152 vs Warrior?

[badger16]

Hey guys, I wanted to just throw this question out to anyone who has flown either of these planes. Which one do you like better and why? I was looking at getting some time in a 152 but i've heard it is really cramped, so I was just looking to get some opinions from anyone who has flown either of them or both. thanks.

 

[MasterBates]

152 is cheaper and has better visibilty for looking at stuff below you.

I am 6'3" with long legs and I fit in 150/152 and Warriors. Not comfy but OK.

 

[SoICanBeFree]

152

I have 25 hours in the 152... it was a lot of fun, supposedly a really easy plane to fly.. I don't have anything else to compare it to but its cheaper then a piper and I can't think of a big advantage that the piper has.

s/f

 

[KSUFLY]

A Warrior will be a little faster than the 152 if you're wanting to get somewhere. Also, it's amazing if you're flying people that know NOTHING about aviation they will get a bigger kick out of flying in the Warrior. This is because it is a low wing and they believe that you have to take extra lessons to learn how to fly a low wing compared to a high wing. I don't know why...but it works that way.

Even when I was instructing, people still asked me if I could fly by myself yet.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I very much prefer the Warrior/Arrow to any Cessna that I have flown (152/172/182RG)....I think it boils down to the increase in weight and slightly better cruise stability (especially when IMC on instruments). I also like the low wing for some reason more than high wing, and I've always disliked the way that Cessnas tend to float in the flare if you have any excess a/s. I don't have a whole lot of time in the Warrior, but I do in the Arrow (which is a similar airframe) and I like the positive control feel that it has at low airspeeds and in the flare.....if you dump full flaps and chop the throttle, you are going down.....not usually any need to burn out a/s with excessive back pressure in any situation. On the flip side, control forces are significantly heavier in the Piper and if you are just learning, you will need to pick up trimming skills quickly

But the light single that you REALLY should be looking at is the E(or V)35 Bonanza.....awesome aircraft to fly in most every way, and much sweeter controls than any other single that I have flown.....pretty similar feel to the T-34C except w/o the 300-ish HP advantage, and a yoke in place of the stick. I did find the V-tail Bonanza to be a little bit more skittish than the T-34 and most other single engined light a/c.....at least in terms of roll and yaw stability, but this is only really a big deal on 3+ hr cx-country flying when you get tired of periodically adjusting stuff, or if you go crashing through some summer-time unstable air over the mountains or mid-west or something like that.

I'm sure other more experienced folks can add to these observations...

 

[Gatordev]

But the light single that you REALLY should be looking at is the E(or V)35 Bonanza.....awesome aircraft to fly in most every way, and much sweeter controls than any other single that I have flown.....pretty similar feel to the T-34C except w/o the 300-ish HP advantage, and a yoke in place of the stick. I did find the V-tail Bonanza to be a little bit more skittish than the T-34 and most other single engined light a/c.....at least in terms of roll and yaw stability, but this is only really a big deal on 3+ hr cx-country flying when you get tired of periodically adjusting stuff

I'm calling you out on this one... I've never flown a -34B, so if that's what you're speaking of, it could explain the difference. I have also never flown a Bonanza (but have flown a Muskateer), but if a -35 handles anything like a -34C, I don't think as many people would have bought them, especially for instrument flying. The -34C is incredibly unstable in the roll axis (above 130-ish knots) and because of the aforementioned power (and Tq), a pain to manage, yaw-wise.

I mention this because, while the airframes might be similar, I doubt the handling is.

 

[Tom]

Comparing a 152 and a Warrior is like comparing two ride on lawn mowers. They both get the job done. Neither is fast and neither is complex (generally). Take whatever is available, but look at price, age and equipment. If a 152 is 70 bucks an hour, but is 35 years old and has one VOR, you may want to fly a Warrior at 90 bucks an hour that is 8 years old with dual GPS/VOR. Then again if you want to just get some time, go cheap. If you want training for your Private/Instrument, I would recommend the better equipped.

 

[FLY_USMC]

I personally don't like the majority of the way Piper aircraft fly, from Cherokees to Turbo Lance's to Seminole's, I've flown them all and they all fly the same, like a fat chick with wings.

A Muskateer is absolutely nothing like a Bonanza, it's more like the red-headed step child of the Beech world, much like the Sundowner.

If I had to pick one, I'd pick the 152, because they're cheap, its about quantity not quality at this point in the game, and you can get more stick time for less in a 152.

The majority of Bonanza's fly like a dream, V-Tails are a little squirrely-er than the rest, but still very nice, maybe a tiny bit faster, but still slow in the grand scheme of things. I considered the Tormentor just like any other Bonanza, maybe a little squirrely-er, but still, flew much like they all do....boringly.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I'm calling you out on this one... I've never flown a -34B, so if that's what you're speaking of, it could explain the difference. I have also never flown a Bonanza (but have flown a Muskateer), but if a -35 handles anything like a -34C, I don't think as many people would have bought them, especially for instrument flying. The -34C is incredibly unstable in the roll axis (above 130-ish knots) and because of the aforementioned power (and Tq), a pain to manage, yaw-wise.

I mention this because, while the airframes might be similar, I doubt the handling is.

I was referring to the T-34C.....I can't speak for ALL Beech Bonanzas, but the one I have some time in is an early build (1955 or something like that), so maybe this could have something to do with what I noticed?

My point actually was more that the Beech is pretty unstable in roll and yaw and that is the only downside that I have noticed. Its a great VFR aircraft, but presents a bigger workload when trying to shoot an approach, manage charts, etc. I noticed the same stability characteristics in the T-34C, although I have a LOT less time at those controls so I'm not really qualified to speak.....but they had a similar feel in terms of control weighting and response from the limited time I flew one. I will say that the T-34 is a lot easier to intentionally roll than the Bonanza, which was (pleasantly) surprising

 

[Intruder Driver]

Having owned a 150 and also logged lots of time in the Warrior, Archer and Arrow, spend some time in both. Learn to land both. Learn to land both in a crosswind; you'll also learn when to wave off a landing.

If you just want time in an airplane on a nice VFR day, you can't beat the 150/152 for price. If you want to shoot approaches, I like the Piper series.

The Beech series is okay, but quite pricey for little upside. If you want a rocket, rent a Mooney if you can find one.

The Cirrus or Diamond is nice for instrument work, but it'll make you a slave to electronics and gadgets. My guess is low time pilots keep their heads inside the cockpit way too much in the glass cockpit airplanes instead of learning to look outside.

Now, the greatest airplane ever was the A-4. A pilot's plane that you wore like a fine suit, and the fastest roll rate of any Navy jet at 720 degrees per second; so fast that NATOPS restricted a full deflection roll to 360 degrees. And it was an accomplishment to master slat deflection on a loop.

 

[mules83]

Warriors make cessnas thier b!tches so I would go with the warrior

 

[MIDNJAC]

Warriors make cessnas thier b!tches so I would go with the warrior

hahahaha.....best AW post I've seen in a while....reminds me of Ricky Bobby's kid

 

[badger16]

thanks for the info everybody, I was leaning towards the 152 for the money reason, just wasn't sure if I would be missing out on something by not getting into the warrior.
Cheers.

 

[Intruder Driver]

no matter what anyone says, flight time is flight time. it all builds experience to put in the rectal data bank.

 

[mules83]

thanks for the info everybody, I was leaning towards the 152 for the money reason, just wasn't sure if I would be missing out on something by not getting into the warrior.
Cheers.

I agree with your decision. In my opinion, unless you plan on only flying x-countries, a Cessna is a better pick. NOTHING can beat how cheaply and easily a Cessna 150/152 can be flown and maintained.