Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Cherokee or Warrior - 'Hersey Bar' or 'Tapered'

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Cherokee or Warrior - 'Hersey Bar' or 'Tapered'

Old 28th Jan 2007, 23:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Chocks Away!
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester Barton
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Cherokee or Warrior - 'Hershey Bar' or 'Tapered'

Cherokee or Warrior - 'Hershey Bar' or 'Tapered'

The early Piper Cherokee had slab wings ('Hershey Bar' - after the american's favorite chocolate bar), then the Warrior came out with tapered wings.

I understand that the tapered wings of the Warrior makes it stall at the root of the wing first so that you still have some aileron control to recover.

If there was a choice of (say) a PA28-140 (Cherokee) a PA28-180 (Cherokee) and a PA28-161 (Warrior) what would you go for and why?

T.

Last edited by tiggermoth; 29th Jan 2007 at 21:39. Reason: Mis-spelt Hershey
tiggermoth is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 05:38
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,433
Depends on what you want to do with it!

Many people hate the PA28-140's overhead trimmer, but once you get used to it, it can be easier than fumbling around between the seats of the -161. Personally I prefer the handling of the -140 but not the 'mph' ASI.

PA28-180 is quicker than the -140, but if your use that speed, it will drink fuel at an a Oliver Reed rate!

Given the choice (and the same avionics in each), I'd personally go for a nice -180 if one was available, preferably a PA28R-180 if the funds were available!
BEagle is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 12:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 156
Personally, given that choice, I'd go for a Pitts Special!!
Joking aside, of the Piper family, I have flown the Cherokee 180, Archer II (Warrior with a bigger engine) and -235 Dakota (Warrior with an even bigger engine and wobbly prop).

The only real difference I noticed, from a practical flying point of view, is that the Archer II floated more on landing, and didn't have the sink rate of the Cherokee 180 if you got too slow on finals, or the more abrupt stall if you "landed" 2 feet up from the runway (of course I never did that, did I... ).

Both types still had some aileron response close to or at the stall.

Operating as I do from Netherthorpe, the -140 is not an option, so it comes down to getting the newest a/c (with the 180+hp engine) that I could afford - so the Archer if the folding beer vouchers run to it!

If I had lots of runway, I would therefore probably choose the Warrior as the differences are not IMHO all that significant, and Cherokees are getting a little long in the tooth!
waldopepper42 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 14:48
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: near Barton
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by waldopepper42 View Post
Operating as I do from Netherthorpe, the -140 is not an option, so it comes down to getting the newest a/c (with the 180+hp engine) that I could afford - so the Archer if the folding beer vouchers run to it!
!
Our 140 (GI) has been to Netherthorpe a number of times, without any particular difficulty (admittedly with two up) ...why do you say that?
We are based at Barton so are used to medium-length grass strips though
avidflyer is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 14:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: beverley
Posts: 262
I fly both types and I reckon(with my mere 100hrs) that the hershey bar wing flys much better-the warrior seems a bit lethargic in comparison and pretty idiot proof at the stall,just mushing around.

As my first instructor said,"its like the difference between an old sports car and a modern saloon,the saloon will look after you some more but the sporty model is always more fun!"

The 140 we have however is old school, and the trimmer/plunger throttle etc combo is a bit sh1t!
markflyer6580 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 15:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by avidflyer View Post
Our 140 (GI) has been to Netherthorpe a number of times, without any particular difficulty (admittedly with two up) ...why do you say that?
We are based at Barton so are used to medium-length grass strips though
the 140 is fine, if you pick your day. But to be based there, it can be marginal if the wind is wrong. There's still a Cherrytree 140 shaped hole in the wall at the end of runway 06!
waldopepper42 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 17:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 7
I learned in a 161 and fly a 180. The 161 was usually well behaved in the stall but I did once experience a wing drop (which the instructor rapidly caught) even though I was being careful to keep the ball in the centre. I have flown the 180 for 4 years now and regularly practice stalls - far more than I did whilst learning - in every configuration and never once has the behaviour been anything other than impeccable. I agree with Waldo that the sink rate if you get slow can be impressive though! A choice between an older 180 and a newer 161? The 180 every time!
Manfred V R is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 17:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Wigan
Posts: 136
I would go with the 180 if you are going to be flying it out of Barton. The little bit of extra power will come in usefull if you want to put a couple of fattys in with you. The new(ish) Archer III thats based there is very nice and i beleive that they are still selling shares in it.
crap pilot is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 11:27
  #9 (permalink)  
Chocks Away!
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester Barton
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by crap pilot View Post
I would go with the 180 if you are going to be flying it out of Barton. The little bit of extra power will come in usefull if you want to put a couple of fattys in with you.
Well I'm 'a fatty' to start off with, so I need to either:

1) Lose weight (avoid curry & real ale)
2) Only carry supermodels (size 'zero')
3) Get a more powerful engine

Option 1 is difficult to achieve - after all is it posible to live a life without curry and real ale?
Option 2 is very difficult to achieve - see Option 1.

It looks like option 3. Would I notice much difference in reality between a PA28-160 and a PA28-180 ? That's 11% more power - is that 11% shorter takeoff?

