G-EMMA
Let's try one last time to deal with some of your comments in a rational and logical way.
I would read that slowly dear the 'Warrior' is implicitly the 161 series
Why? There are 38 examples of the 151 series on the UK register, as opposed to 320 161 models, so 12% of the UK Warrior fleet is the 151 type - why is a Warrior 'implicitly' a 161?
I also note that you added (sic) after 151, which suggests to me that you are unaware of the lineage of the PA28, since the 151 is the original (Cherokee) Warrior, whereas the 161 is the Warrior II (or III.)
Conclusion, your comment displays a lack of knowledge.
You perpetuate the myth that the 152 is the better ab initio training aircraft. In fact there is little in it and many prefer the Warrior.
I do not perpetuate any myth. I gave my own opinion, claused 'IMHO' (In My Humble Opinion) in my original response. Having learned on both C152 and PA28 and flown several hundred hours (aggregate) in both types since 1993, I feel able to have an opinion.
Some people may disagree with that opinion, but I have yet to encounter a flying instructor who has expressed a belief that the PA28 is a better ab initio platform than the C152.
You say that many (which I understand to mean students in this context) prefer the PA28 for training and this seems to be a reasonable statement.
I switched half way through my training due to geographical reasons and prefered the PA28 at the time, but with hindsight believe that my basic handling skills and in particular flying in balance and trimmed out, would have been of a higher standard on granting of PPL, had I continued with the C152.
I would be interested in how a 60 hour student pilot can state facts on the relative merits of training aircraft. WHere did these 'facts' come from?
Conclusion, you have a strong opinion, which you present as 'fact', whereas I have a strong opinion, which I present as opinion.
Unfortunately all this rubbish has been posted on a thread started by someone new to flying. A simple, 'is the Warrior OK??' the answer 'yes it is great thousands of people have trained in it' would have done.
Someone about to start training asked a question and I gave an honest opinion, which I thought might be helpful to the OP, but apparently you now give advice on the content of responses - I didn't realise that Danny and Rob had made you a moderator of this forum.
The subsequent 'rubbish' as you put it was initiated by others, I only responded.
I guess now from your previous statement that the Cub is so easy to fly it doesn't teach anyone what a 152 could
Your guess is wrong. The Cub is a good learning platform and a sheer delight to fly.
What you said originally is that "a nice Cub will teach you to be polite to aeroplanes and make up for learning in an easy aircraft."
Apart from ground handling characteristics (which is a generic taildragger trait and one of the reasons that differences training is now mandated), how is a Cub a difficult aeroplane to fly? It doesn't even have flaps.
A 152 is an easy aeroplane to fly, a Warrior is TOO easy for ab initio (IMHO.)
Although hardly a hot ship or a killer, I believe (IMHO) a DH82a is a more challenging aircraft to learn on, before you ask and that this will develop skills to a higher standard than a 152 does.
I'm amazed that after 50hrs in the 152 and hundreds in an aircraft that you seem to have trouble identifying with any amount of clarity that you can't compare the stall characteristics between the two types.
You should not be amazed, since I can indeed differentiate between the stalling characteristics of the Warrior and the 152, both of which are pretty benign generally, although a 152 (especially if the rigging is a little less than perfect) may surprise with a sharpish wing drop and the Warrior has restrictions on spinning which should make one think about why they exist before departing at heavier weights.
However, recovery is not generally taxing in either.
What I would not feel comfortable concluding is the thrust behind your statement that "If your still not sure research stall spin accidents involving students and the 152 and the PA28-161 Warrior, it will help you realise that the Warrior is a very good aircraft to be training in."
The implication seems to me to imply that flying a 152 carries more risk of a stall/spin than a Warrior.
That is why I wrote "I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect."
Perhaps I should have added that I am not a test pilot either, since those are the people who usually does this type of comparision and speak with authority on the conclusions.