Buying an aircraft and C172 Vs PA28

[liam548]

My partners dad is halfway through his NPPL, me and my brother are half way through our PPLs with the intention of continuing training afterwards and hopefully going commercial.

We hope to buy an aircraft between us when we are qualified. Obviously our requirements will be slightly different, for instance we will want to do our IMC/IRs.

How do the above two aircraft compare to each other?

I realise we will need to look into it more seriously nearer the time and get some expert advice on the pros and cons of buying a plane and whats involved but just wanted some initial thoughts and opinions.

What will tidy examples of each model cost to buy and maintain?



Liam

[vanHorck]

Low wing versus high wing and a different throttle system are the main differences.

I suggest you fly both types.

Traditionally people learning on a 152 would choose the Cessna, those on a Tomahawk would choose the PA28

[Lurking123]

Obviously there are a plethora of variants but, comparing apples with apples, they are both solid aircraft. So, if you were to look at a 160HP 172 and a similarly powered Warrior, you would find that operating costs would be similar. As far as flying them is concerned, they both have similar performance. AS VH says, it comes down to personal preference. Mine would be for the 172, but that is purely subjective.

You can't go far wrong with either type.

[sp6]

You should also consider the Robin DR400 series. You will need to hangar a Robin, and parts may be more difficult to get, but they are lovely aircraft to fly and offer performance advantages over both American types due to light weight and a clever wing.

Visibilty and handling are far better too. The reason they are not as common in the UK is more one of familiarity - ie Engineers and clubs stick with what they know. Find an engineer who knows them, plus a hangar and you'll never look at a spam can again!

[BackPacker]

You should also consider the Robin DR400 series.

Is any DR400 IFR certified?

I just checked the website and even the -200R seems to be VFR/NVFR only.

Lovely aircraft though. I flew a -120 to Berlin and back a few weeks ago.

[Rod1]

“Is any DR400 IFR certified?”

Yes, subject to instrument fit like a 172/pa28. The DR400 is a much better aircraft, it will lift more and go faster for a given engine power than the US spam cans, but you cannot keep it outside.

Rod1

[172driver]

Traditionally people learning on a 152 would choose the Cessna, those on a Tomahawk would choose the PA28

Not necessarily. I learned to fly on PA28s (the 160 and 180 HP versions), but today much prefer a Cessna (usually fly 172RGs or 182s). Main reason being cabin space, two doors and, to a degree, service ceiling and short field capabilities.

All that said, both are very capable machines, it really comes down to personal preferences.

[Lurking123]

I know of a number of Robins that happily live outside year in year out. That said, they get recovered more often and I would always wish to put one in a hangar. Nice aircraft to fly.

[Shunter]

Why does it have to be a PA28 or C172? There are better choices available for similar money. We bought a C177 because we wanted something faster, which would carry more weight, with a nice big cabin, had great viz in turns despite being high wing, didn't have struts, and looks better than the usual suspects by a mile.

Buying an aeroplane is not a short-term investment, but do the homework and it can be a rewarding experience.

[IO540]

Remember also the PA28 has only one door, so if the passenger sitting next to it is obese or otherwise unable to move, in an accident everybody is stuffed.

I much prefer low wing (for visibility) but if I had to choose between two pieces of wreckage (PA28 v C172) I would go for the Cessna, because it has two decent doors, better grass / short field capability, and neither is much good for European touring due to the relatively limited range. The Cessna is also easier to land (less speed critical) due to much lower ground effect.

The OP seems to want this plane for ongoing training to build hours, so there isn't much point in going for something exotic.

[172driver]

neither is much good for European touring due to the relatively limited range.

While correct for the PA28, not necessarily so for the Cessnas. They come in an amazing variety and if you have long-range tanks you do get a fair range. The ones I fly have 5:30hrs endurance to dry tanks.....

[Lurking123]

I think 5hrs in any SEP, even a TB20, is more than enough.:ok: Of course, you could go for an oil burning PA28 and stay up for ever.

[BeechNut]

Consider what I have, a Beech Sundowner 180.

Bigger cabin than either the Piper or Cessna. Low-wing, but two doors.

They tend to be undervalued in the market. You can get one, which is essentially in the Archer class, for not much more than a 172, maybe even less.

Old-wives' tales about being a handful on landing are just that... old wives' tales.

Beech

[SkyHawk-N]

The UK has 8 Beech Sundowners on it's register.

[BeechNut]

Only 8? I guess that rules that out.

We have 42 C23s on the Canadian register, plus 15 B23s and 35 A23s. Not to mention 16 B19 Sports.

I would have thought the UK numbers would be similar. I guess not...

Beech

[liam548]

the DR400 looks an attractive aircraft!

[Lurking123]

The DR400 is a lovely aircraft. Try and find one that is worth anywhere near the asking price.

[Rod1]

On the basis that doors are for cars have you considered an AA5? If you cannot find a Robin for the right price then this would give you an alternative. The 180hp AA5B version is a reasonable instrument platform with 125kn at 75%.

Rod1

[Mickey Kaye]

Could anyone who have a PA-28 or C172 give me a rough idea of what there running costs. I fly between 300 and 400 hours per year.

Am I also correct in thinking that it is possible to get approval for MOGAS on the 172 (depending on engine) and not for the PA-28.

