Checkout on piper

[Grumbler]

Hi guys,

Have done all my PPL training in a C172.. But i would like to fly some Pipers.

Could somebody please tell me what a will be required to do at a checkout, just so i can study a bit before i book a time with an instructor.

Thanks

[AdamFrisch]

Normally, you familiarise yourself with the POH with an instructor and then go for an hour or two to get the physical stuff dialled in. Technically, you don't need to even do that, but it's obviously a wise thing to do.

[BackPacker]

Agree. Start with a good read of the POH. Start with a quick read from cover to cover, and then:

Do a few mock W&B calculations, and a few TO/LD distance calculations in various configurations and circumstances. Compare the results to similar calculations for an aircraft type you know (C172 in your case).

Take the authorized operators (normal and emergency) checklist, compare it to the POH checklist to see if there are any differences, and find an explanation for these differences.

Look up the various reference speeds. Vr, Vx, Vy, cruise settings (with leaning instructions), Vref, Vs, Va, Vno, Vne.

Take a good look at the various systems. Fuel, electrics, ... Especially the PA28 fuel system is more involved than the C172s system: You've got to switch tanks every now and then; there is no "both" setting, and as a low-wing it's got a fuel pump which needs to be on for certain phases of flight. On the plus side, refueling doesn't need a stepladder.

Other things you will notice:
- Only one door, but it's secured with two independent latches. If flying with passengers, entry and (emergency) egress need to be thought out beforehand.
- Manual flaps instead of electric.
- The fuel selector is in a location where you will not readily see it, and it's all to easy to forget about it.
- The carb heat knob is relatively flimsy.
- Throttle and mixture are levers instead of plungers.
- I find the landing gear more forgiving than the C172, due to the oleos which provide some damping of a hard landing. Where a C172 will throw you back into the air, and then bounce you on the nosewheel.
- High wing vs. low wing obviously leads to a different view out the window. No need to lift a wing before turning, but the visibility downwards is less.

[Grumbler]

Thanks guys,

Does somebody know where I can find a POH for Piper Warrior PA 28-161?

[BackPacker]

In the aircraft... :E

Seriously, someone might have a PDF somewhere. There are also paper copies for sale from the usual sources. And there's also a reasonably well-written Pilot's Guide available from AFE. (My copy is ISBN 1 874783 53 5 but there may well be a later version with a different ISBN).

[thing]

I fly the 172 and 28 with about equal regularity. All advice Backpacker gives is good but from an actual flying point of view there's not much difference apart from the fact it might float a bit more on the flare than the 172 if you come in a couple of knots too fast. The biggest difference is they smell different inside.

Edit: actually I think the 172 gets off the ground a bit smarter too, given the same engine.

[Grumbler]

Thanks for the POH link

Appreciate it

[Big Pistons Forever]

Thanks guys,

Does somebody know where I can find a POH for Piper Warrior PA 28-161?

pilotinside.com. Go to the reference section

[Steve6443]

fly the 172 and 28 with about equal regularity. All advice Backpacker gives is good but from an actual flying point of view there's not much difference apart from the fact it might float a bit more on the flare than the 172 if you come in a couple of knots too fast. The biggest difference is they smell different inside.


I fly both, but prefer the Piper because I get the feeling that when Cessna designed the 172, they finished the design and said: whoops, we need a seat for the pilot to sit so bunged in a foldaway stool. Then they decided they needed a place to put instruments and fitted a sheet of plywood to screw them in. The Archer III, with it's overhead switches and lack of ignition key, actually gives me the feeling that I am starting a REAL plane - I remember the time I took a friend up in a 172 and he asked me - do ALL planes need a key to start them, even an Airbus 380??? :ugh:

But seriously, I prefer the Piper, ground effect usually helps a smoother landing but as previously said, coming in hot can mean a longer flare......

[dont overfil]

You are getting some huge generalisations here for instance comparing old C172s and new PA28s.

Both aircraft have been on the go for around 50 years and there are dozens of versions of each.

Most of the PA28s are very easy to fly. They're not all floaters. I would be surprised if you don't convert in an hour or two at the most if the engine is 140,150,160 or 180.

Backpacker and Adam have covered the requirements very well.

D.O.

[FREDAcheck]

All good stuff, and I reckon key things to have in one's mind:


Vr, Vx and Vy - and take-off flap setting
Best glide speed - in case it all goes quiet
Approach speed - and landing flap setting (and remember to turn on the fuel pump)

No big drama between C172 and PA28. Probably less rudder needed (in the PA28), more tendency to float if too fast, and on most engines less likelihood of carb ice, in my experience. And you don't need a ladder to refuel it.

[A and C]

Lots of good advice above and I would echo the advice of the people who have said that you should do a few practice W&B calculations........this aircraft is one of the easiest to overload being that it has four seats, a large baggage area and big fuel tanks.........fill them all and the aircraft will fly just far enough to kill you!

The other thing I would say is make sure you can find the alternate static and alternate Avionic master switch ( if fitted) by feel from the pilots seat.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Dear Grumbler.

