Difference between C172 & C152/PA28

[booke23]

Hi,

I have a PPL/IMC with about 100 hrs......about half of these on C152/C150 and the other half on a PA28-181 Archer.

I Have the option of hiring a C172 quite cheaply, and was wondering what differences there are between the 172 and above aircraft.

I'm guessing they are pretty similar to the C152.......do they fly the same?......The Archer used to be great at hauling a full load around......I suspect the 172 may not be quite as good?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

IMLE (about the same TT as you, learnt on 152s, fly 172s now) the 172 is less forgiving of being landed too fast than the 152, but dead easy once you get the speed right. Other than that it seems to fly pretty much the same.

New 172s are faster and more comfortable than old 152s; I've only done a couple of flights in old 172s so can't really comment usefully, but the ones I flew went about the same speed as the 152. Oh, and a 172 with two full-size adults in it will go a lot further on maximum legal fuel load than a 152 (if you're bothered about being legal with MAUW, that is). Burns more per hour, of course.

(I don't know anything about the PA28-181 Archer.)

[Miserlou]

They are all as bad as each other. Try and find a Robin.

I was seriously unimpressed when I first flew the 172 and the Archer having been brought up on Robins and a Jodel D140.

The 172 is a good hauler though.

[Chilli Monster]

The basic differences:

Archer is 10-15 Kts faster than the C172
C172 is slightly more economical (smaller engine)
Archer has a wider cabin - I always thought it more comfortable
C172 is a better short field machine (and embarrassing if you try to land it too fast ;) )

Load carrying ability - no great difference

The rest (1 door v 2 door, high wing v low wing) you'll be deciding from your own previous experience.

Both are worlds away from the C152!

[FlyFreeWbe]

I do agree, 172's have a good fuel economy and can get you far. Have yet to fly any pipers tho..but thats soon to change. All I can say is you wont be dissapointed if you choose to fly the 172, they're like big friendly papa bears

FFW

p.s. have we met gertrude?

[Brooklands]

Booke23,

The 172 probably has a better short field perfomance than the PA28-181.

As to load carrying it depends upon which mark of 172/PA28 you're talking about. From my experience the 172P and the old slab winged PA28-181 Archer 1 were about the same, earlier marks of 172 had a bit less useful load. I'd say that the Archer 1 was only 5kts faster than the 'old' 172s I flew. The new 172s (172R and 172S) cruise at about 110kts, and are very nice.

The 172S has a 180hp engine, so matches the Archer on power, and has the advantage of being fuel-injected. For the life of me I can't understad why Piper didn't put fuel-injected engines into the Warrior III and Archer III.

Brooklands