Piper PA-28

[g_conaty]

Hi All

For those of you who may wonder why i am asking this question due to the fact that i was due to start my PPL a few months ago, i have had a bit of financial difficulty but im now back on track to start my PPL at the beginning of July.

I was just wondering if anyone could telly me what the Piper PA-28 is like to fly as that is the aircraft i will be spending my time in.

It may sound a bit of a stupid question to ask to all of you more experienced flyers but i was just wondering.

Any replies to this would be greatly appreciated

Thanks


Aviation is a great way to make a small fortune as long as you start off with a large fortune.

[Evo7]

I'm learning on them, and find them a very good trainer. They're a Ford Fiesta of the flying world. Good to learn on, unlikely to set your pulse racing once you're qualified (but that's what Yaks are for ;) ) but they'll get you from A to B quite happily.

Only downside as far as I can see is that they are possibly too tame - the stall does almost nothing (you just mush downwards) and use of the rudder is for the most part optional. There's a good argument for doing the basic handling in something a little less gentle and moving on to the Warrior for circuits and the Navs. However, apart from two early lessons in a Tomahawk I've been with the Warrior since and would recommend them. Oh, and flying anything is better than being on the ground... :)

[skyraider]

Hi g_,

I did my PPL in a PA-28 161 and IMHO they are good planes to learn in. very stable to fly = easier to land, wide undercarriage,
pretty good forward viz and nice approach speeds, reasonably powered but not so much so that you don't learn to FLY the plane.

I expect that there are cheaper trainers and better trainers but on the whole no complaints from me....

ps can be quite cosy inside when eveyone is dressed for winter...:D

Good luck and enjoy...
Sky

PPS Evo has a point... stalls are not terribly demanding and spin recovery is not really done... they don't drop the wing in a stall... I would agree with Evo to try something a bit more slippery to see what stall and spin recovery is really like... (edited for accuracy????:) )

[AerBabe]

I did my PPL in a C152, and am in the process of getting signed off on the PA28. As Evo7 said, they're fairly tame in comparison to small a/c, such as the truamahawk and C152. They are a lot more spacious though.

I would think they'd be fine for training, but if you can get some time in other a/c once you've got some hours in then do so. It's all good experience!

[Ace Rimmer]

Agree with all the above but would add that there's a lot of ground covered in the PA28 designation the 140 is quite a different proposition to the -200/201 and 201T versions (the latter being retracts with wobbly props and what not)

But even in the fixed gear fixed prop versions there's quite a bit of difference (unsurprisingly because of the availible grunt) The 140 climbs more because of the curvature of the Earth whreas the Archer (180hp) is quite a bit more muscular. Never flown a Warrior but I guess it follows that it would fall somewhere between the two in performance.

As has been said before you have to work pretty hard to get yourself into serious trouble in a PA28. And there's a lot of kit out there that is more challenging but then again you'll have a lot to think about (I bet you'll be thinking easy to fly? what are those jerks on PPRuNe on about?).
As Evo says when you get on to cross countries and nav exs you'll find it a useful mount.
After you qualify you find the bigger engine PA28s pretty handy tourers - true 4 seaters (well provided the seats aren't filled with lardy prop forward types and you don't want to go a long way - but lets face it without one of the those bed pan jobbies sombody's gonna want to stop after 2 1/2 - 3 hours anyway with 2 you can top the tanks (well if Mrs R can be pursaded to leave the kitchen sink behind) and really cover the ground. Although much derided as characterless span cans

This being where AR hijacks the thread (sorry):
Incidentally, the Rimmer mounts of choice (well not of choice – see the lottery win thread) are the Archer and the Arrer of the a/c I fly currently the two Archers are Mk2s with the Warrior wing while the Arrow is a Mk2 with a Hershey bar wing. Now here's the thing the Arrow presumably because of the higher wing loading is more 'solid' in its handling - and again probably because of the higher wing loading drops like a brick in landing configuration and power at idle compared with the Archer. Now my question is anybody got experience of both Hershey bar Arrers and Warrior wing (Mk3s and IVs) and care to comment on noticeable differences between the models. I only ask because one of the guys down at EGKA who's flown Traumahawks a lot (also Hershey bar wing) reckons they too do a good brick impression with power at idle.

