152 or pa28 warrior/cadet?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
152 or pa28 warrior/cadet?
As some of you know I have been looking at doing my PPL in Florida later this year. As with most schools I have looked at the training is carried out on either the 152 or the pa28, with a slight difference in price.
I just wanted to know if it was worth the additional cost to train in the piper?
Thanks in advance
Stug
I just wanted to know if it was worth the additional cost to train in the piper?
Thanks in advance
Stug
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being that I like Cessna's a little bit better than the Piper's this might be a little biased. As long as your weight isn't to high the 152 would do fine. Yes the cessna doesn't have as long of legs as the piper. But if I were do it it all over again I would still choose the Cessna to train in. Train in the 152 and upgrade if you wish to do a little touring after you are done. 
My 2 cents worth.
My 2 cents worth.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 48
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA28 will most likely be more avaiable than the 152. Basically majority of PPL students that go to Florida (including myself) will pick the 152's because of price. Because of this you might find yourself sitting around waiting for a slot on the 152. The PA28's are not as popular (because of the price difference) so you might find you have less waiting around time (which is good for study).
Saying all that, you mind find yourself sitting about waiting for you instructor to come back from a lesson with another student.
All in all either option is not bad. Personaly i wished i had done my PPL in the PA28, only because i have not touched a 150/152 since and probably will not. There is no reason for this other than i have a multitude of other aircraft at my disposal that i prefer.
The 150/152 is a great aircraft to learn in. Very forgiving, plus 40% flap approaches are great fun.
Saying all that, you mind find yourself sitting about waiting for you instructor to come back from a lesson with another student.
All in all either option is not bad. Personaly i wished i had done my PPL in the PA28, only because i have not touched a 150/152 since and probably will not. There is no reason for this other than i have a multitude of other aircraft at my disposal that i prefer.
The 150/152 is a great aircraft to learn in. Very forgiving, plus 40% flap approaches are great fun.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stug
It largely depends how tall/heavy you are. When I did mine, I also had a choice of 152 or PA28 (the Warrior/Archer in my case). I folded myself into the 152 and then tried the PA28. Decision made within seconds - PA28. That said, I today fly almost only Cessnas and prefer them!
I think you should go for what you're more comfortable with, you'll be flying loads of different a/c later on anyway. If there's no difference to you, then go for the cheaper option and use the spare cash to go flying
LOL with your license
It largely depends how tall/heavy you are. When I did mine, I also had a choice of 152 or PA28 (the Warrior/Archer in my case). I folded myself into the 152 and then tried the PA28. Decision made within seconds - PA28. That said, I today fly almost only Cessnas and prefer them!
I think you should go for what you're more comfortable with, you'll be flying loads of different a/c later on anyway. If there's no difference to you, then go for the cheaper option and use the spare cash to go flying
LOL with your license
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all your help :o)
Having flown the 152 in my trial lesson i know i will fit so saving the extra cash for more flying later sounds like a good option.
thanks again.
Stug
Having flown the 152 in my trial lesson i know i will fit so saving the extra cash for more flying later sounds like a good option.
thanks again.
Stug
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Some where over the rainbow
Age: 37
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the glide thing really depends on the lift/drag
in terms of the cessna and pa28, they would probabily be about the same. by pure guess i would think its the pa28 just because it doesnt have wing strut.
of cos it depends on how heavy the pilot is as well =P
in terms of the cessna and pa28, they would probabily be about the same. by pure guess i would think its the pa28 just because it doesnt have wing strut.
of cos it depends on how heavy the pilot is as well =P
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Missouri, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trained in the 150 because it was less expensive, then migrated to the PA28. The transition took all of about an hour. You're doing the right thing by saving your $ and flying the 150.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK Bucks
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too trained in 150's and 152's and have now moved onto the warriors. Should only take an hour to get used to it all. Only extra bit on the piper to remember/get used to is fuel pump, switching fuel tanks and having manual flaps.
as to handling, The piper is nice and easy to land, better ground affect
as to handling, The piper is nice and easy to land, better ground affect
Join Date: May 2006
Location: S
Age: 47
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pilotho
the glide thing really depends on the lift/drag
in terms of the cessna and pa28, they would probabily be about the same. by pure guess i would think its the pa28 just because it doesnt have wing strut.
of cos it depends on how heavy the pilot is as well =P
in terms of the cessna and pa28, they would probabily be about the same. by pure guess i would think its the pa28 just because it doesnt have wing strut.
of cos it depends on how heavy the pilot is as well =P
it ONLY depends on the lift/drag. it has nothing to do with the weight.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight does theoretically affect the airspeed you need to fly in order to get the AoA that gives best glide. In practice it will only be a couple of knots different between MAUW and single pilot/half fuel.
