-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
152 vs Warrior?
- Thread starter badger16
- Start date
I have several hundred hours in the Warrior and Arrow, and less than 10 in any type of Cessna.
I prefer the Warrior, but that may be because it was what I trained in. In any case, I like them both, but would go with a Cessna if I were looking for cheap flight time. If I was just out doing a joyride I would probably go with a Warrior.
I prefer the Warrior, but that may be because it was what I trained in. In any case, I like them both, but would go with a Cessna if I were looking for cheap flight time. If I was just out doing a joyride I would probably go with a Warrior.
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
Copy all (both you and USMC_FLY). I thought the Bonanza would be more stable since they are such widespread instrument fliers. As for rolling "boringly..." I come from a helo, so I "know" unstable, and when I'm in the goo, I'd much rather be flying a -60 than a T-34.
I have no idea what that means. So the warrior is more forgiving of your crappy airwork?
or got sloppy
seriously though, it may be heavy in the flare, but its not a brick....I'm wondering under what circumstances you would touch down at 100 kts in any Warrior/Commanche/etc? Isn't a normal approach speed with a couple notches of flaps somewhere around 75-80 KIAS? Maybe 85 w/ no flaps and some wind. Were you "adding a few for the kids" on a gusty day? To make contact at 100 kts, you must have been going damn near 115 kts going into the flare, and thats outside of the flap arc so they only way I can see you even going down in that configuration and airspeed is just pointing it down and probably breaking your front strut in the process........its been a long time since I've flown one so my memory may elude me, but still
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
Like MIDN, I prefer a low wing configuration to the -150/52. power is also nice.
WRT to the T-34, I have some experience flying A/B models. It is fairly unstable (even moreso than the C) in low speed maneuvers because of the way that the empennage is constructed (this is why the C model has those fins below the vertical stab)... However, in all other genres of flight the -34 is a dream to fly IMO. It is a fairly forgiving aircraft and has great control authority. Its other characteristic is that its a fairly heavy aircraft... you can put on the breaks in a -34 fairly quickly...the weight issue can work for you or against you.
The FBO I started at was all beechcraft.. so the closest I can compare a warrior to is a Beech Sierra. Its a matter of preference and cash flow... if you can afford it I would go the warrior/arrow route. Overall its going to be more maneuverable and more powerful than a 152.
WRT to the T-34, I have some experience flying A/B models. It is fairly unstable (even moreso than the C) in low speed maneuvers because of the way that the empennage is constructed (this is why the C model has those fins below the vertical stab)... However, in all other genres of flight the -34 is a dream to fly IMO. It is a fairly forgiving aircraft and has great control authority. Its other characteristic is that its a fairly heavy aircraft... you can put on the breaks in a -34 fairly quickly...the weight issue can work for you or against you.
The FBO I started at was all beechcraft.. so the closest I can compare a warrior to is a Beech Sierra. Its a matter of preference and cash flow... if you can afford it I would go the warrior/arrow route. Overall its going to be more maneuverable and more powerful than a 152.
Warrior Final Approach speed flaps at 40 degrees - 63 kias
Flaps can be lowered at speeds up to 103 kias
Piper Warrior Information Manual Page 4-14
Let me say this...if you ever get a chance to fly a Sundowner, run in the other direction as fast as your little legs will carry you. They are complete pieces of sh!t. As for the Bonanzas, I did my comm. and CFI in one. I love the plane and I think it's a blast to fly. I've done a fair amount of instrument work in a Bonanza and as long as you stay ahead of the airplane (true in all airplanes) there's no problem. The problems occur when you are IMC, behind the airplane, and loose SA. That's where it earned the name "Doctor Killer."
I've never flown a Mooney but I've heard that they're great. Also, if you get a chance, a Cherokee 235 is a nice and relatively cheap aircraft to operate.
I've never flown a Mooney but I've heard that they're great. Also, if you get a chance, a Cherokee 235 is a nice and relatively cheap aircraft to operate.
Mooneys are fun and fast, but cramped. A great airplane to build up time in, if you can find one, is the Varga Kachina. Lokks like a T-34. We used them at Annapolis while I was there (1977-78) for the seniors going SNA to get some time.
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
^^ I looked that one up real quick, not bad.
http://home.clara.net/acf/scale/scale-pics-3/low-wing/varga-blue/varga-kachina.html
http://home.clara.net/acf/scale/scale-pics-3/low-wing/varga-blue/varga-kachina.html
It has a stick instead of a yoke, and the power lever is very similar to the T34C. However, it does have a fatal flaw. The carb heat is back by the left elbow and is out (off) and in (on) so, if you're a big guy, your elbow can engage carb heat accidentally and you may never know it under the engine is sputtering.
Ity happened to one of my Academy classmates our senior year. He and the instructor died when the engine quit and the only place to put down was either in the trees or in the trees.
Ity happened to one of my Academy classmates our senior year. He and the instructor died when the engine quit and the only place to put down was either in the trees or in the trees.
White_Male
New Member
Forgive my ignorance, but how would the carb heat kill an engine unless it was calibrated improperly? Way too rich? If so, it seems as though they were already running too rich. I do know a guy who, on downwind, pulled the carb heat and the engine quite but that was just a quirk of the plane.
