographic ]
17th Jul 2001, 16:50
i've flew 150/52/72 for my 1st 100 hrs then
150 etc great fun but the warrior will help
you progress to larger types enjoy
17th Jul 2001, 17:06
I started out on the 152 which I found way too small. With my instructor by my side we could only sit by turning toward each other a bit.. not the most comfortable.
I've done most of my hours on a Warrior which I love but owing to a house move I've switched clubs. The new club has 152's and Diamond Katana's.
Does anyone have experience of the Katana. I know it got some rave reviews a couple of years ago but does anyone here have anything good to say about it?
17th Jul 2001, 17:55
A number of reasons, some trivial, some less trivial but all my own personal experience & opinion.
* High wing gives protection from the sun & rain when getting aboard or waiting for my student to finish a supervised pre-flight. Ditto about how wet the RHS seat gets if it's raining with the door open.
* Better cabin ventilation. Prefer the wing root ventilation outlet on Cessna's. The Warrior just blows up my leg. If it's really hot the windows can be opened. Don't laugh. I used to teach in the N. Territory & it was worth it!
* I found it easier to teach navigation in Cessnas due to the excellent ground visibility. Gives more time/makes it easier to keep a feature in view.
* C150 & C172 can be very docile or can be made to be less docile with some predictability. A warrior is just docile. I think spin training is beneficial. Can't do that with a warrior.
* Doors either side of the cabin. No queing to get in. Both can jump in or out without hampering the other.
* No wing to slip off getting in or out. In spite of the anti-slip coating.
* It's an easy step up from C150/152 ==> C172 ==> C182 ==> C206 or C210 in handling characteristics. From the C206/C210 engine handling is similar for Bonanzas/Barons/C310/C402. Admittedly the PA32-300 type gives equivalent engine handling going into PA23, PA60/AEST, PA31.
There is a downside with C150/152 when it comes to habitual checking & use of fuel pumps. Tank changes too. A C172 has a L-B-R selector so not so much of a problem.
* I think the effect on flight path of flaps is more readily discernable to a brand new student (ie effects of control stage) than the warrior's or PA38's ineffectual things.
* Handling characteristics in C150/152/172 make it more obvious that coordinated rudder input is necessary when using ailerons. I can demonstrate something like adverse yaw in a realistically & easily perceivable way more effectively in the Cessna.
* Can use the lower surface of the wing as a wonderfully visible teaching tool for AoA referencing eg S&L at varying airspeeds, stalls etc
* The reduced vis. in a turn IS a problem although the up side is that it forces a good lookout prior to turning if the instructor is insistant. It also forces the student to look to the Hz instead of the runway to control the turn eg turning onto base.
* Reduced maintenance/unserviceability of main gear. Never had a spring steel leg need a new O-ring or more gas. Obviously this is common to all these types for the nose gear.
* I happen to prefer the trim to be near the throttle. Provides a subtle pressure for the student to use it, particularly when their workload is high-ish.
By way of experience I have a tiny bit over 1000 hrs in C150/152, about 800 in C172 and a bit under 500 each in PA28s & TB10s + various other sundry types.
I'd take a PA28 before a TB10 though. I think they're even worse!
17th Jul 2001, 22:41
You guys are good!
Thanks for all the replies!
My decision?????? I'm still unsure until we get delivery of the Warrior. When we do I'll take it for a couple of lessons to see which I prefer (comparing to the 172). Being 6ft 2, the larger the better, and hoping to go commercial probably swings me towards the Warrior as CFI reckons similarities in design and layout will make easier progression onto twins and complex singles.
Cheers again for opinions and one more question!
If I go with the Warrior do I have to change my user name??????
Answers on a postcard please! :p
Genghis the Engineer
18th Jul 2001, 01:59
Thanks tinstaafl, a well reasoned argument. I have flown both and prefer the Warrior, but your pro-Cessna arguments make good sense from a QFI viewpoint.
Incidentally, I'm a well-known shorthouse (5'6") and find that when navigating my view over the nose of a Warrior to the next waypoint is much better than in a C152, I've not flown the C172 so can't compare that.
18th Jul 2001, 12:14
I would add that the Cessna's have better (far better) flaps too. I also prefer the elevator and aelerons as the loads are a lot lighter than the Piper counterparts.
Personaly, I prefer the Warrior, but then I'm into touring, and it's definately a more stable platform, one I would sugest at the earlier stages of training is less desirable. Later on for intrument flying, well I'd leave the Cessna behind.
Final 3 Greens
18th Jul 2001, 15:11
Do you have the option of changing to another club and finishing your course on a 150?
As a PPL with several hundred hours, I love the later PA28s (especially the -181s and 236s), but they are so easy to fly that you may miss some valuable learning points as a student.
I had a similar dilemma to you, doing my first 15 hours on 150 and then completing the course on a PA28 (old style) due to a change of location.
I loved the PA28 at the time, but with hindsight would have benefitted from more time in the 150.
Good luck, whatever you decide.