Also in an engine-out situation you can float for longer in ground effect with a low wing. However that might be a bad thing because when landing in a farmer's field you want to stop in a short distance.
Also in an engine-out situation you can float for longer in ground effect with a low wing. However that might be a bad thing because when landing in a farmer's field you want to stop in a short distance.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 48
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A nice warm day with warm ground a gentle breeze makes the plane want to sit in ground effect longer, as Henry Hallam says it can be a bugger on a short strip/field.
I had exactly this issue last weekend in a PA32 with 7 on board (an old PA32 300) the strip was 600m hard top. Approach was great, flare was great, then she just sat there floating down the runway a little over 70kts. According to the book she should have stalled about 80kts when fully loaded (she certainly drops like a stone when on approach at 80kts fully loaded). As i was heavy i had no choice but to let her sink in her own time. A go around was out of the question i was to slow with a huge hill in front of me and to much weight to climb over it. Needless to say some hevy footed breaking immediate flaps up and up elevator in order to stop where required when she set down. My PAX asked if landed on an aircraft carrier!! Oh yeah my brakes overheated as well.
A nice warm day with warm ground and gentle breeze over the sea, do you think the aircraft will still want to sit in groundeffect as much?? (can you call it ground effect over sea? or does it exist over sea?)
I am talking in an engine failure situation here.
I had exactly this issue last weekend in a PA32 with 7 on board (an old PA32 300) the strip was 600m hard top. Approach was great, flare was great, then she just sat there floating down the runway a little over 70kts. According to the book she should have stalled about 80kts when fully loaded (she certainly drops like a stone when on approach at 80kts fully loaded). As i was heavy i had no choice but to let her sink in her own time. A go around was out of the question i was to slow with a huge hill in front of me and to much weight to climb over it. Needless to say some hevy footed breaking immediate flaps up and up elevator in order to stop where required when she set down. My PAX asked if landed on an aircraft carrier!! Oh yeah my brakes overheated as well.
A nice warm day with warm ground and gentle breeze over the sea, do you think the aircraft will still want to sit in groundeffect as much?? (can you call it ground effect over sea? or does it exist over sea?)
I am talking in an engine failure situation here.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Some where over the rainbow
Age: 37
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tasa how could lift/drag not depend on weight? u need extra lift to overcome the extra weight and to gain this extra lift u would need higher airspeed or AoA. so u either increase parasite drag with inc airspeed or induced drag with inc AoA.
tell me where u got your theory from???
tell me where u got your theory from???
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pilotho
tasa how could lift/drag not depend on weight? u need extra lift to overcome the extra weight and to gain this extra lift u would need higher airspeed or AoA. so u either increase parasite drag with inc airspeed or induced drag with inc AoA.
tell me where u got your theory from???
tell me where u got your theory from???
You pretty much said it yourself: You need extra lift to overcome the extra weight, to gain this extra weight you need higher airspeed, which increases drag. You have increased both lift and drag, and it turns out that you have increased them proportionally so lift divided by drag, or L/D, does not change.
Have a look through these pages:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/glidvec.html
The gist of it is that at a certain AoA a wing will produce lift L proportional to V^2 and drag D proportional to V^2. L/D is therefore constant for a given AoA regardless of the speed.
There is always an optimal AoA that gives the greatest L/D ratio.
If you increase the weight L must go up, but if you are trying to get the best efficiency you don't change AoA (since that would make L/D decrease). So to get more lift L, you must increase V (fly faster). But L/D doesn't change.
It can also be shown that L/D is equal to the glide ratio.
