PA28 vs C152

[ChiSau]

I managed to take yesterday afternoon off to fly a PA28 161 Warrior for the first time having passed my GFT on a C152 on Monday. Was very enjoyable - with all its extra bits and bobs (even just stuff like the fuel pump etc) and the low wing, it really did feel like flying a "proper" aeroplane - no disrespect to the 152!

Strangely, I also found it more reassuring to fly. I wonder if it was because of the low wing - psychologically not only can you see the instrument of lift, but you view below is also obscured? Interesting...

Found her a lot more stable, but a lot heavier to fly - particularly on the point of rotation where you seemingly only have to lean back in the Cessna and she takes off! She also has a lot more momentum on approach than the 152 which needed watching.

Enjoyed the upper airwork - seems a benign aircraft in the stall etc.

I do need some more time in the circuit though, practising different appraches etc, before I'd be comfortable taking her off on my own.

The worst thing about this flying lark is its just so damn enjoyable!!!!
:D :D :D

[PPPPP]

Congratulations on the "brown book" ChiSau, I'm interested in your comments about feeling more secure in a low-wing a/c though.
I changed from training in a Grob G115 to the C172 on grounds of weight and size (mine!) and immediately felt more in touch with what the a/c was doing in the flare simply because I could see the green stuff approaching. The only downside is having to lift the wing the "wrong" way before turning.
Interesting lesson yesterday, winds 290 at 20G30 on our 27N grass (518m) strip, the only time so far I've been terrified and elated at the same time. Needless to say this was not a solo session...How did the Warrior cope with the condx?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having roughly similar hours in each, I have a strong personal preference for the PA28, except when trying to get into a very short field.

The "more stable" feeling is almost certainly down to the higher wing loading of the PA28. The equation for gust response of an aeroplane is that the response is proportional to speed²/wing loading. So a highly loaded wing, which comparatively the PA28 has, will be much less disturbed in any turbulence.

There's an aesthetic point over high .v. low wing - depends whether you prefer to see what's above you or what's below, both rarely seems an option. But, it does feel less claustrophobic with the wing below - to me anyway.

G

[ChiSau]

The conditions had actually calmed down a bit by the time I got in the air, which was both good and bad. It meant we could take off on 24 (tarmac) rather then 30 (grass) - which would have been my first grass take-off!

Was definitley more stable in the air though - a really nice ride I thought.

One small first was landing on the north side grass of 24 (first-time), although landing done by CFI not me!! But interesting to feel the difference...

[howzit...]

For me it depends on where I fly...

about 75% of my time is on PA-28 type aircraft and most of the rest on cessna high wing, 152/172 and I have flown both types in England and in South Africa.

In England where the airspace is a lot more channelled and so a lot busier I feel claustrophobic in a high wing because I want to see around me. I'm also quite tall so it's not unusual for me to have my head right up against the ceiling even with the seat lowered. (see the 152).

In SA where the traffic has more space to spread itself about this is not a problem.

it's also down to the fact that more time on type = more comfortable but I guess that is part and parcel of being a lowtimer

:rolleyes:

[Iron City]

Your impressions are much like mine after doing most of my private training in the 152 and then my instrument rating in various models of PA-28.

Watch the handling of the PA-28, if I recall the manual properly the -161 has the Warrior wing and it is notrecommended for going very deep into the stall/spin corner of the envelope.

[Flat-Spot]

Most PA28's have the tapered wing, but I have flown a Cruiser (PA28-140) with a plain wing(if thats the correct term) which was approved for spins!
Anyone flown the PA28-201RT?...its handling leaves a lot to be desired when you're landing!
The PA28's float a lot more in the flare than the Cessnas.
What I'm trying to say is although both are different and yet very similar, please don't make me choose!

[AerBabe]

I have rather a soft spot for the dear old C152... and I actually find the PA28-140 that I've been checked out in slightly dull :o The nav kit is superb... but it just doesn't like being thrown around as much as the C152. Maybe it's because I have many more hours in the cessna, and don't feel so at home in the cherokee.

Of course neither compare to the wonderful Chipmunk :D *goes off into daydream*

[slim_slag]

Chisau,

It's good fun eh? High Wing vs Low wing is a good way to start a fight :) but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned those lovely extra 50 horses!

[Who has control?]

I did all my training on Cessnas and was quite happy in them. Like ChiSau, I've only done one hour in a PA28-type and found it a bit like a carthorse.

Now I fly a Koliber and its streets ahead of both of them, bubble canopy for superb vis, low wing for stability and superb low speed characteristics. I could go on about it for hours..... :D :D

[FlyingForFun]

I know what you mean about the PA28's stability. I've never flown a 152 except as pax, but the PA28 is by far the most boring aircraft I've ever flown! Sorry, but put me in something that responds when I move the stick (ok, the yoke if I can't have a stick) please! :)

Last Saturday night I had the dubious pleasure of flying a PA28 for the first time in 8 months, and I have to say it was dull! The fact that I was not particularly impressed with the instructor who was checking me out probably didn't help - he was horrified at the idea of slipping to lose height at 500' on final, amongst other things. But I found that, in the cruise, I was pretty much a passenger - point he in the right direction and trim her properly, and I didn't need to do anything else. I'd forgotten just how boring the PA28 can be! At one point, my instructor took control while I checked something out on my chart. My instructor "gave" control back to me without saying anything (another criticism) and the 'plane was so stable it took me a couple of minutes to realise no one was at the controls!