[Final 3 Greens]

g-conaty

I have about 180 hours on various types of PA28, namely

PA28-140 (Slab wing Cherokees with 140 and 150HP engines)
PA28-151/161 (Warriors with tapered outer wing sections, 150 and 160HP engines)
PA28-180 (180HP Cherokee with slab wing and original Archer with modified wing tips)
PA28-181 (180HP Archer 2 & 3, with tapered outer wings)
PA28R-200 (200HP Arrow, slab wing, modified wing tips)
PA28RT-201 (200HP Arrow 4 normally aspirated, tapered outer wings)

These are my personal views....

The -140 is a very old aeroplane these days, 25 years plus most likely. It is docile, a little underpowered (although a better performer than a C150) and does not handle as well as the taper winged aeroplanes at low speed; landing can be a little firm, although safe. Cruise speed is circa 90-95 kts at 2350rpm at typical training weight.s

The -180 is similar to the -140, although the extra power is helpful; the extra weight of the aeroplane is easily adjusted for after a few flights. Cruise speed is about 100-105 kts at 2400 rpm; some PA28-180s have a "no go" band (from memory, don't hang for if wrong) between 2100-2300rpm.

The -151 (Warrior) is interesting because it has frise ailerons (I am not aware of any other PA28s with these) - it makes the handling a little crisper. A well set up Warrior -151 will cruise at around 105-110kts at 2400rpm and typical training weights. The semi tapered wing also makes low speed hanlding sweeter, but also demands precise airspeed control "over the hedge." Being more efficient than the slab wing, float will occur if the speed is too high.

The -161 (Warrior 2) climbs a little better, but the cruise is speed simliar.

The -181 (Archer 2 & 3) is a proper cruiser which will haul a decent amount of weight; for training it is probably wasting money, since the hourly rates will be higher than for a Warrior.

Finally, the Arrows are not ab initio training platforms.

To summarise, the PA28 is a lovely, safe, stable platform which is ideal (with 180HP) for entry level touring.

It would not be my ideal choice for a trainer, since it is (a) typically more expensive than a smaller engined a/c and therefore your lessons will cost more, (b) it is probably too easy to fly - e.g. trims easily and very non demanding and (c) when learning navigation, the cruise speed is a little higher than ideal (if cruising slowly, the pitch attitude can be a little steep and forward viz reduced, especially if you are not very tall as it has a high coaming.)

Having said that I learned on the -140 and love PA28s, even though I own a share in a Beagle Pup!

Final point; although PA28s are very loathe to stall, the taper wing variants do have a vicious wing drop if stalled at high weight and rear c of g; this takes quite a lot of abuse to achieve, but it is very nasty so is worth bearing in mind.

In the same context, the PA28-140 is cleared for spinning, the Warriors and Archers aren't - can't remember about the PA28-180s as I only have a few hours in those, some years ago.

Hoep this lot may be of some use and enjoy your course.

:) F3G

[Final 3 Greens]

Ace R

The Arrow 200B (Hershey Bar) is not too disimilar in general handling to the Arrow 4 (T-Tail, tapered wing.) Neither are prone to floating like an Archer in my experience, probably a combination of weight and the extra drag from gear which is designed to be folded away and gear doors - also the CS prop disc will be finer and draggier at idle than the fixed pitch prop on an Archer whish is a compromise between climb and cruise settings.

The main difference is that the Arrow 4 suffers from little pitch up/down on gear retraction/extension due to the stabilator being out of the airflow to a large degree and thus less affected by the change when the gear cycles.

The other difference is that the stabilitor authority is not as good on the T-Tail at lower airspeeds - not a problem, but you have to hold off very firmly to avoid wheel barrowing.

IMHO, neither feels as sprightly as a good example of an Archer 2 or 3, which will give you a better rate of climb at full power, when compared to climb power on an Arrow of 25 and 25.

