Warrior - good for ab initio training?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Warrior - good for ab initio training?
I am receiving quite a bit of stick (from a student pilot) on the Private Flying forum (Starting my PPL thread) for having the temerity to state my opinion that the 152 (or PA38 or DA/V1) makes abetter ab initio learning platform than a Warrior.
My opinion is derived from a combination of experience (having flown both during initial training) and from listening to a number of instructors over the years.
My experience is that the Warrior is too forgiving of minor handling faults and post GFT (it was a while ago) I believe that my handling skills reflected this. It was not until I revisited the 150/2 and the Pup that I realised I could not trim or fly in balance as well as I should have been able to.
The student pilot's latest assertion is "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."
An just wondering how the instructors on this forum view the Warrior as a platform for ab initio, as opposed to a 152 or similar aircraft.
All views will be appreciated and for the avoidance of doubt, I am not an instructor, but a PPL with several hundred hours logged (so by no means the font of all knowledge.)
My opinion is derived from a combination of experience (having flown both during initial training) and from listening to a number of instructors over the years.
My experience is that the Warrior is too forgiving of minor handling faults and post GFT (it was a while ago) I believe that my handling skills reflected this. It was not until I revisited the 150/2 and the Pup that I realised I could not trim or fly in balance as well as I should have been able to.
The student pilot's latest assertion is "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."
An just wondering how the instructors on this forum view the Warrior as a platform for ab initio, as opposed to a 152 or similar aircraft.
All views will be appreciated and for the avoidance of doubt, I am not an instructor, but a PPL with several hundred hours logged (so by no means the font of all knowledge.)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niether aircraft was designed primarily as a trainer. The warrior has a robust undercarriage and does better on grass. You certainly get to know your instructor particularly well in the 152
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
You certainly get to know your instructor particularly well in the 152
The human race is getting bigger, particularly in the West. I've several hundred hours in PA28s and they certainly afford more room and have better load-carrying capabilities.
Now, as to which is BETTER for learning on...
I did my FI course on the 152 and I do believe that it is the better aircraft in which to teach and learn the basics of the effects of controls etc. It is more 'honest' in terms of the reaction to control inputs. For instance, you can get the aircraft to show adverse yaw upon application of aileron, something I've had great difficulty in showing on the PA28. The stall characteristics are also more akin to the 'classic' indications/symptoms. The main undercarriage on the 152 is pretty robust, though both can soak up an amazing amount of punishment. The main difference is that the oleos on the PA28 will absorb vertical motion better; if you 'drop' a 152 the sprung u/c will throw you back up into the air again, leaving you without airspeed or ideas.
I had a student recently who flowed over the P1 seat in a PA28 to the extent he had a problem getting at the trim. I'm not small either (6'2") so we wouldn't have had a chance of even fitting in a C152.
We had a 152 recently available for a couple of days so an instructor colleague and I grabbed the keys to go and do some spinning; don't get too much chance these days. Unfortuantely with the fuel on board and our bulk, although we were JUST inside the W & B envelope, the CofG was just too far forward for it to spin or indeed stall properly. Of course the Warrior isn't approved for spinning, so we can't try it out. We do teach stalling in the Warrior, I do agree it's very benign but you can go through the recovery drill which hopefully will stand the pilot in good stead if the worst should happen in another type. A checkout in a different type should include stall and incipient spin recovery, anyway.
PA28 better on grass? Depends upon the relative smoothness of the grass, I suppose! (sorry David)
Cheer,
TheOddOne
Last edited by TheOddOne; 30th Mar 2008 at 18:20. Reason: typos!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.
Oddone, I take your point about the physical/W&B limitations.
Flybmi, I did make the case for the PA38, saying....
"Piper designed the PA38 to be their ab initio trainer, based on a large scale survey of flight instructors, despite the PA28 having been in production for some time - perhaps you may wonder why they did that?"