I am UK based

[IO540]

300-400hrs/year is a helluva lot of hours for a genuine private pilot and way above the verifiable hours of anybody I've ever met - except one bloke who actually used to do that in his TB20 flying on business all over Europe, but now he's down to a mere ~ 120 :)

In your case, the fuel will be the dominant factor, plus 50hr checks, plus (if on G-reg) 150hr checks (which cost almost as much as the Annual).

You will save about 1/3 if you learn to fly lean of peak.

Say the fuel is 35 litres/hr... you can work that one out.
The 50hr checks will be £200-£600 depending whether DIY or by a JAR145 firm.
The 150hr is about £2000, maybe less, definitely more if any actual work needs doing.
The Annual about £2000, maybe less, definitely more if any actual work needs doing.
So, a few tens of thousands of £ per year.

But hang on.... you say you are currently doing 300-400hrs/year. What are you doing this in?? Surely you must know all this stuff. And if on mogas you are probably VFR, which is hard to believe for that # of hours.

[Mickey Kaye]

Thanks for your reply. I worded it badly. I was planning of flying 300-400 hours a year. Doing the sums as considering setting up as a one aircraft flying instructor. PA-28 or C172 might suit my needs and with a couple of aerodromes near me having MOGAS at the pumps it could offer me some savings. Pretty sure that MOGAS is a no go with the PA-28 but ok for 172. Would want VFR in short term.

[BeechNut]

For Mogas, it depends which PA28 you were thinking of.

I don't know about the PA28-180 (whether Archer or earlier versions), and I believe you are correct concerning any PA28 with the 160 hp engine.

But I do know that the PA28-140E with the 150 hp Lycoming O320 has a Mogas STC. And since the early 150 hp Warriors had the same engine this may apply to them as well.

I know this, because I owned one. And I had a Mogas STC for it, although I never ran mogas because, until my last year or two of ownership, our field still had 80/87.

The 140 is worth a look. They are cheap and plentiful, cheap to run, not much breaks on them, and they are surprisingly quick, I used to cruise mine at about 128-133 mph. Their big drawbacks are low useful load thanks to the 2150 lb MGTOW, especially if you have a decent radio stack in it; lack of room in the back seat, and no luggage door. Some don't even have luggage space behind the back seat. But as a 2+2, they work great, and are fairly economical to run, and would make a decently stable IFR learner platform. Mine was in fact IFR certified, with heated pitot, ILS, alternate static, etc.

They don't have too many handling vices either, although they aren't as "short field" as a 172 and they don't exactly climb like a rocket. The standard fuel capacity is 50 gals, which is, I think, 12 more than the 172, and the tanks have useful tabs to be able to fuel to 36 gallons (if my memory is correct), so you can play with fuel load to reduce range but increase useful load.

[GSJMH]

I agree with the others' comments on the flying characteristics of the Robin: they are lovely aircraft to fly, much more responsive than a PA28 and with great visibility. However, with respect to SP6, you do not need to hangar the aircraft. We keep ours on the tarmac with full covers supplied by Cambrai. According to Guy Pellissier, who makes the aircraft, keeping them outside like this is a better trade-off than hangarage! For spares I suggest calling John Kistner at Mistral Aviation, the UK distributors (+44 1730 812 008; [email protected]).

[sp6]

GSJMH - understood. Seeing DR400's left outside in France, and having been on the receiving end of a sales pitch from John Kistner on a new DR500, I understand that keeping a DR400/500 outside is ok as long as you fly frequently and inspect the drain holes on the trailing edges.

Having said that, when I leased one of John's own aircraft, one of the conditions of the lease was that it was hangared at all times!

As a previous customer of Mistral, I can recommend them as well as the DR400's. I just wish I had the money to source a DR400 with a 2.0 Thielert. Having flown the 1.7, and then seen the performance figures for the 2.0 (better than the 180hp lyco), a new DR500 would just be heaven!

[michaelporteous]

I fly Robins in France. Great aircraft, but impending problems re. spare parts availability,due to liquidation of Apex Aircraft. Threatened grounding of DR400's, which constitute half of the total club fleets here !

[mikehallam]

Mogas and the Cessna 172 Reims Rocket 210 h.p. engine ?

Does anyone have views both on outside parking and using Super quality 98 Octane Mogas ?

mike hallam

[Steve6443]

Could anyone who have a PA-28 or C172 give me a rough idea of what there running costs. I fly between 300 and 400 hours per year.

Am I also correct in thinking that it is possible to get approval for MOGAS on the 172 (depending on engine) and not for the PA-28.

I am UK based

I know of a number of Archers (both 2 and 3) which were modified to run on MoGas. The only issue they have is the risk of vapour locks if flying higher than, say, FL065 on a hot summer's day hence if they are flying in such weather, they often fuel up with AVGAS......

[9 lives]

Mogas and the Cessna 172 Reims Rocket 210 h.p. engine ?

I'm not aware of an STC for this. With no STC, do not attempt this. I believe that the 210HP (Continental IO-360 powered?) 172 has fuel pumps, which becomes a problem with any Mogas. This is a vapour lock hazard. If vapour lock begins, the fuel pump will be useless to help - it's causing it.