T.
tiggermoth is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 12:02
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Guadalix de la Sierra
Age: 53
Posts: 59
Ive flown the 140 Cherokee and and Archer II, very different planes but...
If you want to tour 4 up you will possibly struggle in the 140 especially if you are a "fatty"
If you want to poodle around your area the 140 is much more economical and flies perfectly well.
If you a shorty like me the 140 has a much better view out.
If you are a shorty and a fatty then perhaps piper is not the answer for you
Jamongris is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 12:15
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,216
The 140 is in no way a 4 seat tourer. It may lift 4 people as far as the airfield boundary before it runs out of fuel due to not up lifting any to carry 4 people. It is also very lethargic off the ground. General handling they are a darling to fly.
We have a very nice one at our place that I check people out in.

The stall is very benign and you have to have stupid to get it to do anything remotely aggressive. There is very little different between any of those pipers in reality.
S-Works is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 12:22
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,433
Another huge advantage of the 180 is the increased MTOW compared with either the 140 or 161.

We used to operate all 3 variants; the 180 was only 25 lb heavier than the 140 but had a MTOW 250 lb greater!

With full fuel (approx 300 lb), the 140 will take about 475 lb of pilot, pax and bags. A 161 will take about the same, although it has a MTOW 175 lb greater than a 140, it weighs nearly 175 lb more!

Whereas a 180 will take about 700 lb of pilot, pax and baggage. Far more suitable for those of the cuddlier figure!

As always though, check the weight AND balance!
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 20:04
  #13 (permalink)  
Chocks Away!
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester Barton
Age: 50
Posts: 260
Thanks for your comments - it's quite a minefield chooing a suitable aeroplane !
tiggermoth is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2007, 07:48
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,168
Rust !

Most of the aircraft that you are talking about are getting on a bit and corrosion is becoming a real problem, the bits don't cost a lot but the labour costs to fit them are a real killer.

The places to look for these problems are around the steel fittings that are riveted to the alloy airframe, so inspect the windscreen posts, under the baggage bay at the rear spar attachments and step attachments, Stab attachments forward of the rear most frame (FWD of the bearing fittings) and lastly the flap ribbs forward of the flap spar for this you will need a boroscope (access via the lower drain holes).

These are basicly sound aircraft if looked after, it will give you a clue as to how the aircraft has been maintained if the owner has had Piper service bulletin 977 done. This corrosion prevention/detection SB is non mandatory and is quite cheap to do and if it has not been actioned it shows an owner who has skimped on the maintenance.
A and C is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2007, 07:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Wigan
Posts: 136
I flew the Archer III at barton yesterday and was very impressed. The extra power is very noticeable when compared to a 140 and it comfortably cruises at 115-120kts IAS. If you want a look see there website here http://www.aircraftgrouping.com/no_equity_pa28_181.html
crap pilot is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2007, 08:58
  #16 (permalink)  
Chocks Away!
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester Barton
Age: 50
Posts: 260
It's a lovely looking aeroplane by the look of the photos, and it's kitted out very well it seems. I'd be like a toddler with a new toy in it!

It's the higher monthly cost that puts me off the no equity route, and I'm not sure if I'd "feel" like I "own" a share in that kind of aircraft and get actually feel involved in the group. In a way it is more like renting. I might be wrong!

T.
tiggermoth is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2007, 10:53
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Wigan
Posts: 136
The higher monthly costs also put me off at first but you have to remember that with other groups, if something should go wrong with the aircraft or engine needs overhauling etc, then unless the group has a big engine fund, you will have to pay your share. Its a risk that you would not have to think about. I joined the group mainly to fly this but have to admit the PA28 is winning me over http://www.aircraftgrouping.com/no_e...ssna_172sp.htm
crap pilot is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 10:41
  #18 (permalink)  
Chocks Away!
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester Barton
Age: 50
Posts: 260
The overall cost is around 20% more per year for a typical 25 hour a year PPL than a similar equipped group aeroplane.

The higher monthly cost for a no equity share isn't so bad if you do a lot of hours, and I suppose as you say you are not liable to any other 'surprises'.
tiggermoth is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 12:30
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Age: 45
Posts: 118
Go for the Slab winged 180, our flying club owns 1, once you get used to the plunger thottle and the overhead trim there a breeeze to fly, took it out the other day full fuel and 4 adults no problem and still got a 500 fpm climb out! and if you really want on your own you can get it off the ground in 300metres!
hollywood285 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 19:03
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,168
Not all the slab wing aircraft had the trim in the roof, the later aircraft had the trim on the floor.

I own a PA28-180 and the aircraft is very popular with the club that I lease it to because the rental cost is reasonable, the aircraft will do all that the Archer 3 will do in terms of the performance that the average club member can use.
But because it cost me about 15% of what a new Archer would cost It is a far more productive aircraft, yes the maintenance bill is a bit high at the moment but it won't come close to the interest payments and insurance of a new or an almost new aircraft.

Once the aircraft is fully sorted the maintenance bill will come down to just above the cost of a new aircraft having spent 25-30% of the cost of a new aircraft.

The simple fact is that a new aircraft won't attract 70% more income and even if the maintenance bill on the old aircraft is 5-10% bigger the numbers still make a late PA28-180 a very atractive aircraft for a market that has mostly VFR pilots and very few IMC holders who would chose to fly on a "hard IMC" day.
A and C is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.