However, the student I was debating with replied....
t is well know that the PA 38 was the result of a demand for a very cheap trainer, nothing more nothing less.
Oddone, I take your point about the physical/W&B limitations.
Flybmi, I did make the case for the PA38, saying....
"Piper designed the PA38 to be their ab initio trainer, based on a large scale survey of flight instructors, despite the PA28 having been in production for some time - perhaps you may wonder why they did that?"
However, the student I was debating with replied....
t is well know that the PA 38 was the result of a demand for a very cheap trainer, nothing more nothing less.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primary Trainer
Davidcoe77
The Cessna 150 was very definately designed to be an ab-initio trainer. Cessna uniquely created a loyalty philosophy. The aeroplane range of say the C150 - C210 was designed to allow a natural progression of control ergonomics including a custom comms/nav pack (which was never all that good). Cessna also created a network of Cessna Pilot Centres. If you became a Cessna centre then you could also be a dealer for Cessna aeroplanes and sell to your students on qualifying. Cessna supplied a full training pack which included Cessna text books and equipment. They even supplied a self briefing 35mm slide films and audio tapes covering all exam subjects. The idea was that should you learn, say, in the C150 (later C152) at a Cessna Pilot Centre you would become a Cessna person and move on to the C172 and upwards but hopefully remain with Cessna.
Piper had the Cherokee 140 but it is very expensive to operate in comparison with the C150. Piper did indeed survey flying clubs in designing the PA38 in an attenpt to outwit Cessna who were dominating the training market. The PA38 can hardly be called a 'cheap aeroplane' for it is well made and sturdy.
Unfortuanately though Piper made gross errors. The high tail-plane remained out of the propellor slipstream and it was impossible to raise the nose until sufficient airspeed was achieved. The nose wheel as with the larger Pipers remained fixed to the rudder pedals and therefore it was uncommon when applying rudder during the early part of a cross-wind take-off and after landing not to have the nose wheel vibrating sideways along the runway creating substantial nose gear assembly maintenance. This also meant that the crosswind component was inferior to the Cessna. The claimed climb performance was often not achieved and the CAA issued a write down in the climb performance. The trim system is indeed awfull. The final nail in the coffin was perhaps the spin characteristics which until they were understood tragically killed a few in the states and many instructors world wide refused to spin them. Later of course mandatory spinning was removed from the syllabus.
The Cessna 150 was very definately designed to be an ab-initio trainer. Cessna uniquely created a loyalty philosophy. The aeroplane range of say the C150 - C210 was designed to allow a natural progression of control ergonomics including a custom comms/nav pack (which was never all that good). Cessna also created a network of Cessna Pilot Centres. If you became a Cessna centre then you could also be a dealer for Cessna aeroplanes and sell to your students on qualifying. Cessna supplied a full training pack which included Cessna text books and equipment. They even supplied a self briefing 35mm slide films and audio tapes covering all exam subjects. The idea was that should you learn, say, in the C150 (later C152) at a Cessna Pilot Centre you would become a Cessna person and move on to the C172 and upwards but hopefully remain with Cessna.
Piper had the Cherokee 140 but it is very expensive to operate in comparison with the C150. Piper did indeed survey flying clubs in designing the PA38 in an attenpt to outwit Cessna who were dominating the training market. The PA38 can hardly be called a 'cheap aeroplane' for it is well made and sturdy.
