The ageing Warrior
 

I spotted an advert today and it got me thinking....

What do you think would be the useful life of a Warrior or similar and is 15,000 hours TTIS at the high end for this aircraft type?

This aircraft PIPER WARRIOR II PA 28 151-161 1977 is having WHITE & BLUE colour TTIS 15034 ETR 373 PTR 1172 SINCE NEW. Basically this aircraft is PA 28 151 but during its last overhaul of engine in 2003 it was converted in to 160 hp. No accident history, NVFR ADF NAV/COM, 4 PLACE INTERCOM, REPAINT IN 2003 REFURBISHED IN 2008.

$24k.

According to CASA, wing fatigue life of the PA-28-235 is 12,500 hours. I guess it was determined by analysis by some-one within CASA (or predecessor) many years ago with perhaps a scatter factor of 8. Maybe, one day some-one will suggest that other PA28s be given a wing safe life too, who knows. If so, this one may be the first to need another wing.

The ageing Warrior
 

I'm thinking around the $30k mark, tops. Expect Piper to impose a 20 year SIDS on this aircraft in a similar manner seemed by Cessna.

As above it was $24k. Looks reasonable until you see the TTIS !

I thought there was a PA28 that used to haunt Lillydale with 20,000+ hours, one of the BZs. There can't be many 1970s Warrior IIs with less than 10,000 hours.

Should be worth it just for the remaining hours plus the paint, prop & refurb, get a LAME to do the elevator spar & wing spar check, my 1970 tinnie has done more hours than that in the salt water and still goes strong :}

BZA at lilydale, I believe, ticked over 30,000 hrs recently!

Which part has done 15,000+ hours? My 172 has nearly 11,000 on the MR but in that time it has had new wings, tail, rudder, several engines, several coats of paint, etc. etc. and it flies and looks like a nearly new aircraft. Some of these old aircraft is like Grandfather's axe, you really need a good look through the maintenance logs before buying any aircraft, "new" ones can be worn out and "old" ones can be like new.

Is there any record of Warrior sudden wing failures at high hours? If so, I'd be greatly concerned about a 15,000 hr Warrior with totally original wings.
If there's no record of numerous sudden, unexplained, possibly-fatigue-related wing failures, then I'd be happy laying out the money.

Many aircraft have 30,000 hrs and more TT. A lot depends on whether there's any part of the design that could be subject to sudden failure, or whether the design gives adequate warning of impending failure, such as cracks appearing in critical components or stressed areas.

I'd be more concerned about how an aircraft has been flown and maintained than TT. It's a piece of delicate machinery and all machinery can be abused and mistreated, and only show symptoms of that abuse, after having been purchased, and after maintenance examinations then show up that abuse.

I recall a document (SB) from piper where they had calculated the service life of the pa28 warrior/archer at something like 62,000 hrs, this was reduced for certain types of operation like aerial survey.
The lower life on the 235 and pa32 cherokee 6 I understand is due to the wing tip fuel tanks.

grandfathers axe principle. Spar and centre section easily replaced.

UNSW is flogging off 3 of theirs, with one nearing 18,000 hours and the engine on condition. Sealed bid sale. I wonder if they'd get upset if I offered $15,000 given old mate is asking $24K with 350+ HTR? :}

Why would operations like aerial survey reduce the service life?

eg. Consider aerial survey like nearmap (fly at x thousand feet in a straight line for 20 minutes, turn around and follow a path 4NM parallel to the original path)

eg. Consider aerial survey like Fugro with their metallurgical testing - at low level but generally in a straight line.

How is that worse than training ops?

How many wing spars have you changed or seen changed on a Warrior Sunfish?

The answer to that remains sealed in the tender .... No reason not to take a punt if you have the $$$
Cheers
A172

Is there any record of Warrior sudden wing failures at high hours? If so, I'd be greatly concerned about a 15,000 hr Warrior with totally original wings.

I saw the immediate aftermath of two Warriors that bumped each other rather hard in the circuit at YCEM. One wing on the lower one was rather spectacularly opened up and the torn metal of the skin of the upper outer surface laying out behind but it still landed safely while the other one continued safely to YLIL.

Both aircraft were training school machines with plenty of hours but I was impressed by the way they hung together and kept on flying despite a fair bit of damage.

The pilots did a great job, too.

Kaz

Regarding the UNSW tender... It certainly does not hurt to put in a low ball offer because someone else might not even put in an offer. I have personally purchased two aircraft by tender and it worked out exceedingly well. Not quite as well as the guy I know that bought a fly away Cirrus SR22 for $20k (no joke) but pretty well.

XXX, seen it done. Corrosion is usually the issue.

Piper SB 978A

Sunfish is correct, corrosion under paint is an issue, and the Piper SB's cover it.

SB's 977, 1081, 1122, 1244 and 1244A also need to be scrutinised.

Technical Publications Documents - Piper

survey...
 