[Evo7]

To add a (very) little to F3G's post, in my experience there is little to tell the -151 and -161 apart (at least, in the early stages of training - effects of controls and circuits) whereas the extra horsepower of the -181 (the Archer-II) is noticable even to a beginner like myself. I'm planning on grabbing the Archer for Nav work - at my club there is no difference in price, but YMMV.

Oh, and I'm feeling a little sheepish for forgetting the Arrow, which as others have pointed out is a different beast. I'm firmly in ab initio spamcan mode :)

[tomcs]

I did my PPL in them last summer...and they kick the pants off cessnas. This is mainly because I'm 6"3.5 and I find it quite hard to get into the cessna, and another thing is the nose up attitude on landing...it just isn't right!!

The PA-28 is much nicer and more stable, and as previous posts have said they have much better forward vis and are generally much more stable to fly (once u get it trimmed it flys like a dream)

Good Luck

Tom:cool:

[sennadog]

So far, all of my flying has been done in a Katana DA20. I would be interested to hear other people's opinion of how they fly compared to other aircraft.

IMO, they seem fairly benign but I have nothing to compare them with.

Answers on a postcard please!

:)

[100LL]

Can't complain about the DA20 its an easy little Aeroplane to fly, beats the pants of a 152 on only 80 Hp. Flew a 150 today for the first time in ages and there's no comparison. BTW do you fly at Redhill. try the DA40 its even better

[Simon W]

Well, I did about 30 hours of my PPL training on the PA38 Tomahawk. I think it's a better aircraft to learn the early handling and stall exercises. Once I got to the cross country phase of the training I moved onto the PA28 Warrior II. I probably spent about 1 hour doing circuits and basic handling with an instructor and then I felt right at home with it. It's alot more docile than the Tomahawk and as someone previously said the stall is literally non-existent (the Tomahawk more often that not would drop a wing quite abruptly). Piper Warrior definetely = Ford Fiesta of the skies. Thumbs up.

Regards,

Simon

[Final 3 Greens]

Sennadog

I haven't flown the DA20, but have logged time on the DV20.

The Katana couldn't be compared to the Piper range, especially the PA28 as it is a very different airframe/engine combination.

For instance, the Hoffman CS prop and Rotax engine gave sparking performance for 80HP and the handling/controls were much lighter.

The handling is not dissimilar to the Pup 100, although the Pup was probably a bit crisper (but I would say that wouldn't I), but the enduring memory for me was of a truly modern light aircraft, not a 50s throwback.

Hope this is of some use.

[topunicyclist]

Ditto as AerBabe except I did my PPL in a C150 before transferring over to PA28 when I started flying out of Blackpool.

If training in a PA28 the stall characteristics are indeed as others have said fairly benign, so take note when you fly other a/c once your training is finished........laterz.

[Wycombe]

.....just converted from the Archer, which I've been flying (mostly UK and close Europe touring) for a couple of years, back to the 172 - reason being that the Club have a couple of brand-new 172SP's on the hire fleet.

Liked the Archer, and agree with most of the comments made here - very benign (perhaps a bit too benign?) but easy to fly and safe.

The lure of the new 172's was too great, though (what with 180hp fuel-injected engines, moving-map GPS, complex autopilot etc) but what I've found is that the 172 needs to be "flown" (which probably isn't a bad thing) much more assertively, especially during approach & landing - the Archer would virtually land itself if set up on a stable approach.

Other comments on the 172SP - love the grey metal panel (looks like a proper aeroplane!), the sturdy new seats (from the Caravan, I believe), proper inertia-reel seatbelts (for all 4 seats)....and the quiet!

[Sensible]

Unless you are hugely fat or tall, the good old Cessna 150/151 or the Traumahawk are the best trainers in £££££'s per licence. Convert to the Piper Warrior types after gaining your PPL otherwise a lot of expense for nothing more than street cred!!.

[LowNSlow]

I've always loved the BOOIIIINGG noise that the PA-28 series makes if you plop them down a little hard or on all three wheels together! Dead embarassing for the driver.