So: If you are carrying more weight the airspeed you must fly at for best glide will increase. If you fly that airspeed then the AoA will be the same as before, L/D is unchanged and glide ratio is unchanged. You cover the same distance before hitting the dirt but you are going faster so you get there quicker.
Example:
Cessna 172, MAUW=2550lb best glide is about 80kts IIRC at MAUW.
With a single pilot and half tanks the weight is about 2000lb
at all up weight, L=2550
at light weight, L=2000
V^2 is proportional to L
so at light weight, V^2/80^2 = 2000/2550
V=sqrt(6400 * 2000 / 2550)
V=71 knots.
So in practice it doesn't really make that much difference, especially since the L/D versus AoA curve is reasonably flat at that point so a small error in V won't affect L/D that much. Just keep it around 75.
Last edited by Henry Hallam; 8th Jun 2006 at 16:39.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Some where over the rainbow
Age: 37
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think we have gone off the point here.
the original question was how the aircraft would glide, therefore we do not have engine power.
now you are saying that l/d does not depend on weight while on descent, the weight of the aircraft has a component contributing to descent. its true that greater airspeed would increase the distance covered but thats only if u have engine power. since we are in a glide, we can only increase airspeed by pointing the nose towards the ground hence increases angle of descent.
point is that, a fat pilot wont glide as far as a skinny one!
the original question was how the aircraft would glide, therefore we do not have engine power.
now you are saying that l/d does not depend on weight while on descent, the weight of the aircraft has a component contributing to descent. its true that greater airspeed would increase the distance covered but thats only if u have engine power. since we are in a glide, we can only increase airspeed by pointing the nose towards the ground hence increases angle of descent.
point is that, a fat pilot wont glide as far as a skinny one!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, that is not right. Make sure you know the difference between AoA and pitch. Read what I wrote again and check the link - I said nothing about engines and was assuming no engine the whole time.
L depends on weight. D depends (somewhat indirectly) on weight. But L/D does not depend on weight.
The fat pilot glides just as far as the skinny one but he's going quicker. Luckily, he will bounce!
L depends on weight. D depends (somewhat indirectly) on weight. But L/D does not depend on weight.
The fat pilot glides just as far as the skinny one but he's going quicker. Luckily, he will bounce!
No evidence, just practical experience.... the 150/152 will make it further in a glide then the Pa28 series, any of them.
There is no such thing as being too high in a Piper product, any of them for that matter....
There is no such thing as being too high in a Piper product, any of them for that matter....
Rate of Climb
Compare the climb rates of the 2 a/c.
If you can get to circuit altitude faster in one, you will be getting more learning/hr. for the extra money. Same goes for gaining/regaining sufficient altitude for airwork, practice forced approaches, etc.
Ground effect, as mentioned above, is stronger in low-winged a/c, which tend to have itty-bitty flaps compared to Cessnas . I too have had prolonged ground floats using up much more runway than I like
Remember that with g/a a/c the approach speeds are for full gross and that after a long flight, landing with near empty tanks at that full gross approach speed will give you a bunch of float
If you can get to circuit altitude faster in one, you will be getting more learning/hr. for the extra money. Same goes for gaining/regaining sufficient altitude for airwork, practice forced approaches, etc.
Ground effect, as mentioned above, is stronger in low-winged a/c, which tend to have itty-bitty flaps compared to Cessnas . I too have had prolonged ground floats using up much more runway than I like
Remember that with g/a a/c the approach speeds are for full gross and that after a long flight, landing with near empty tanks at that full gross approach speed will give you a bunch of float
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henry Hallums right on the money, L/D has nothing to do with weight except that it increases the speed at which the L/Dmax occurs at. Ahhh its good to see I can vaguely remember all the ATPL groundschool 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think we have gone off the point here.
the original question was how the aircraft would glide
the original question was how the aircraft would glide
I just wanted to know if it was worth the additional cost to train in the piper?
As for the lift/drag thing. I couldnt be bothered reading the whole thread but in basic terms...As the aircraft gets heavier it will still glide the same distance but has to do it at a higher speed. For Cessnas/Pipers the difference in airspeed is small so most pilots just fly at a set speed (about 70 Kts in the Pipers if I remember rightly but check the POH)
£0.02