marco l

There's a fellow newsgrouper by the name of David Megginson who recently
purchased a Warrior and is a fellow Canadian. He'll probably answer this
post soon anyway but I would do a Google search for his posts if he's
offline.

I own a 1978 Warrior II but it looks like you are looking for more
region-specific information. To me, a Warrior is one of the few "hidden"
bargains out there that remains a bargain because of its "trainer" label. It
has normal aircraft "gotchas" that require the standard due diligence like
adequate pre-buy inspections and history evaluations. Pick up the "Used
Aircraft Buying Guide" for more info or any other aircraft buying guide for
that matter to get the basic background tips.

Good luck and let me know if you have any plane-specific questions.

Marco Leon
N36616


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

david megginson

"Marco L" <beach321(at)ix.netcom.com> writes:


One of the other things that makes a Warrior II a hidden treasure is
STC SA00397NY. The 160 hp Warrior II was initially certified for a
maximum gross weight of 2325 lb, the same as the 150 hp Warrior.
Around 1983 or 1984, Piper recertified the Warrior II for 2440 lb
maximum gross weight, but it seems that most Warrior II's extant are
earlier than that.

Fortunately, there is a cheap, paper-only STC to raise the maximum
gross weight of the early Warrior II's to 2440 lb as well -- all
that's required is a form for your IA/A&P (AME in Canada), a placard
on the panel, and the proper PIM/POH on board.

I first saw my Warrior on the way back from trying out a 1973
fixed-gear Cardinal. Even at 2335 lb gross weight, the Warrior had a
full-fuel load of 550 lb (which was higher than that particular
Cardinal), it flew faster on less fuel burn, it was in much better
shape (paint, interior, avionics, etc.), and it cost considerably
less.

After applying the STC, my full-fuel load went up to 665 lb, which is
in the same neighbourhood as a Cessna 182 (!!), though (obviously)
with considerably less climb performance. My wife, daughters, and me
come up to 545 lb, so I can put my whole family in the Warrior
together with my 35 lb dog and still carry, in theory, 85 lb of
luggage (including my 15 lb flight bag). The Warrior does handle
quite a bit differently near gross weight on a hot day, but it still
lifts off the runway where the POH says it should, climbs acceptably
well at Vy, and cruises at over 120 ktas on 8.5 gph up around
7000-8000 ft DA.

An Archer would be even better, of course ...


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, david@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/

gilles leblanc

Does that CAD 100/hour include the price of the aircraft??

david megginson

"Gilles Leblanc" <gleblanc@cogeco.ca> writes:

[U.S. readers divide by 1.4 to get approximate U.S. dollar amounts]

That's a tricky one.

I paid approximately CAD 70K for my Warrior (last December), and
one-year Canadian federal government bonds are yielding about 2.5%
right now on the market -- if I use that as the opportunity cost for
the capital tied up in the plane, it will add CAD 1,750/year, or
around CAD 12/hour, to my operating costs.

However, the interest from the bonds would be taxable (unless it were
in an RSP), so I'd have to give about 35-40% of it back to various
levels of government. That would leave me with just over CAD
1,000/year net income if I had invested the money in bonds instead of
a plane, and that works out to about CAD 7/hour at 150 hours/year.

Of course, the plane is itself a volatile investment that can rise or
fall in value, like a house -- when I sell the plane, I might find
that its value has risen or fallen by an average of several thousand
dollars each year. Because of that fact, I decided to leave out
opportunity cost and just treat the plane as one of my retirement
investments in a diversified portfolio (at least it's doing better
than my stocks).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, david@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/

david megginson

"Marty Ross" <noodnik2@hotmail.com> writes:

About as much as she likes flies. We put a harness on her and attach
it with a short, strong leash to one of the luggage straps, then let
her sit on top of the luggage. She looks out the window a bit, but I
don't think her brain can understand what's going on. She seems
happiest when the noise stops.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, david@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/

big john

Marty

My little miniature Dachshund would look out the window until we
reached cruise altitude and then go to sleep. Would sleep until touch
down and after parking and opening door he would make a bee line for
the nearest grass to relieve himself and then with help (he was a
little dog and as he got older couldn't jump up on wing by himself)
get back in bird for next leg.

Had to RON in Dallas one night due to WX,. Went to Motel which had a
sign "No dogs". Kay wrapped him around her waist like a mink stole and
we checked in with no problem <G>

Big John

marty ross

Ha! Great story.

Our dog is a dachsund/beagle combination, but knowing her, I don't believe
she would put up with the noise. She barks real loud at noises she doesn't
understand.

Also, what about hearing protection? I would think the dogs would go deaf
without muffs! Do they make doggie headsets?