(cfiimeiatp here). I've flown and taught in both the cessna 172 and the piper series (warrior etc). The piper is a much better plane in my view. The throttle is more like you would find on a large plane...the Cessna throttle is more like you would find on a lawnmower.

The position of the carburetor in the piper makes it a bit warmer than the cessna, and you will probably use the carb heat much less...indeed we never used it for landing approach.

the landing gear is wider than the cessna and you will have less trouble in crosswinds. the plane has a stabilator instead of an elevator and the preflight will seem different.

Much is made of floating...remember the speeds are for a fully loaded plane and you will be less than full...refining the approach speed with the exact weights using the handbook will give you a speed with little float.

Pipers have a nice air conditioning system (optional)

The feel of the controls is quite good.

the high wing plane is a bit less stable than the low wing plane. the high wing plane has poorer visibility in my opinion...especially for work in the pattern. when you bank from base to final in the high wing plane you lose sight of the runway...the low wing plane gives you even a better view of the runway.

and on top of everything...the ultimate james bond movie used pipers instead of cessnas..."goldfinger"...watch it again and enjoy the beautiful planes and pilots of the flying circus.

there are very convenient ''tabs'' in the fuel tank for a reduced fuel amount to increase payload.

[thing]

One man's meat etc. I much prefer the Cessna to the Piper although I'll quite happily fly the Piper, there's nothing much wrong with it.

Advantages of a Cessna;

It has two doors.

You can dip the tanks, you have to do a guestimate with a Piper.

It (in my limited experience) has much better short field ability given the same engine and weight. If I'm flying into a shortish strip I'll always take a 172.

The fuel cock is easily reachable and you don't have to faff around with a fuel pump or changing tanks.

The back seat passenger view is much better.

Cessnas are what a 'proper' light aircraft looks like in my eyes, not that it matters a damn.

I'll give you the Piper is more stable and easier to land, not that the Cessna is at all difficult. If IFR I'll take a Piper given the choice although I'll quite happily fly a 172 on instruments.

Edit: Just as an afterthought, you're right about the Pussy Galore connection, all those pretty ladies flying their Pipers. You may also have noticed that with the plethora of bush/arctic flying programs that we have on TV these days that everyone flies Cessnas, you never see a Piper.

Thus we can safely conclude that Pipers are for women and Cessnas are for men...:ok:

[abgd]

I know a lady bush pilot who prefers Pipers.

It's all a storm in a teacup as far as I'm concerned. Either is better in particular circumstances. It's more fun to fly both than it is to fly a single type. And other aircraft are more interesting than either.

The alternate static port is an interesting one to mention - it changes the indicated airspeed considerably if you choose the wrong setting.

[sevenstrokeroll]

the last piper I flew was a seminole...and it had a way to dip the tanks to get the exact amount...and you can buy tank dippers for any of the cherokees and up.

I flew bank checks in pipers. for those of you who don't know what that means its this: at one time, bank checks had to be physically deposited in federal reserve banks to start earning interest. our whole fleet was pipers, flying in any kind of weather and they did just fine.

wing struts on an airplane...how many airliners, or fighter planes have wing struts? (none under construction...maybe the twin otter?)

as far as one door vs two...just means the fuselage is a bit stronger on the piper.

oh...and imagine crashing...and the fuel tanks break on a cessna...they pour gasoline on your head. not so the piper.

I guess you have to be MANLY to climb up on the wing strut to check the fuel. Or stupid?

and I guess cessna must also make lawnmowers and uses the same throttle assembly for their planes.

the cessna is sloppy, the piper is crisp...

oh...and say PIPER CUB and any pilot smiles.

say cessna 150 and everyone shakes their head

oh, and if you are tall, when you do your walkaround, you bump your head on the wing

oh, and if you get out of a cessna while the engine is running, you could walk into the spinning prop

you really can't do that with a piper cherokee, the door and the wing lead you away from the prop.

yup...PIPER guy here for light planes

Douglas for big planes

[Fly-by-Wife]

say PIPER CUB and any pilot smiles.

Would that be because it's a high-wing monoplane - with wing struts, and a fuel tank over the pilot's head?

;)

FBW

[sevenstrokeroll]

its because the piper cub has a very nice picture of a bear cub on the tail

[GeeWhizz]

...I likes em both. The 172 and PA28 are almost too similar. The C152 is my second favourite only to a Super Cub. For just because here are the differences and quirks to enjoy in a PA18 from what I remember...

1. getting in is a challenge;
2. stick vs yoke;
3. odd engine start button depressed by left hand whilst holding the stick in the right elbow and throttle in right hand!!;
4. throttle on the window sill;
5. carb heat in the left panel;
6. heel brakes with locking finger ring pulls (not the technical name for them but it will do, also not sure if all PA18s have heel brakes)
7. a tailwheel

The thought of the Cub still makes me smile and chuckle about these :p

[Sillert,V.I.]