I've never understood why Piper seem so determined to stop people seeing out of the front. Why make the instrument panel so tall? Cessna manage to get pretty much the same kit in a panel you can see over, why can't Piper.

I suppose you've guessed by now that I prefer Mr. Cessna's products :D :D

tomcs I don't understand your comment on the nose up attitude not being right? You don't land on all 3 together in a PA-28/C172 do you :confused: I was always taught to keep the nosewheel off as long as possible to protect the noseleg and wheel/stick back when taxiing to keep as much weight as possible off the noseleg (especially on the AA-5's).

[Final 3 Greens]

LowNslow

Agree that you should'nt land land level.

IMHO the C172 is the sweetest of all the light singles to land and the PA28 with the taper wing can be a ****** because the flaps are cr@p from a drag perspective and therefore the little darling is prone to float, e.g. on gusty days when you add a little airspeed to penetrate turbulence on final approach.

Cheers :)

[AdamUK]

I'm learning too in a PA28 - have done part cross country.
It handles very well and leaves the Cessna 152 way behind.

Go for it !

[TikkiRo]

I am disabled with rheumatic conditions and began my training on a C-172 because of the ease of getting in and out as well as the extra comfort over the 152 despite the higher cost and swore when I saw a Piper one day I'd NEVER fly one of them - really hated them with a passion. However, last year saw me being awarded a RIAT FSD Scholarship and I spent 7 weeks in 43rd Air School in S. Africa (http://www.43airschool.com/default.asp) racking up 35 hours (got grounded a lot with my health hence the slowness) all in a PA-28-160/180 - near the end of that time I went for an hour's conversion training back on a C-172 and HATED it - the plane seemed so much heavier and really sluggish in the air by comparison. Landing was so different and I struggled to get the plane lined up and taxying - well, gave that up as a bummer - could not taxy straight at all - I appreciate that given time and around the same no of hours training perhaps I may have changed my mind, but I do feel the Piper is a better training plane now for many reasons. However, for whatever reason they seem to be more expensive to fly, so that in itself may limit your viewpoint.

Good luck with your training whichever plane you opt for - me, I'm away back to SA to finish off my own PPL this year on my trusty EVJ at 43rd!! :)

TR

[Final 3 Greens]

TikkiRo

Taxiing a C172 is different to a PA28, as the Cessna has the nosehweel steering linked through bungees. The PA28 has a direct connection. (This is why you can move the rudder of the C172 during the preflight, but not the PA28's.)

It's quite normal to find the change back a bit odd and you learn to use a bit of toe brake in the 172 to achieve a positive response when necessary.

I agree that the landing is different too, but again its a question of technique.

Most of my hours are on PA28, but ihave over 20 on C172 and regard it as having some advantages, mainly in the area of field performance where it is better in my opinion.

Anyway, thought I'd just say that your taxiing experience is by no means unique!

[tomcs]

LOWNSLOW....i was just saying that the last time i flew in a 152 it wasn't a pleasant experience and i agree, i certainly dont land with three wheels all at the same time but whatever u say the visibilty on flare and approach is much better (IMHO) in a PA-28.

Tom:p

[No Cigar]

I was a flight instructor a couple of years ago and did some instructing on the PA28 type (500hrs or so) and found that the students performed better in the warriors than they did in the Cessnas.

It's a very stable aircraft, so once it's trimmed, you can fly it hands-free which allows you to concentrate on where you are going as opposed to trying to keep the aircraft under control. Quite good for nav training for obvious reasons.

It's also an easy aircraft to land and allows for a stable approach very early on finals with good speed control. Good vis in the flare as the nose attitude is not as high as the Cessnas. Actually the touchdown attitude is not unlike that of an airliner or biz jet, about 4 degrees nose up (might be useful if you want to go that way one day).

The only aircraft I feel that can compare is the new Cessna C172R, but they cost a fortune to hire as they're new. Dollar for dollar, it's hard to beat the old warriors. I did my training in them and have flown quite a few other aircraft since, still one of my favourites. There's a reason why they're still flying in such great numbers while many new aircraft have come and gone.

Good luck & enjoy your training.