Any advice for changing from Archer to Warrior?
Any advice for changing from Archer to Warrior?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you could change your user name to BlokeFormerlyKnownAsBlokeInAnArcher 
Never flown an Archer, so I don't know what differences you're likely to find, but Warriors are pretty simple to fly - can't see that you'd have any real problems.
FFF
-----------
Never flown an Archer, so I don't know what differences you're likely to find, but Warriors are pretty simple to fly - can't see that you'd have any real problems.
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's usually other way around.... as in student learns on Warriors, then wants a get-lost-quicker machine so upgrades to Archers...
Speeds are essentially the same (certainly at Barton they quoted as the same) apart from cruise & higher speed limitations.
Warrior props usually better for circuits than cruising so you may (if your Archer had a cruise prop) notice perkier acceleration and climb performance but lower s&l speeds for revs.
..and the Archer fit is usually more luxurious so it will seem spartan unless it's someones pride n joy...
Speeds are essentially the same (certainly at Barton they quoted as the same) apart from cruise & higher speed limitations.
Warrior props usually better for circuits than cruising so you may (if your Archer had a cruise prop) notice perkier acceleration and climb performance but lower s&l speeds for revs.
..and the Archer fit is usually more luxurious so it will seem spartan unless it's someones pride n joy...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown both the -161 (Warrior) and -181 (Archer) and cannot think of a noticable difference other than the Archer has an extra 10kts or so of cruise speed and seems to float slightly more than the Warrior
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory of some years ago, I found the Archer noticeably more pleasant to take-off and land than the Warrior.
Extra horses in the Archer for take-off so in the air quicker and cleaner, and also seemed to settle better on landing with less tendency to float ( the opposite view to Evo!
)
Only significant handling difference: I found the Archer was nose-heavy in the flare compared to the Warrior, so keeping the nosewheel off the ground as long as possible required more concious effort.
However, it may of course just have been down to the particular examples of each that I flew.
Slip
Extra horses in the Archer for take-off so in the air quicker and cleaner, and also seemed to settle better on landing with less tendency to float ( the opposite view to Evo!
) Only significant handling difference: I found the Archer was nose-heavy in the flare compared to the Warrior, so keeping the nosewheel off the ground as long as possible required more concious effort.
However, it may of course just have been down to the particular examples of each that I flew.
Slip
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SW UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you have to tell your larger mates to eat less pies!!
Think its 2350lbs max AUW for a -161, and 2550 for an Archer. Engine is a bit heavier of course and usually more buttons in an Archer, so something like 150lbs less payload.
Other than that, I generally agree with what other posters have said - pretty much the same, but a bit extra power for take off and cruising.
Think its 2350lbs max AUW for a -161, and 2550 for an Archer. Engine is a bit heavier of course and usually more buttons in an Archer, so something like 150lbs less payload.
Other than that, I generally agree with what other posters have said - pretty much the same, but a bit extra power for take off and cruising.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only flown a Warrior once, I normally fly an Archer, but I found there were quite a few differences.
For climb-out on the Archer I was taught to fix 80 kts, but the Warrior wouldn't keep that speed unless the nose was very low and it had nil rate of climb, so I had to use approach speed - 70 kts.
Also when slowing down on base I found the speed bled off really quickly compared to the Archer - I had to keep a very close watch to make sure it didn't get close to the stall
But on the whole they are similar - take it easy and you won't have a problem.
For climb-out on the Archer I was taught to fix 80 kts, but the Warrior wouldn't keep that speed unless the nose was very low and it had nil rate of climb, so I had to use approach speed - 70 kts.
Also when slowing down on base I found the speed bled off really quickly compared to the Archer - I had to keep a very close watch to make sure it didn't get close to the stall
But on the whole they are similar - take it easy and you won't have a problem.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew both when doing the FAA IR. Nothing much in it, apart from a different set of power settings to learn for the various stages of flight, rates of climb and descent, and all that.
You really will have no problems - if you can fly one, you can fly t'other.
You really will have no problems - if you can fly one, you can fly t'other.
Vancouv, according to the operators manual, best climb-rate speed for a Warrior is 79 kn, I suspect that you may have had a duff one.
There is an initial climb speed for obstacle clearance of 52 kn in the POH, which scares the hell out of me! I was taught to do initial climb at 65, but only till the flaps are up.
G
There is an initial climb speed for obstacle clearance of 52 kn in the POH, which scares the hell out of me! I was taught to do initial climb at 65, but only till the flaps are up.
G
