Jump to content

Anything Handle Like a Warrior II


Recommended Posts

My RAAUS type flying is essentially a few hours in a Jabiru J160, a few more in a J170 and a couple of right-seat trips in the early (low wing) Brumby LSA (which I found incredibly squirrely). I have a couple of hundred hours in Cessna 150/172, Cherokee 180 and Warrior II.  The one I liked the most was the Warrior II, I just gelled with the handling etc etc.

 

With a possible opportunity to get back into flying (not really interested in the PPL side, but would keep the controlled airspace rating) is there anything in LSA type market that handles like a Warrior II? It doesn't have to be a clone, but something with similar flying and handling characteristics.

 

Price would be an issue, so doesn't have to be new. As an observation, I see J240s in the $60k-$80k price range. I don't know what the upper limit would be, but certainly nothing more than $150k (the actual upper limit could be quite below that, but it will definitely not be above that figure).

 

Thanks......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kevinblack said:

My RAAUS type flying is essentially a few hours in a Jabiru J160, a few more in a J170 and a couple of right-seat trips in the early (low wing) Brumby LSA (which I found incredibly squirrely). I have a couple of hundred hours in Cessna 150/172, Cherokee 180 and Warrior II.  The one I liked the most was the Warrior II, I just gelled with the handling etc etc.

 

With a possible opportunity to get back into flying (not really interested in the PPL side, but would keep the controlled airspace rating) is there anything in LSA type market that handles like a Warrior II? It doesn't have to be a clone, but something with similar flying and handling characteristics.

 

Price would be an issue, so doesn't have to be new. As an observation, I see J240s in the $60k-$80k price range. I don't know what the upper limit would be, but certainly nothing more than $150k (the actual upper limit could be quite below that, but it will definitely not be above that figure).

 

Thanks......

The answer after flying a few RA is "No" - not even close.

Flying is a bit like gambling where people think they're winning but the house percentage takes them out over time.

Regardless of the Warrior cost the number of hours required to stay current is very very low.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Regardless of the Warrior cost the number of hours required to stay current is very very low.

 

Hey, thanks.

 

Yes a couple of hours a week (not that cheap), BUT the cost of ownership of a Warrior II is significantly more than an LSA. War story: Almost went into a three-way share on an older Cherokee 180. The buy-in was $15k, the first annual was $88k (pretty much twice the purchase price). Sure, that's an extreme example and luckily I was out before it got to that. Even before that, the hourly cost of owning was in excess of the hourly cost of renting (I see your point). LSA ownership looks far more attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kevinblack said:

Hey, thanks.

 

Yes a couple of hours a week (not that cheap), BUT the cost of ownership of a Warrior II is significantly more than an LSA. War story: Almost went into a three-way share on an older Cherokee 180. The buy-in was $15k, the first annual was $88k (pretty much twice the purchase price). Sure, that's an extreme example and luckily I was out before it got to that. Even before that, the hourly cost of owning was in excess of the hourly cost of renting (I see your point). LSA ownership looks far more attractive.

Why did you ask then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kevin, assume you are from Canberra. This may interest you, it is a well  run syndicate with a really nice aircraft. Rate is $220 an hour WET. If you fly 50 hours a year I don't think it would be cheaper owning an LSA when you factor in insurance  hangar maintenance etc. 

 

https://www.youngflying.com.au/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every A/C is a trade off. Mission specific is the biggest consideration (after budget purchase price) and no one size fits all. The RV range I consider best bang for buck these days, the RV12 would cover a lot of most peoples missions. Jabs are popular (for the life of me can’t see why!) and there’s always numerous for sale at any one time.

But in answer to your original Q, no, the old rusty clunker PA series are in a world of their own👍

Edited by Flightrite
Speeling -)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Why did you ask then?

I am unsure of the intent. I asked because I wanted to know if there was an LSA that handled like a Warrior. I thought I made that pretty clear. As I said, I'm NOT really interested in following the PPL route (did you miss that). I was looking for something in the LSA arena. I though I made that clear. And as I also made clear, LSA ownership looks much cheaper.  Sorry for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flightrite said:

no, the old rusty clunker PA series are in a world of their own👍

Yes, a friend of mine has built a couple of RV6s IIRC and lastly an RV12 (He paid $70k for the propeller). It's a beautiful machine, but I think all up it was somewhere south of $300k and several years (and he was a very experienced builder). I just happen to like the old PA28s. But it looks like the RV range might be the way to go. The LSA range is attractive because of the Driver's license medical. I have no disqualifying conditions (one gammy eye, but that hasn't been an issue in then past), and I believe you can get a CASA medical from your GP (one passenger only).  I am unsure of the license/medical requirements for experimental acft, I assume PPL required. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Hi Kevin, assume you are from Canberra. This may interest you, it is a well  run syndicate with a really nice aircraft. Rate is $220 an hour WET. If you fly 50 hours a year I don't think it would be cheaper owning an LSA when you factor in insurance  hangar maintenance etc. 

 

https://www.youngflying.com.au/

Nice aircraft and great rate, but Young is just a step too far (although..........). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin,

I'm still flying both GA and RA-Aus types. I haven't flown a Warrior for a few years, but routinely fly a C172.....and ultimately prefer it over the Warrior, but so be it.  As Flightrite suggests there is no perfect aircraft and maybe it's important to also have a firm view of what you intend to do with the aircraft rather than the individual aircraft personality ?  Will it be fun to fly and handle like a sportscar, or will I be taking a less than confident passenger and need something a little bit more docile ? As well as.......long cross-countries or a few laps around the park on the w/e ?