(Of course, it was all worthwhile because it was a great reminder of how beautiful night-flying is - towns and roads laid out before you, flashing strobes of other aircraft clearly visible in the distance, and fireworks adding splashes of colour to the night sky all around. I just wish I had a nice 24-hour airport nearby so I could fly at night all year round.)

FFF
--------------

[Genghis the Engineer]

I confess, FFF's criticisms of the PA28 are exactly the reason that I fly one. It's stable, easy to fly, and boringly reliable (even if it does float a bit on landing). For exciting flying, I have a microlight; for taking the family somewhere nice in comfort, I have the Warrior.

Incidentally, I've done a fair bit of mucking about at or near the stall in the Warrior, and I'd say that its' completely unremarkable. If somebody's been scared by one, I'd say the aircraft was almost certainly mis-rigged.

G

[PA28-161]

These days I fly mostly 140s, but like many a PPL the training I took was all 152 based (and cheaper rate) until it came to Nav time, when the clubs only nav-equipped plane was the dear old Echo Juliet, a 161. At first alarmed by the number of instruments and worried by the extra power (and noise) the thing put out, it soon became the plane of choice when funds permitted - I'm not the smallest of blokes so it's nice to have some elbow room, and room for a map on your knee in the Piper. It is most benevolent in the stall, and not certified for spins, like the 152 (was shown a series of spins by an instructor - fan-tastic) and does indeed float like a ****** depending on wind conditions and speed control. But it's nice and stable for cross country nav, when you need to spend time on your course corrections etc and not as much on control input.

I fly a 140 now, it can take 3 with easy fuel load, and the passenger in the back thinks it's easier on them in the steep turns than the 161 (it's a passenger thing, but they all swear its true). Plus it's easier on the pocket. The lack of toe brakes doesn't put me off, and I'm just sad that the one I fly now doesnt have the roof-mounted trimmer - G-ATRR had it, reminded me of flying an Aztec.

[Final 3 Greens]

Flat Spot

The -201RT handles well in the flare, it's just different to your common or garden 28 and takes a bit of getting used to.

Genghis

I think the poster who talked about the stall meant that with an extreme rear CofG and extreme mishandling, it is possible to cause the mother and father of wing drops. I've read this in a POH, but you never know how much it's playing to the lawyers in anticipation of blame avoidance following an accident!

I've played with PA28s at the stall too and never been bitten either - even with 45kias on the clock.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

ChiSau

One small first was landing on the north side grass of 24 (first-time), although landing done by CFI not me!!

Give that CFI a slap! (Metaphorically speaking). If you've just passed your skills test, and the conditions weren't extreme, what excuse has he got for not letting you do the landing in such a forgiving plane on the most forgiving surface?

As penance, he should at the least he should charge you the solo rate for a session of dual circuits taking off and landing on the grass!

[neils]

Any aircraft will float given an excess of speed.
I have over 400hrs instructing on PA28's, they are if anything too benign in the handling dept for instructing (IMHO)

[Final 3 Greens]

Neils

I learned on PA28-140s, not quite as benign as the Warriors, but nonetheless very easy - your point is well made.

Nowadays I fly the 181 and the 201RT and find these to be excellent mounts for the low few hundred hour PPL who wants to grow into an old pilot!

I also agree with your comments about floating - its all energy management and the taper wing PA28s are princesses if flown at appropriate speeds - many people seem to arrive in a PA28-161/181 at 75kts and then wonder why she floats for ages, when the book speed says circa 65.

[Circuit Basher]

Sorry about delay in responding, but all this talk about PA28s made me wonder whether I am the only one who frequently found myself on the wrong side of the drag curve with a PA28-140 when in the cruise??

I used to find in my early days with a PA28 (with the old window winder trim in the roof) that I'd trim for the cruise and find that over a period of time, there'd be a slight tendency to sink, so woud apply a little bit of 'up trim'. Maybe 5-10 mins later, it would still be sinking a little, so I'd repeat the trim adjustment. After just 2 or 3 of these, I'd then increase the throttle a tad - before I knew it, I'd be on the back end of the drag curve. In VMC, that's recoverable - in IMC, could be another statistic.

I know the purists will say that I was going the wrong way about doing this and should have gone through a full 'PAT' each time, but when it's just fine tuning the trim, I would normally (having started in a Cessna 172/150) just tend to balance the column forces using the trim.

I attribute the onset of this experience to having been encouraged by the CFI of the club I was a member of to keep the revs in the cruise to 2250 for fuel economy (as opposed to the normal 2350). This tended to lead to a slightly higher than normal A of A in the cruise, which then exacerbated the trim problem.

If I'm just a cr@p pilot, then I'd prefer it if you just kept it to PMs!!! ;) ;)