I also know a guy who works for Cessna as a stress analyst, and he can tell you with very clear reasoning why strut braced structures are best for light aircraft operating below a certain speed.

This makes intuitive sense too. Up to a certain speed, the benefits of a better structural strength/weight ratio should outweigh the disadvantages of increased drag & airflow disruption. Also, the braced structure would intuitively be far better from a fatigue perspective.

That said, I do have a preference for the PA28 over the C172.

[sevenstrokeroll]

silvaire

you make a good point...a plunger might be a better mecahnism for the mech aspects...but the human aspects the throttle quadrant is much nicer...tell me how come cessna twins have the throttle system like piper????

as to struts...anything as slow as a caravan or a cessna 172 really don't lose too much in aerodynamics...but how many people have been hurt falling off the wing struts checking the gas?

and the only way you can check the stall warning is to suck on it...just lift the tab on the piper!

the piper super cub is the ultimate FUN plane and some of its idocyncricies are just part of the fun.

[FlyingStone]

and the only way you can check the stall warning is to suck on it...just lift the tab on the piper!

Works without the electrics on in C172 though :)

One of the main advantages of a PA28 is that is has a real direct nosewheel steering, e.g. push the rudder and it turns - without applying differential braking.

[thing]

Went down to White Waltham today (free landing voucher in this month's Flyer. Me, tight? Nah) and was struck by the amount of low wing stuff and nary a Cessna to be seen; which proves my theory. Being as all southerners are women they were all flying Pipers.

Speaking seriously for a very rare once I was quite impressed with the friendliness of the chap on the radio/manning the office. Didn't catch his name but a credit to WW.

Edit: I might add I arrived in a 28.....:O

[BackPacker]

Now that we're talking C172s and PA28s in the same thread...

My club, for historic reasons, has a mix of PA28s, C172s and DR400s, plus a few one-offs such as a R2160. Due to various unrelated accidents all our C172s are currently U/S. Two are total loss, and one is currently being repaired after a bounced landing which essentially wrecked the firewall forward and part of the cabin structure.

In the meantime the club is, and has been for a while, looking at buying, leasing or long term renting one or two C172s, but they claim they cannot find any C172 that is available and in decent condition. Something that doesn't seem to be a problem with PA28s or DR400s.

Can anyone confirm or deny that C172s in decent condition are getting few and far between? Are owners hanging onto them, or is the type simply end-of-life?

[bravobravo74]

For a single, particularly one with no prop lever, I think plungers work better

I agree. I find that plunger throttles are much more comfortable to operate and more intuitive than the awkward lever affair found in later-version PA28s, especially when making power changes on the approach. The oversized handle thing looks as though it should be operated using the palm of the hand however small movements, as necessitated by the short travel of the mechanism, are difficult to make if the throttle is held in this way.

I'd say that the C172 is a better trainer than the PA28 even though the latter is generally a better aeroplane. PA28s breed co-ordination laziness thanks to the aileron-rudder interconnect and the Warrior/Archer is too easy to land to be a good trainer in my opinion.

[Sillert,V.I.]

I'd say that the C172 is a better trainer than the PA28 even though the latter is generally a better aeroplane. PA28s breed co-ordination laziness thanks to the aileron-rudder interconnect and the Warrior/Archer is too easy to land to be a good trainer in my opinion.

Agreed, but IMHO the PA-38 is a far better trainer than either of them (or than a 150/152 for that matter). If you can fly a PA-38, the transition to a Cherokee/Warrior is trivial.

[sevenstrokeroll]

flying stone...if the electrics are out , you are right, you lose the stall warning on the piper

but you lose the flaps on the cessna.

hmmmmm

oh, and if you want to really think ahead, the piper arrow has a much nicer system than the comparable cessna retractable...

[Piper.Classique]

And on a super cub, which is also a piper, when the electrics are out you lose the radio. That's all. Because that's all there is to lose. No stall warner, mechanical flaps, no navaids on ours, just fun to fly.
Once ran it for six weeks with no functioning generator.
Charged the battery from time to time for starting, as hand swinging with shower of sparks mags is a royal pita.

[FlyingStone]

oh, and if you want to really think ahead, the piper arrow has a much nicer system than the comparable cessna retractable...

I couldn't agree more - I really don't see any disadvantage of having a free-fall emergency gear extension.

Both PA28 and C172 are good aircraft, each has its advantages and drawbacks, but if I had to vote it would be PA28. Low wing - excellent visibility (for safety, not for passengers taste), manual flaps, one of the easiest aircraft to land (both straight and tapered wing), no need to use carb heat for normal landing, rudder trim (though I think it's optional in C172), L/R fuel selector*, normal refueling, good RG (PA28R) - it beats C172 in my opinion.

* - when you do fuel balancing on C172 in cruise and forget the selector to L or R and then make turns during the approach, only then you see the real value of L/R fuel selector. Also, when people convert from Cessna or even from two-seats with single tank, they don't have a clue how to use aircraft with L/R fuel selector. They see it as an on/off switch.