As for the Warrior or the 152 route. It kind of depends on your situation. I learned in 172s and I really like them. I did most of the flying in a 172 with a 180 horse engine (that's a step up from normal and it does make a difference, primarily in the takeoff and climb). It is nice when you are doing pattern work. Supposedly, crosswinds are supposed to be tougher in a high-wing. It may be slightly more difficult. I did my comm and CFI in an Arrow and I really like that plane. It does what it is supposed to do.
The thing with the 172 is that you can really learn nice takeoffs and landings. With the 172 you can be cruising down the runway and get that nose wheel 3-5 inches of the ground hold it their and it flys right off. What I didn't like about the Arrow, is that you kind of have to pull it off the ground. Another thing on landings, because of the floating, the 172 is a bit more difficult to hit the spot if you are doing shorts. Basically, if you don't have your airspeed and power figured out, you will most likely over shoot. With the Arrow, you could pretty much put it down even if you didn't have your airspeed totally in check.
Stalls, in Cessnas seem to be a bit more dramatic than they do in Pipers. I find it kind of hard to a good break in a Cherokee or an Arrow. In a Cessna you can get a noticeable break.
The visibility is better for flying in the warrior. But because of the 152 you will be extra cautious with whatever you fly later on in life, because you will have to turn your plane in either direction before you cross a runway to see if someone is coming. You will have an extra awareness.
Finally, one more thing, with the 152 you can do more stuff closer to the ground. My instructor used to tell me, after I had my license, "when you are out here just try to go down the runway on just one wheel. It'll make you a better pilot." That was in a 172. I don't think I would reccomend it in an Arrow. For the most part Cessnas just seem "built to fly" better than the pipers I have flown. What I don't like about a lot of cessnas is that they tend to be underpowered. But you can get that with other planes as well.
If you are just starting to learn, or just building time and practicing, I would go with the 152. If you want to go places, I would probably go with the warrior dpending on whether or not it was worth it cost wise.
So, you can take that info and do what you want with it.
As for the Warrior or the 152 route. It kind of depends on your situation. I learned in 172s and I really like them. I did most of the flying in a 172 with a 180 horse engine (that's a step up from normal and it does make a difference, primarily in the takeoff and climb). It is nice when you are doing pattern work. Supposedly, crosswinds are supposed to be tougher in a high-wing. It may be slightly more difficult. I did my comm and CFI in an Arrow and I really like that plane. It does what it is supposed to do.
The thing with the 172 is that you can really learn nice takeoffs and landings. With the 172 you can be cruising down the runway and get that nose wheel 3-5 inches of the ground hold it their and it flys right off. What I didn't like about the Arrow, is that you kind of have to pull it off the ground. Another thing on landings, because of the floating, the 172 is a bit more difficult to hit the spot if you are doing shorts. Basically, if you don't have your airspeed and power figured out, you will most likely over shoot. With the Arrow, you could pretty much put it down even if you didn't have your airspeed totally in check.
Stalls, in Cessnas seem to be a bit more dramatic than they do in Pipers. I find it kind of hard to a good break in a Cherokee or an Arrow. In a Cessna you can get a noticeable break.
The visibility is better for flying in the warrior. But because of the 152 you will be extra cautious with whatever you fly later on in life, because you will have to turn your plane in either direction before you cross a runway to see if someone is coming. You will have an extra awareness.
Finally, one more thing, with the 152 you can do more stuff closer to the ground. My instructor used to tell me, after I had my license, "when you are out here just try to go down the runway on just one wheel. It'll make you a better pilot." That was in a 172. I don't think I would reccomend it in an Arrow. For the most part Cessnas just seem "built to fly" better than the pipers I have flown. What I don't like about a lot of cessnas is that they tend to be underpowered. But you can get that with other planes as well.
If you are just starting to learn, or just building time and practicing, I would go with the 152. If you want to go places, I would probably go with the warrior dpending on whether or not it was worth it cost wise.
So, you can take that info and do what you want with it.
White Male,
You make some great points. When I owned a 150, I already had over 4,000 jet hours and a few hundred prop hours, and yet I learned an immense amount about real flying from the 150. The inclination of the 150/152 to float on landing does indeed require a pilot to learn how to fly on the numbers and put the airplane where it needs to be. I used to fly to Calebra (small island off Puerto Rico) to shoot landings, becasue you came over a big hill and had to literally drop the airplane into a small runway, and you couldn't be sloppy or you'd have to wave off.
Here's a video I found on the web of a twin landing there:
http://www.islaculebra.com/puerto-rico/culebra-airport.html
Re: the carb heat in the Varga, I said the engine quit on them. I should have been more accurate and said it ran rough enough that they couldn't maintain level flight (they were right at max gross for the plane) and did a controlled descent into the trees.
I think that after this accident and a couple more similar ones, some type of fix was added.
You make some great points. When I owned a 150, I already had over 4,000 jet hours and a few hundred prop hours, and yet I learned an immense amount about real flying from the 150. The inclination of the 150/152 to float on landing does indeed require a pilot to learn how to fly on the numbers and put the airplane where it needs to be. I used to fly to Calebra (small island off Puerto Rico) to shoot landings, becasue you came over a big hill and had to literally drop the airplane into a small runway, and you couldn't be sloppy or you'd have to wave off.
Here's a video I found on the web of a twin landing there:
http://www.islaculebra.com/puerto-rico/culebra-airport.html
Re: the carb heat in the Varga, I said the engine quit on them. I should have been more accurate and said it ran rough enough that they couldn't maintain level flight (they were right at max gross for the plane) and did a controlled descent into the trees.
I think that after this accident and a couple more similar ones, some type of fix was added.