Unfortuanately though Piper made gross errors. The high tail-plane remained out of the propellor slipstream and it was impossible to raise the nose until sufficient airspeed was achieved. The nose wheel as with the larger Pipers remained fixed to the rudder pedals and therefore it was uncommon when applying rudder during the early part of a cross-wind take-off and after landing not to have the nose wheel vibrating sideways along the runway creating substantial nose gear assembly maintenance. This also meant that the crosswind component was inferior to the Cessna. The claimed climb performance was often not achieved and the CAA issued a write down in the climb performance. The trim system is indeed awfull. The final nail in the coffin was perhaps the spin characteristics which until they were understood tragically killed a few in the states and many instructors world wide refused to spin them. Later of course mandatory spinning was removed from the syllabus.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice you mention the Pup - now there was an aircraft that was a good ab initio trainer, I would also include the 2 seat Robins, my own view is the both the Pa28 and the C150/2 are too benign to be good trainers, they are not designed as pilots aircraft, but as a machine that will get you from A-B with minimum interference from the pilot. The fact that many students prefer the Warrior does not mean it is the better trainer - it might be easier, and people prefer it for that reason, but easier does not necessarily mean better when it comes to training !
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You likes what you knows.........
Did ab-initio on both PA-28s and C152s. Warrior was a great all-rounder, lots of space and with 180hp (Cherokee 180) a very useful tourer. The only one I would avoid was the old Cherokee 140 which was effectively a 2-seater and with the Hershey bar wing could fall out of the sky at slow speed on a very hot day. C152 very delicate and great fun, but more suited to solo esp low XC flight. Tried a C152Aerobat out in Florida which was the best aerobatic fun this side of a Chipmunk.
Best all rounder???? Probably a Warrior 160..... or C172.
Best all rounder???? Probably a Warrior 160..... or C172.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Norwich, CT USA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Piper Warrior is a good airplane to train in. I was already a Private Pilot when the school I was going to got one, they proved to be so popular that they bought three more with in the next month. Then they got a couple of Archers. Since they did a lot of light charter to Fisher's Island and Block Island, those aircraft proved to be very profitable in that roll. No doubt about it the 150/152 is a good trainer, but if you need dual purpose, the Warrior is a better airplane. I recall that a new warrior with a KX-170B state of the art nav/com and a transponder with mode C cost just a little under 27K, in 1976. They cost a bit more now a days.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent a fair amount of time instructing on C150/152 and PA28s of all marques, it remains a matter of individual preference, for the student rather than the instructor.
The C152 is smaller - (watch the fuel load with two average adults) - it is cheaper for the asppiring student by about 15 percent on average in the UK and you can spin it (and aerobat it if you have the right one!).
It can also be very tricky to taxi for a beginner, who tend to overcorrect like crazy on the taxiway.
The PA28, and I'm talking about 161 and 181, has more room, ideal for us larger types, much better range and is more stable - an easier and more forgiving platform for the less adventurous student and a bit faster.
It tends to follow, at least in our club, that a PPL student learns on the Cessna and when trained and licensed, does a Warrior conversion, as the PA28 makes a better touring aircraft for those longer trips e.g. UK/France.
The conversion course (differences training) usually takes an average student no more than two hours.
Most PPL holders stay with the PA28 after conversion.
Level 400
(I don't take it that high - that's the day job!)
The C152 is smaller - (watch the fuel load with two average adults) - it is cheaper for the asppiring student by about 15 percent on average in the UK and you can spin it (and aerobat it if you have the right one!).
It can also be very tricky to taxi for a beginner, who tend to overcorrect like crazy on the taxiway.
The PA28, and I'm talking about 161 and 181, has more room, ideal for us larger types, much better range and is more stable - an easier and more forgiving platform for the less adventurous student and a bit faster.
It tends to follow, at least in our club, that a PPL student learns on the Cessna and when trained and licensed, does a Warrior conversion, as the PA28 makes a better touring aircraft for those longer trips e.g. UK/France.
The conversion course (differences training) usually takes an average student no more than two hours.
Most PPL holders stay with the PA28 after conversion.
Level 400
(I don't take it that high - that's the day job!)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to accept that the student will always know far more about flying than you do, after all you have only been flying for xxx years - what do you know?
Go up, stick him in a spiral dive and say "get out of this" then see how bl**dy clever he is!
Go up, stick him in a spiral dive and say "get out of this" then see how bl**dy clever he is!
