[Kenneth P. Katz]

The Piper Cherokee will be 50 years old in 2010. While not the most glamorous aircraft, it has endured because it fulfills it mission so well: easy to fly, reliable, easy to maintain, able to be upgraded in many ways over the decades. It is one of my favorite aircraft.

[Sailor Lars]

And a damn handsome one, too.

[shep854]

My first flight lesson was in a Cherokee Warrior. Even though the vast majority of my flight hours were in Cessnas, I have slowly come to prefer Pipers. My two gripes are the low wing not giving shade or shelter, and the one door on the right side. Once you get used to its unique features, it is a real sweetheart to fly. The visibility ain't bad, either.

It still has a ways to go to catch up with the Cessna 172 in sheer numbers built, though (43000+* and still going strong).

*According to Wiki

This post has been edited by shep854: 24 December 2009 - 2155 PM

[Doug Kibbey]

Any bird that's good enough for Pussy Galore's Flying Circus is good enough for me.

[Sikkiyn]

shep854, on Thu 24 Dec 2009 2052, said:

My first flight lesson was in a Cherokee Warrior. Even though the vast majority of my flight hours were in Cessnas, I have slowly come to prefer Pipers. My two gripes are the low wing not giving shade or shelter, and the one door on the right side. Once you get used to its unique features, it is a real sweetheart to fly. The visibility ain't bad, either.

It still has a ways to go to catch up with the Cessna 172 in sheer numbers built, though (43000+* and still going strong).

*According to Wiki

I understand what you are saying, took a Turbo Arrow for a spin over a month ago and the low-wing and single door is a definite difference from the 172/182. Though it handled well, I remain a high-wing fan for many reasons.

[shep854]

Sikkiyn, on Fri 25 Dec 2009 0143, said:

I understand what you are saying, took a Turbo Arrow for a spin over a month ago and the low-wing and single door is a definite difference from the 172/182. Though it handled well, I remain a high-wing fan for many reasons.

When asked which is my favorite, I frequently answer, "The one I'm flying at the moment!" :P
----
Steve Canyon's niece (IIRC) flew one ("Bitsy's Bug")--in a comic strip, that is.

This post has been edited by shep854: 25 December 2009 - 0706 AM

[Luke Y]

Any trainer that wasn't a Cessna 152 won big points from me... :P

[shep854]

Luke Y, on Fri 25 Dec 2009 1113, said:

Any trainer that wasn't a Cessna 152 won big points from me... :P

It doesn't take much to be "more than a Cessna 152" :lol:

Which, BTW, is what I did most of my PPL training in. :)

[Luke Y]

shep854, on Sat 26 Dec 2009 0849, said:

It doesn't take much to be "more than a Cessna 152" :lol:

Which, BTW, is what I did most of my PPL training in. :)

You have my commiserations... :lol:
Even the instructors would do anything to not use that flying coke-can :)

The best was one day when the 172's were unavailable and we had to take the 152, when filing the plan with Darwin tower they replied 'Don't go breaking any speed records!' :lol:

You know when you're copping schtick from the tower you're in trouble

[Ivanhoe]

Despite the stereotype, the 152 is by no means underpowered; you just have to arrange your flight plan to always fly downhill.

Looking back, the gen-av planes developed from 1945-1965 are simply remarkable for their toughness, safety, and ease of use. What other pedestrian modern device gets a rebuild at 30 or 40 years of age, so that it can keep doing what it was designed for*?

* As opposed to museum pieces, high-dollar classic cars, and aircraft carriers...

[Steven P Allen]

Ivanhoe, on Sat 26 Dec 2009 1845, said:

What other pedestrian modern device gets a rebuild at 30 or 40 years of age, so that it can keep doing what it was designed for*?

* As opposed to museum pieces, high-dollar classic cars, and aircraft carriers...