How much useful load was a critical factor for me in my decision. 

 

In my limited experience in RA-Aus, a lightly loaded RA-Aus A/C can be a bit of a handful in gusty conditions compared to GA and the lack of inertia in the flare took a bit of getting used to - but they are a lot of fun to fly !  I'd say handling wise, RA-Aus A/C vs GA are different - not better, not worse, just different.  With a few hundred hours, I call myself a low-hour PPL, a green RPC and a permanent novice, so take my advice with a large grain of salt.   Dunno - maybe try a Tecnam ?  Low wing, and a bit heavier than some others.  I haven't flown one, so have no opinion either way. Nominating a specific aircraft I know is opening up a minefield on here.

 

If you intend to make a purchase decision based upon renting vs ownership you will need some seriously creative accounting, but don't let that dissuade you.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have quite a few hours in the  Cessna 150-170 range and a TIF or two in small Pipers (PPL days) 8 hrs in Citabria's  - probably 10 hrs in Jabs,  an hour in a Foxbat and hundreds of hours in ATEC Zephyr. 

 

My, non technical,  appraisal of characteristics ;

 

  • Cessna's/Pipers - noisy, predictable, solid, reasonably comfortable and now that I have experienced RAA aircraft, rather uninteresting/boring.
  • Jabs (small - large) - a bit like the above, in a smaller cramped package. A lot quieter and not so solid feeling, especially in a X wind.
  • Foxbat's - very ho hum - way too much built in drag
  • Citabria's - enjoyed very much. Never went anywhere to speak of, mostly tail wheel training /currency but found them to be responsive in all stages/conditions of flight.
  • AEC Zephyr - a delight. Not as stable as the GA's /Jabs, more subject to influence of turbulence. Very capable X wind. Comfortable, super responsive, quiet both in cockpit & for those on ground, climb like a love sick angel, great STOL combined with excellent cruise speed. Very economical to own/operate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Cessna wing is probably the most developed of all with a very effective Fowler flap and the plane has effective overall control as good as any. Some versions (172) can be a bit underpowered. The Pipers have more ground effect when landing but the simple flap is not much use  if you want more lift. I don't see how a predictable plane is boring. If you use both to their limit you can be a good pilot. I also prefer TWO front doors and the Cessna's WITH struts.   Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each to their own Nev - I fly for fun, so like the feeling of "oneness" I got from my Zephyr. If I want 4 + seats (payload) and a solid aerial vehicle (akin to a Volvo) I would not hesitate  to hire a Cessna - but that's for A- B travel ,not the feeling of flight (at least for me)

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine I agree to a point but it's  easy to BAG Cessna's from a "spam can" sort of looking down on them for their commonality without giving them credit for how good they really are at what they do. I personally prefer My ex Citabria but I don't expect IT would be right for everyone to own and I don't like Frise ailerons which it had, but nothing's perfect. I'm happier in a plane stressed for aerobatics  and I like  the Tandem seating arrangement also. Any plane that flies controllably.. gives you a feeling of oneness with the air. They all feel the same turbulence and the faster Ones hit it worse. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is a PA-28 a soft lander when compared to a Cesspit? Ground effect. That couple of feet difference is distance from the ground has got to be a factor. The PA-28 has a more solid "air bag" under its wing.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cherokees were promoted as" Land A Matic" because of the low Wing. Call it a ground cushion if you like but the effect is there and more pronounced than a high wing. You still have to fly the thing and if you are too fast you will float  further unless you drive it on which explains WHY so many wheelbarrowing events happened at that time. (and since). Nev

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Land O Matic was used in Cessna advertising when the C172 first came out. With nose wheel rudder was no longer required 😂.

 

PA-28 landing advantage over the cessna is due mainly to the oil shock absorbers on all three legs imho.

 

 

images (18).jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the two major manufacturers told ‘fairytales’ to assist in getting their product ahead of the opposition. Both types had their drawbacks. 
Beech, the other big player had some attributes as well, I drove quite a few of their models and the same ‘tank’ like feel was evident in them all.

At the end of the day they are all commercial businesses and oh boy there would have been plenty of artistic licence handed out to sell theirs😂😂

Edited by Flightrite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cessna's leaf spring undercarriage was as you'd expect undamped and would give back any energy it absorbed. Never liked the Vee tail Beech's but they were built well and expensive to fix. Not totally stable in pitch and hot in the sun.  Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Land O Matic was used in Cessna advertising when the C172 first came out. With nose wheel rudder was no longer required 😂.

 

PA-28 landing advantage over the cessna is due mainly to the oil shock absorbers on all three legs imho.

 

 

images (18).jpeg

Never had that happen to me, there was/is nothing landomatic about a 172's landing gear.\. I just like the stability of the Warrior II on approach and especially in an Xwind and on short-final. But that's just me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the stability of the PA-28 versus that of the Cessna due to the pendulum effect of the location of the fuselage being under the wing of the Cessna whereas the PA-28's fuselage is above the wing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An LSA like the RV-12 is quite a lot lighter than a PA28 or C172 and you will feel the difference in turbulence. I haven't flown a PA28 but have a fair bit of time in C152's and C172's. It all comes down to what you're comfortable with in terms of `feel'. I prefer the nimble RV handling which may be what you mean by squirrelly. A C172 feels sluggish by comparison.

Edited by rgmwa
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...