Warrior or 150
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Living in denial
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warrior or 150
Hi guys, hope some of you can help.
Im currently half way through my PPL and up till now have been flying the 150 with a couple of hours in the 172.
Today I found out the club are changing their training aircraft to a Warrior. Should I be concerned? I enjoy the 150, love the 172, but costs have kept it away from me, so what should I do?
They are keeping the 172 so it will be between that and the warrior and I am a little apprehensive about changing between high and low wing aircraft.
My CFI spoke to me about it today and seemed to think I would do better on the warrior and had nothing but praise for it.
This is his opinion, what are your views on the differences between the two?
Any advice on this subject is appreciated.
Im currently half way through my PPL and up till now have been flying the 150 with a couple of hours in the 172.
Today I found out the club are changing their training aircraft to a Warrior. Should I be concerned? I enjoy the 150, love the 172, but costs have kept it away from me, so what should I do?
They are keeping the 172 so it will be between that and the warrior and I am a little apprehensive about changing between high and low wing aircraft.
My CFI spoke to me about it today and seemed to think I would do better on the warrior and had nothing but praise for it.
This is his opinion, what are your views on the differences between the two?
Any advice on this subject is appreciated.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will love the Warrior. Its a very stable aircraft, really nice to fly and with a "proper" throttle quadrant. Slightly different landing technique. Won't take long at all for you to feel comfortable in it. I'd take a Warrior over a C172 any day!!
If finances permit, I'd recommend the Warrior. It's a more comfortable flying environment, and if you're going for more complex stuff later, it's a better learning platform.
Doesn't like short runways though.
G
Doesn't like short runways though.
G
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North West
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Warrior is essentially a 4 seat tourer, with very benign handling characteristics. In the approach and landing the a/c is very forgiving with a great tendancy to float (especially when fast or without full flap). Quite good short-field landing performance - average short-field take-off. Personally I feel that a training aircraft should be a little tougher to fly (like the PA38 Terrorhawk!), but the Warrior is a better aircraft than the C172. Also the lookout is infinitely better in low wing aircraft.
Whichever a/c you choose, good luck with the PPL!
Whichever a/c you choose, good luck with the PPL!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Springfield
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to be biased and say the Warrior. I've done most of my flying on these, along with the PA-38 Tommahawk. They are a very stable platform for flight training, especially the PA-38. If you can fly that, you can fly anything!
Homer
Homer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crackle
Just like to point out that the lookout on a warrior is vastly inferior to a 150/172 down to either side!
I flew all three in training and found the Cessna's to be easier to land, but the warrior a lot closer to something like a Seneca which you will probably progress on to.
If you're on a tight budget go for the cheapest, if you want to plan that far ahead, plan for what may save you money when you get onto the twins..........it's all a personal thing; they're all light aircraft and they all go up when you pull back and down when you push forward.
Plan hard, fly easy,
PP
Just like to point out that the lookout on a warrior is vastly inferior to a 150/172 down to either side!
I flew all three in training and found the Cessna's to be easier to land, but the warrior a lot closer to something like a Seneca which you will probably progress on to.
If you're on a tight budget go for the cheapest, if you want to plan that far ahead, plan for what may save you money when you get onto the twins..........it's all a personal thing; they're all light aircraft and they all go up when you pull back and down when you push forward.
Plan hard, fly easy,
PP
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North West
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete
High wing lookout is only good down either side! Overall lookout is much better in low wing a/c. Agree that really it's better to go with the cheapest option.
Excellent posts on the new job by the way. Informative and inspirational in equal measures.
High wing lookout is only good down either side! Overall lookout is much better in low wing a/c. Agree that really it's better to go with the cheapest option.
Excellent posts on the new job by the way. Informative and inspirational in equal measures.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Bow5.
PLus if you have any fat friends (we all have them hidden away somewhere), they won't fit on the 150...
Giving people a free flight (that you would have done yourself anyway), is great for getting free beers, so the fat pax thing can be important!
Cheers
PLus if you have any fat friends (we all have them hidden away somewhere), they won't fit on the 150...
Giving people a free flight (that you would have done yourself anyway), is great for getting free beers, so the fat pax thing can be important!
Cheers
I've taught & flown both types & my choice is different to most of the above.
For ab-initio training, the C150/152 or C172. For x/country then a C172 in preference to a Warrior.
For ab-initio training, the C150/152 or C172. For x/country then a C172 in preference to a Warrior.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using scottish logic I would go for what evers cheapest. An hour in your log book SEP is worth the same when it comes to CPL hour building what ever the plane type.
Speaking from experence the door on the warrior is decent, no blowing open and sucking your charts out. And circuits are easy because you never lose sight of the runway.
But if you are doing alot of hours / night i will always take the cessna. No fannying around with fuel pumps and swaping tanks every 30mins. And for x-c its alot easier spotting landmarks.
MJ
Speaking from experence the door on the warrior is decent, no blowing open and sucking your charts out. And circuits are easy because you never lose sight of the runway.
But if you are doing alot of hours / night i will always take the cessna. No fannying around with fuel pumps and swaping tanks every 30mins. And for x-c its alot easier spotting landmarks.
MJ
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: No longer on Pprune
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pussy actualy flew Cherokee's not Warriors. Same fusalage, but different wing and handling.
Personaly, I'd go for the Warrior, but only because I prefer to sit on the wing rather than under it, although from a fuel management point of view, the high wing comes up trumps. The Warrior is likely to cost more too. You pays yer money......
PS
[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Polar_stereographic ]
Personaly, I'd go for the Warrior, but only because I prefer to sit on the wing rather than under it, although from a fuel management point of view, the high wing comes up trumps. The Warrior is likely to cost more too. You pays yer money......
PS
[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Polar_stereographic ]