Ops at altitude.... gives a survey aircraft a very benign life compared with training and bush charter. Its life up there is in the cruise and smooth, usually.:ok:

The problem has occured at low level..there has been the wing loss of a PA 32 on pipeline patrol. Had some 12K hours of belting thru turbulence in Texas ? and etc. The extreme life yielded an extreme result.

Could be others.

The wing loss of one near Moruya ??? over the ranges was due to severe turbulence.? Nasty. Wasnt a long lifed one...hours not great

Not the sort of rivet testing you want to do !! :eek:

The YLIL one was BZA, a venerable flying machine with (last time I looked) over 27,000 hours on the airframe - not quite 30,000 but getting there. And a refined and gentle old lady despite her years of punishment at the hands of generations of students.

BZA has had two mid airs. Indestructible!

My landings bear testament to that!!

Grumman Tiger central spar life 12000 hours, wing spar 12500 hours.

I've seen first hand the spars and they are _extremely_ solid - especially the central spar.

I wonder what caused Grumman/Gulfstream to give them such a life span.

A friend of mine just scrapped his Tiger due to corrosion in the spar, interesting to see that heavy tube, outside of Ultralight/LSA's what other aircraft out there use a tube for a spar?

Can anybody tell me if they have flown both the Hershey Bar wing and tapered wing of the same type and any handling differences that they noticed?

I just read this, I thought aging warriors were just old pilots, seems I am mistaken !!!!!!

Flown both wing types on PA28, PA28R and PA32Rs. Tapered flies better, roll is more stable possibly a little less responsive, seems to get a couple of knots more and glide further. Stall is very benign on tapered wings, can get more of a wing drop with slab wings. Could also be the age of the Slab vs tapered models though as the differences are small.

Generally agree with 43I's summary but the thing I recall most about the slab wing models were how precisely they could be flown, and how good they were on the bush strips, given a bit of inventiveness with the manual flaps. I can't claim to be a great Piper fan (PA24/30 excepted!) but a PA28-180C is a handy thing for winning spot landing competitions, and other exercises where a bit of precision is needed. The other recollection is how noisy they are but that's as much due to vintage as anything else.

The taper wing variations did buy speed but, to me, robbed the Cherokee of a bit of character. Mind you, I think the same about the C172 evolution path. I wasn't around in the heyday of the earlier models but it's just an opinion I formed after flying some of the older aircraft.

In fairness though, our club operated an Archer II for many years and, for what it did, it was a pretty efficient and trouble-free aeroplane.

Thread drift I know - what about Cheirftains and CASA's Ageing aircraft obsession?:confused:

Agree 100% with Tecmans comments regarding square wing piper, has a more honest, precise feel to it. I reckon late model Warriors are about the dullest aircraft Ive flown.
Interestingly I think early 172's are much the same, I figured that was because they are generally a lot lighter than their more recent models.

Jim Bede is responsible for most GA aircraft with tubular spars. Not a very structurally efficient design feature which is probably why it remains his hallmark and noone elses...

this may seem nuts but it works.

lie on the grass under the aeroplane and just look at it.
look all over it.

in the first 15 minutes you will start to notice things.
in the second fifteen minutes you will notice other things.
at the end of a final 15 minutes you will have a quite solid appreciation of the aeroplane.

you'd be amazed at what you pick up on just persisting in looking at it.

I once did precisely that with an A mod C402 at an airstrip on the northern coast of PNG dubbleyew eight, whilst waiting for my passengers to return. Middle of the PNG wet and under the a/c was the coolest place I could find!:ooh:

About all I can remember now (it was 22 years ago) is that it was 'educational.':hmm:

In my experience with the slab wings(Cherokee 140 and Arrow), it seemed impossible to hold the nosewheel off after touchdown like you might do on a soft field landing. In fact, the nose seems to come down almost with a thud despite full aft elevator. Almost always with only guys up front so CG could be a factor.

But, I flew an Archer the other day alone with its tapered wing. It did not seem difficult to hold the nosewheel off during the rollout. Anyone else notice this.

Yep definitely, that brings back more memories- the ones I flew (square and tapered) could be like that, the nose wheel strut does seem to have a lot of extension on them.
I never liked the way the warrior nosewheel would contact runway almost immediately after mains.

Almost all the small Pipers you will be on the forward limit of the CG with two on board such as training flights. The stabilator would run out of authority without significant trim close to touch down speed resulting in flat landings or the inability to stall the aircraft straight and level. An easy fix is to put 20kg or so in the baggage compartment which moved the CG rearward and made for much easier landings, including being able to hold the nosewheel off the ground. Most Seminole you actually go out of the forward limit with two on board and a decent amount of fuel. Limit the fuel and use rear ballast and it flies a lot more pleasantly.

Tubular Spars..
 

Thread drift: For those interested in tubular spars, The German Junkers Aircraft Manufacturer used them on the JU-86, JU-87, JU-90…lots of Google references..

Tried that ..... Fell asleep :(