My Pickup :P

[shep854]

Luke Y, on Sat 26 Dec 2009 1045, said:

You have my commiserations... :lol:
Even the instructors would do anything to not use that flying coke-can :)

The best was one day when the 172's were unavailable and we had to take the 152, when filing the plan with Darwin tower they replied 'Don't go breaking any speed records!' :lol:

You know when you're copping schtick from the tower you're in trouble

About the only aircraft in which you can build flight hours faster is a Piper Cub (there: back on topic, somewhat ;) ) :P

Actually, the 150/152 should have been included in the new Light Sport Aircraft category, but they are just over the European standards, which the FAA used as their guidelines. But then, had that happened, Cessna wouldn't have had a niche to exploit with the 'Skycatcher".

This post has been edited by shep854: 26 December 2009 - 2047 PM

[Manic Moran]

Can't say I was quite as enamoured by the airplane, though it is nice to be able to still see the airfield when banking in the circuit. It seemed a little too... I don't know.. the cheap throttle handle, the hand-cranked flaps, just didn't seem as refined as the 172 I learned in.

NTM

[shep854]

The ability to look straight down at the ground is nice with Cessnas, along with the shade the high wing provides the cabin on a hot, sunny day. I've flown some older 172s that had the "Armstrong" flap system. One very nice thing is that asymmetric flap extension or motor failure is not a problem.

Do crosswind work on a nice, brisk day and you will want to kiss the Cherokee. Those kinds of days are doable with Cessnas, but that low wing and wide landing gear on the Piper are wonderful!

In either case, don't loose track of the blind spots. There have been a number of collisions where Pipers descended onto Cessnas; cases of intersecting blind spots. In a couple of cases, successful landings have been made with the two aircraft stuck together. :blink:

[Cromwell]

Well let's see: they forgot to give the pilot a door, they forgot electric flaps, they put the wing under the fuselage, they did not give it a rear window, the throttle prop & mix controls are on a quadrant which makes fine-tuning difficult, the name Warrior, or Arrow is not an American Indian name, they could not make up their minds about a T tail or not. They often equipped with hateful King avionics, stupid place to put the fuel sumps. And did I mention the manual flaps, yes the manual flaps: How on earth is it possible to impress someone when you are fooling around with MANUAL flaps. Do you see 747 pilots flying around with manual flaps? – NO! and neither do Cessna pilots...........manual flaps indeed

[shep854]

I always thought the Cherokee/Warrior/Arrow/Lance's throttle quadrant looked better than the Cessna's knobs sticking out of the panel. :P In the 'Armstrong' flap's favor, you never have to worry about losing flaps if you lose electricity. And yes, unequal flap extension is a real risk, and a real thrill if it happens in the pattern.

Despite those points, I'd never turn down a chance to fly Cessnas!:D

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The pilot not having a door is a pain but not a serious one.

I think that the manual flap system is just fine. 747s don't have manual flap systems not because they don't impress people but because they need a powered flap system. A PA-28 does not need a powered flap system.

No rear window? Shrug. The rear window on a Cessna 172 is useless.

King avionics were the gold standard for general aviation avionics in their day. Certainly better than Narco and ARC avionics.

I'm not sure what is wrong with a low wing or the placement of the fuel sumps.

Cromwell, on Wed 6 Jan 2010 2022, said:

Well let's see: they forgot to give the pilot a door, they forgot electric flaps, they put the wing under the fuselage, they did not give it a rear window, the throttle prop & mix controls are on a quadrant which makes fine-tuning difficult, the name Warrior, or Arrow is not an American Indian name, they could not make up their minds about a T tail or not. They often equipped with hateful King avionics, stupid place to put the fuel sumps. And did I mention the manual flaps, yes the manual flaps: How on earth is it possible to impress someone when you are fooling around with MANUAL flaps. Do you see 747 pilots flying around with manual flaps? – NO! and neither do Cessna pilots...........manual flaps indeed

[shep854]

One small gripe I have is that the low wing necessitates a (very slightly) more complicated fuel system. Regular tank switching is necessary, and a backup fuel pump is required. Once you get used to it, operation becomes second-nature, but the extra steps are still there. The more I think about the air-to-air visibility, though, the more I like the Pipers for cruising flight. For sight-seeing or SAR, the Cessnas win, hands down.

As far as no pilot's door, you get used to it. A Tri-Pacer (Cherokee's daddy, a 4-place Cub, essentially) is claustrophobic in the pilot's seat with no pilot-side door. :huh: