Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.

html

Volume 1
Number 1

Piper PA-28 Warrior

First of the PA-28s with a semi-tapered wing, the W arrior proved a
Aircraft Review
Used Aircraft Guide worthy competitor for the Skyhawk.
The basic 150-HP four-place, fixed-gear
single is about as close to an everyman
airplane as you can get. It’s the market
segment where airplanes become just
capable enough to be practical
transportation tools. They won’t haul a lot of
people or cargo, but they will lift enough.
They won’t go all that far or all that fast, but
they will perform adequately. Airplanes in
this class are sort of like Toyotas: Not
terribly exciting or fancy, perhaps, but they
do what you need them to without costing
an arm and a leg. Piper’s semi-tapered wing design was first
intro-
The Cessna Skyhawk still owns this market, duced on the Warrior, but eventually found
and the prices of used airplanes reflect that its
dominance. However, at least two of its way onto all of the company’s PA-28 and
mainstream competitors, the Piper Warrior
PA-32-
and AGAC AA-5 Traveler/Cheetah, are
based singles.
good, solid airplanes that can be had for
considerably less. (The Beech entry, the
Sport, is short on performance when compared to the Warrior and Cheetah.)

The AA-5 went the way of the dodo in the late 1970s, and the attempt to bring the design back
(in the form of the Tiger) failed. Cessna removed itself from the scene voluntarily in the mid
1980s, and is now back in business with the new Skyhawk.

Which leaves us with Piper. The company fell on hard times and was forced into bankruptcy,
finally emerging several years (and a few abortive buyout attempts) later as the New Piper.
The company is building Warriors again, delivering 26 over the last four years since the “new”
Warrior III came out. The Warrior never officially left production, though none were delivered in
1991, and only a handful during the period of Piper’s troubles.

A glance at current prices of mid-1980s Skyhawks and Warriors shows that the Warrior is a
bargain compared to the Skyhawk: The 1984 Cessna “enjoys” a $22000 higher price on the
used-plane market over a ’84 Warrior, according to the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest.

History
As general aviation was entering the heyday of the 1970s, Piper’s line was beginning to look a
little dated. The basic PA-28 had come out in 1962, and hadn’t changed all that much in the
intervening years. Piper singles all had the characteristic, fat “Hershey bar” wing, and the
company was about to lower the boom on the sleek Comanche.

It was decided to update the line. A new airplane was planned, one that would take aim
squarely at the Cessna Skyhawk. Previously, Piper didn’t really have a direct competitor for the
Cessna 172. The Cherokee 140 was more cramped, being more of a 2+2 airplane than a true

1 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

four-place, and didn’t perform as well as the Skyhawk.

The first Warrior was introduced in 1974, with a 150-HP Lycoming O-320-E3D engine. It didn’t
replace the Cherokee 140, though the 140 did succumb to poor sales after the 1977 model
year.

In keeping with Piper’s standard method of building many variants of a single design rather than
developing an all-new airframe, the Warrior was essentially the same as all other PA-28s. In
fact, the FAA treats all of them as one type when it comes time for the census; everything from
the Cherokee 140 to the Turbo Arrow IV all fall into the same bin.

The Warrior did boast one big difference, though: A new, longer semi-tapered wing with a
higher aspect ratio. This new wing helped the handling somewhat, with lighter roll control
forces, and also boosted the climb rate. It also helped the airplane’s looks.

Interestingly, the new wing represented a deviation from the production efficiencies originally
touted as a virtue of the constant-chord wing. And it’s fun to recall some Piper engineers back
when it was introduced boasting that the fat, new, stubby wing was actually every bit as good
as the sexier-looking tapered Comanche wing, aerodynamically.

The new wing design first appeared on the Warrior, but eventually found its way into all of the
PA-28 series as well as onto the PA-32.

The most significant upgrade to the Warrior occurred in 1977 with a 10-HP boost in engine
output. As it turns out, Cessna made a similar engine swap at exactly the same time, but
Cessna’s 160-HP powerplant turned out to be the notorious O-320-H model that gave owners
fits with valve train problems. So the Warrior would appear to have stepped away from the
competition with a definite edge. Since then, however, the -H engine problems have abated.

A couple of other evolutionary changes occurred in 1978, when Warriors received more
streamlined wheel fairings, and in 1983, when the battery was removed from under the rear
seat and placed in front of the firewall. The new fairings yielded some seven knots in cruise
speed according to the book, while the battery change shortened the run to the starter and
helped combat starting problems (though these had been largely overcome, according to
users, by swapping copper for aluminum cables).

Thanks to the change in weight and balance, it allowed the gross weight and useful load to be
hiked by 115 pounds, and it extended the aft CG to allow more of a load in the baggage
compartment. (The boost is available via STC for older Warriors.)

An attempt to create some interest in a moribund new-airplane market was made in 1988,
when Piper released a version of the Warrior targeted at flight schools called the Cadet.
Basically a stripped version lacking creature comforts, it was available in VFR and IFR
versions. The experiment continued through the 1994 model year.

Another spruce-up resulted in the New Piper Warrior III in 1995. Today, new Warriors with
average equipment go for more than $170,000. Original, 1974 models fetch about $41,000.

Performance
The 10-HP boost in power raised the 75-percent cruise speed from 116 knots to 121 knots.
And the new speed fairings nudged that up to 127 knots—not exactly blinding, and in the class
of the Skyhawk, though eclipsed by the Cheetah. Owners report real-world performance is
somewhat less than the book figures.

One big gripe by owners of the 150-HP model, especially, is the miserable rate of climb.
“Climb performance is lackluster,” wrote one. “On an 80-degree day with full fuel and two
aboard expect 400-500 FPM from sea level.” “Rate of climb to altitude is the worst thing about
the Warrior,” said another. “If I ever sell the Warrior, it will be to get an airplane that climbs
much better, and is a little faster,” said a third. For what it’s worth, the Cheetah shares this
performance shortcoming, in spades.

One of the nice features of the Warriors is a generous 50-gallon fuel load (with 48 gallons

2 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

usable). Burning 7.5 to 10 GPH at cruise, these birds yield a fairly good range with four to six
hours of flying. One pilot said he flight-planned for 4.45 hours with a 45-minute reserve.

Comfort/loading
While respondents in the past have rated comfort as average, the current consensus is that it’s
quite good. Later Pipers benefit from having some of the best seats in general aviation, from
both a comfort and crashworthiness standpoint. These seats are designed with an S-tube
frame similar to the legendary JAARS seat, which progressively deforms during impact and
absorbs energy. For greater pilot comfort, there is an optional vertical seat adjustment which
some say is great, but others say is prone to malfunctioning.

The fuel selector is located out of sight alongside the pilot’s left knee. The need to switch tanks
left and right results in more fuel mismanagement errors than with the “both tanks” system on
the high-wing Cessnas, judging from the accident reports. Naturally, it’s also easy to develop
an imbalance unless the pilot remembers to switch regularly, and there is no aileron trim for the
airplane. This makes at least a wing-leveler autopilot a nice option on the bird, in our opinion.

The Warrior’s parking brake is a robust handle sticking out from the bottom of the panel. It’s
simple and strong, and it works. The same goes for the flap system. It’s manual, positive,
blessedly simple, and it just doesn’t break.

Like most low-wing aircraft, however, entry and exit is awkward. The Warrior has only one
door, so three of the four occupants have to do some contortions to get in place. Emergency
egress is problematical, since the rear windows cannot be opened in an emergency (like those
of the Bonanza). The baggage door is fairly large, however.

Naturally, with a full load of 50 gallons, the bird won’t carry four adults, but some owners report
doing so with fuel only up to the tabs (34 gallons) and the resulting reduced range. Of course,
the post-82 Warriors have the biggest useful load margin, with 1,099 pounds maximum gross
weight.

The baggage compartment will take a full 200 pounds structurally—the same as the bigger
Cherokees, and a lot more than the Skyhawk and Cheetah’s maximum of 120 pounds, by
comparison.

Owners say nice things about cabin ventilation, thanks to an abundance of outlets, both
overhead and underneath. Unfortunately, there were complaints that in winter the overhead
vents were too much of a good thing and could not be completely shut off, giving passengers
the chills. One pilot solved this problem by simply taping up the exterior air inlet on the tail in
the winter.

A few owners had the air conditioners that are available as options on the Cherokee line, but
complained that the cool air yield in summer was not worth the sacrifice in payload and
performance.

Conversely, cabin heating in winter was described as more than adequate—but not always
delivered in a satisfactory manner. In fact, some owners warned that fliers’ feet might be
roasted if they were placed too close to the outlet. “The heater really puts out,” said one
owner, “but it seems like it’s either full blast on or off; nothing in-between. Also, the heater
output is right by the pilot’s feet, which tend to broil while his head freezes.” “Rear-seat
passengers sometimes want more heat,” warned another, “but if you turn it up too much, the
floor vent by the pilot’s right foot gets hot enough to melt your sneakers.”

Handling
The Warrior shares with the other Cherokees a gentle nature, pleasant handling and such a
reluctance to stall aggressively that some pilots rate it a poor teacher. Several respondents
said that with both rudder and stabilator trim, the airplane does not need an autopilot.

We’d rate runway handling as decent, despite the large number of accidents on both takeoff
and landing—especially landing—we uncovered in past checks of FAA accident and incident
reports. It appears most of these stem from student indiscretions.

3 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

Pilots report they like the way the aircraft handles in a crosswind landing and feel more secure
taxiing in windy conditions with the wide gear stance, as opposed to operating in the high-wing
Cessnas.

Competition
The Cessna Skyhawk and the AGAC Traveler/Cheetah are the most logical competitors to the
Warrior for the attention of buyers who want four-seaters that won’t break the bank and who
are willing to settle for modest performance.

The Cessna has by far the best overall safety record. In a cross-country race, the Cheetah
would be likely to barely edge out the big-engined Warrior with the fancy pants, and leave the
Cessna and the older Warriors in its propwash. And while the AGAC has the most pleasant,
facile handling, in our book, the flaps are definitely inferior for getting into short fields. The
Cessna gets our nod for getting in and out of little runways.

Maintenance
Here’s where the Warrior should shine. It’s the opposite of high tech sophistication. It’s got
fixed gear, a fixed-pitch prop, mechanical flaps and a small carbureted engine. And, indeed,
owners report low maintenance costs and modest annual inspection fees.

As might be expected, though, the engine compartment is the source of most upkeep
problems. Our checks of Service Difficulty Reports showed a lot of Slick magneto failures. The
powerplant itself was tagged with numerous failure modes, with valves at the top of the list,
then following up with camshaft/lifter/pushrod problems, cylinder cracks and rocker arm
breakage.

A lot of the magneto failures were attributed to failed bearings and some to malfunctioning
impulse couplings and worn bushings along with loose distributor gear fingers. Several other
assorted magneto breakdown problems were listed in the SDRs, as well.

Potential buyers should check to see if there is roughness following engine start, since
according to Lycoming that’s one sign the exhaust valves are beginning to stick. (The
roughness usually goes away after the engine warms up, incidentally.)

There were also several reports of broken rocker arms. Avco-Lycoming SB 477 called for
inspection and rework of P/N LW-18790 Rocker Arm Assy. It pays to make sure this critical
item has been taken care of. Several submitters said they felt better quality control is needed
in the manufacture of this part.

The SDRs showed that a fair amount of unwanted attention was showered on cracked spinner
bulkheads. This came in third in the roster after magneto and engine problems. Some users
reported cracks within 100 to 200 hours of operation.

And once again Warrior battery cables were the subject of a fair number of complaints and
blamed for slow starting. The common fix is to swap the old aluminum cables for copper ones
to prevent corrosion at the connections because of dissimilar metals. The long cable run from
the battery under the rear seat to the engine obviously added to the problem. But in 1983, as
we noted earlier, Piper relocated the battery to the engine compartment.

Poor starting isn’t the only possible disadvantage of aluminum cables. In 1986 Piper issued a
service bulletin (836A) noting field reports that corrosion between the aluminum terminal and
aluminum wire at the battery positive post had caused overheating of the wire due to high
electrical resistance.

The possible result: an electrical fire. Indeed, we noted one SDR in which the battery box and
battery actually caught fire after startup. The submitter suggested the service bulletin should be
made into an AD and the plastic battery box be replaced with a metal one.

The SDRs suggest it might also be wise to keep an eye out for plastic fuel tank floats
disintegrating under the ravages of 100LL. We counted eight reports on this, with another that
suggested the fix can sometimes be less than a huge success, since a metal float replacement

4 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

filled with fuel and sank ignominiously.

If you’re looking at a Warrior equipped with air conditioning, take a look at the bracket that
attaches the alternator and compressor. We noted reports that the mounting bolts had broken
or worked loose. And in one case the submitter found the bracket was installed backwards,
subjecting the rear tab of the alternator to stress and misalignment of the pulleys.

Although we noted no Service Difficulty Reports on landing lights, some owners complained to
us of frequent outages of the nose-mounted landing light, presumably as a result of vibration.
For what it’s worth, this problem occurs quite commonly in other types of aircraft.

Mods
An interesting mod for the Warrior is a set of vortex generators from AM R&D. We have no
direct information on the effectiveness of these, but all we’ve heard and observed about VGs
to date indicates that they work as advertised. A worthwhile investment, in our view.

Other mods include the usual speed mods from LoPresti Speed Merchants, Met-Co-Aire, and
gap seals from AM R&D. Sierra Industries also makes a STOL kit for the airplane, and Precise
Flight makes a set of speed brakes.

Owner Comments
In 1993 I purchased a 1982 PA-28-161 that I had been renting for six months. It had 1600
hours on the engine and 5000 on the airframe. It was in good condition and had never let me
down. After owning it for 3-1/2 years, I can honestly say that it’s the best investment I ever
made.

Like many pilots, I did my training in a Cessna 152. Shortly after getting my ticket, I upgraded
to the Warrior and never looked back. The low wing offers better in-flight visibility, nicer
landings and a more comfortable interior.

She currently climbs fully loaded in Florida at 650 FPM and cruises at 2900 feet at 109 knots
all day long, burning 8 GPH. At higher altitudes the speed climbs to 113 knots and the fuel
usage drops to 7.8 GPH. Sadly, this does not meet the book figures, but it’s fast enough to
pay the premium over driving. The plane has both rudder and stabilator trim, eliminating the
need for an autopilot. Above the clouds, trimmed both ways, all she requires is a little left pedal
and an occasional tweak as the fuel burns off.

The cost of owning a Warrior, although a tad more than the previous owner led me to believe,
has been rather reasonable, all things considered. My overhauled engine, purchased from
Colonial Aviation in Tampa and installed by Marathon Aviation in Kissimmee, was less than
$7000. Some 18 months and 500 hours later, I’ve had virtually no problems with the engine. I
was lucky and had the right mags and the right oil pump to avoid the more expensive ADs. If I
had to find fault with the airplane, since purchasing it I’ve replaced most of the original
instruments that have worn out at one point or another. I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t
hold up a while longer, but through replacement I’ve gotten to know my plane a little better and
feel more secure flying it. Most of the maintenance is easily performed, including the routine
items: oil changes, tires, brakes and plug cleaning.

Recently, I totaled up all my costs, pro-rated my recent paint job and engine overhaul and
calculated that my operating costs have been $38/hour including all repairs, insurance
mortgage and regular maintenance. Throw in $16/hour for fuel and oil and I’ve got a sweet
four-seater sky-high cab at only $54/hour.

Despite several years spent tied down outside in Florida, it’s remained surprisingly free of
corrosion. My last three annuals have produced minimal squawks, mostly little things that keep
me learning more about the airplane than I really want to know. I’ve invested about $17000
including the paint job and overhaul since purchase, while the value of the plane has increased
almost $14000. This means it cost me $1000 a year for the privilege of owning my own plane
and having unlimited access to the freedom of flying. And as a bonus, I’ve had the extra reward
of learning the mechanics of what keeps an airplane in the air and how much it costs!

5 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

I would recommend the Warrior to anyone who wants a real four-seater whose fuel tank will
usually outlast the smallest bladder on board.

-Mark Riordan
Sanford, Fla.

I own a 1980 Warrior II, purchased in 1991 with 1100 total time. The plane was immaculately
kept before I bought it, never a trainer, and all SBs done. I just reached 2000 hours, at which
time I installed a factory remanufactured engine. It is pristine with a ton of avionics and options.

Because I fly jets for a living, what I really wanted was something fast, like a Bonanza. I’m not
sorry I chose the Warrior. It is so easy and honest to fly—no bad habits. If people would stop
and think a bit, and buy something a bit slower and simpler, then they could afford a lot more
flying without giving up a modern airplane with good systems.

The Warrior has much to recommend it:

• Reliable engine that is inexpensive to overhaul and keep up.
• The engine is accessible through a quick-open hinged cowling for thorough preflights and
lower maintenance costs.
• Mechanics everywhere know the airplane.
• Parts are available everywhere, and the airplane is still being made.
• For the money, it has about the most modern panel and shortest AD list you can find.
• It has manual flaps—nothing to fail or buy.
• It has the lowest interior sound level of anything for the money.
• Modern tapered wing, pleasant to fly and relatively efficient, especially at altitude.
• Stable IFR platform. An autopilot is not necessary to stay ahead of the airplane during an
approach.
• Easy to insure. Considered a trainer by the insurance companies.
• Simple left/right fuel system.
• 48 gallon fuel capacity with indicator tabs for easy partial fueling.
• Hefty 200-pound luggage capacity with no CG problems.
• The seats in later Piper products are some of the finest placed in small planes. Makes
Cessnas and Mooneys feel cheap. My wife and I just flew 1100 miles in about eight hours
without undue fatigue, largely because of these seats. Also, the back seat is a comfortable
bench with good support...much better than bucket seats.

People forget the importance of two critical items in small airplanes: Seat comfort and sound
level. A slow, simple airplane that is quiet and comfortable will deliver you at your destination in
much better shape than a fast, complex airplane with lousy seats and an interior sound level
sufficient to sterilize mice.

I do have a few tips for prospective owners:

• Get the gross weight STC, which adds 115 pounds.
• Join the Cherokee Pilot’s Association. Their magazine and connections are a priceless
resource.
• Lean the engine aggressively.
• Buy an engine monitor (I chose an Electronics International “Ultimate Scanner”).
• Do all engine starts and shutdowns with the alternator switch off. This protects the alternator
from voltage spikes and makes it last longer.
• Fly the airplane high. The tapered wing likes 7000 to 11000 feet best, the TAS is higher, fuel
consumption lower, the ride is better, and there’s less traffic.
• Cost of operation runs about $60/hour for about 200 hours a year. I spare no expenses on
annuals, do oil analysis, tend to replace items before the break, and so forth. This cost
includes hangar, insurance, debt service, fuel, maintenance and engine reserve.

-Ken Wiseman
Calhoun, Ga.

6 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

I bought a 1978 PA-28-161 Warrior II for my first plane a couple of years after getting my
license. It was my pride and joy for 6 years. I sold it just last year, for about 70 percent more
than I paid for it, and the new owner still got a good deal.

When I first bought the plane it had the usual things that needed fixing up. I was also
impressed that a plane with a mid-time engine and poor paint could so consistently beat book
performance. Well, some money fixed the things that needed fixing. Red’s up in Ada Oklahoma
took care of the paint. And a quick tachometer check solved the performance surprise—the
tach was reading over 100 RPM low at cruise!

Although it could be pushed to a little over 120 knots at 75 percent, I usually pulled the power a
little. I found the simplest thing to do was to flight plan for 115 knots at 65 percent and 10 GPH
over the whole trip, ignore climb and descent, and arrive with a little more “reserve” than
scheduled. Just assume five hours in the tanks, lop one off for reserve, and you will always
make legs of up to four hours with plenty to spare.

A little below gross, I have coaxed it up to 13000 a couple of times. Once, at gross, I got it to
12500—but I felt more like a glider pilot than a powered plane pilot. There was absolutely
nothing left over for the downdrafts. And with a rate of climb that was only about 700 FPM at
best from sea level, getting up there was something you only did on long trips.

I fly a lot of missions for Angel Flight and other volunteer pilot organizations. Once the plane
was up to standard, I had a 100 percent mission “go” rate —it never failed to be there when I
needed it. We flew a lot of IFR together, into airports large and small, including the occasional
turf strip. A more honest plane could not have been found, nor could I have wished for a better
first plane.

In the end, however, two things finally got to me: First, the useful load was only 800 pounds.
With full fuel and myself that left only 300 for the passenger(s)—not enough for my needs. And
second, I got tired of those 50-plus knot West Texas headwinds on trips to El Paso. Seeing
the GPS groundspeed dip down in the 60s one time too many finally got the better of me.

I now own the Warrior’s big brother—the PA-28R-201T, a turbocharged Arrow III, and truly
love its performance. But I guess in a way, the Warrior was more faithful to me than I was to
it.

-James M. Knox
via e-mail

My experiences with Piper Warrior aircraft are, in general, positive. The highest praise I can
give the aircraft is that she flies as well as a 172. After renting this aircraft for approximately
200 hours, I find it to be very forgiving during difficult landings and a comfortable IFR platform.
Two to three passengers are relatively comfortable on a 300 nautical mile trip...probably
moreso than in a 172.

My gripes regarding this plane are mainly logistical. That is, it is difficult to board and deboard
passengers and picture-taking maneuvers border on aerobatics. Children do not prefer this
airplane because seeing out is virtually impossible for them. On the other hand, they sleep fine
in the back seat. All in all, for the 3-person family that flies 300 NM or shorter distances, on
2000 foot-plus runways (hard or grass), with total hours per year in the air 50 or less, one
would be hard pressed to find a better buy in a private airplane.

-Jim Tinley
via e-mail

7 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM
Piper PA-28 Warrior http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/1_1/usedaircraftguide/5006-1.html

Also With This Article

Click here to view charts for Resale Values, Payload Compared and Prices Compared.
Click here to view the Piper Warrior features guide.

About Us / Contact Us / Privacy Policy / Site Map

Copyright Belvoir Media Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

8 of 8 12/6/2008 7:39 PM