c-172 and p-28 difference in flying

[acuba 290]

Just interesting from people who had possibility to fly both of them, what are differensies flying them? How it is on climb, cruise and landing?
Is it possible during PPL course with one type to make 1 or 2 hour with another type or it is not good for training?

[coodem]

I have flown both, and they both have pros/cons

I prefer the Piper, I find it a little more responsive, and the landing is just so much easier in the piper. There are a few extra things to worry about. The piper has 2 fuel tanks, and an electronic fuel pump. Not much of a problem, but just a few extra things to keep an eye on while flying, and the take off/landing procedures have a few more steps

Cessna, I found was very stable, did not have to worry about fuel pumps or changing tanks. Ground visibility is better, as you ain't got a wing below you.

I would spend an hour in each and see how you feel. I think it is an individual thing

[spernkey]

Funny but i totally prefer Cessna for the following reasons.
Far superior Flaps (Fowler) esp. models with 40 degrees giving a better landing performance and improved view. With 10 deg selected far better short/soft field performance. Compare pa28 140 to 172M say(same engine). Vastly stonger main undercarriage for people who cant land(training environment).Cessna has vastly superior slow speed handling(real important to me for commercial reasons) esp. models after "L" when the leading edge cuffs were introduced. Stall charectistics are unreal in a 172 - with a bit of power you can hang it up like a helicopter(providing you know what your feet are for). Cessna carries loads better for eg. my 172RG with 180 HP has 1000lbs usefull load and will cruise at 140 kts indicated from shorter field than an Arrow which has 20 more HP.
In short the Cessna wing has obviously been in a wind tunnel at some point and has been developed through models.
Piper is far prettier and therefore more popular i would guess

[SkyHawk-N]

I like Cessna 172s as they have two doors and windows that actually open, oh yes, and I prefer their handling and performance as well.

[Human Factor]

I would be inclined to choose a single type* for your training and perhaps try the other after you finish your PPL. Of the two, my preference would be for the PA28, mainly because you have to manage the fuel system, which is something you will need to do in most types which you will ultimately fly. The C152 (and Yak52 incidentally) have two ways to manage the fuel - on and off. Keeps it simple but if that's all you're used to, it could potentially be something you will overlook in other types. The C172 allows you to select tanks individually but is generally left on "Both" most of the time.

* The PA28 is not cleared for intentional spinning (can't remember about the C172) so if you decide you want to do the full spin training during your PPL course (not a requirement but something I would recommend you experience), you will need to do that in an approved type such as a Chipmunk or a C152.

[wingman863]

I'm no pro; still a lowly student, but i prefer the pa28. I've had more hours on the type but i find it much easier to land and think that it certainly feels much more solid. Thats not to say that the c172 is a bad plane but I just like the feel of the pa28. 2 doors is nice though, i have 2 admit. :)

[172driver]

Learned to fly on PA28s (160 & 180), but now fly - you guessed it - mainly the competition.

Leaving aside the fact that most club/hire a/c in Europe seem to be C172s, I prefer the Cessnas for severals reasons (in no particular order):

a) more space in the cockpit
b) higher service ceiling
c) better payload
d) two doors you can actually get in and out of in a civilized manner
e) windows that open
f) shade under the wings (or shelter from rain...)

Handling is different, as the low-wing Piper tends to float more on landing, while the high-wing Cessna has a much lower wing-loading and tends to be more 'nervous' in X-winds - especially on the RG you'll know what your feet are for !

Btw, spernkey, how do you get 140kt out of an RG :confused: I rarely manage more than 125 :( , admittedly on a club a/c.

Still, a 172 RG it is for me :ok:

[pulse1]

I fly both and, on the whole, I prefer the PA28 for two reasons:

1. I prefer looking down on the wing during the turn, and
2. You can side slip the PA28 and, although you never really need to, I just like doing it.

[aerobatic_dude]

I've flown both of them, more so the PA28 than the 172.

Even though I fly the PA28 on regular(ish) basis, i'd still prefer the 172 is I could get my mits on it regularly.

I prefer the 172 because it's got more room, can carry more, and it's not as fond of the tarmac stuff. Comparing the 172M and the PA28-151. The PA28 is miles easier to land. But I still like those manual flaps a lot more.

[BroomstickPilot]

acuba 290,

I haven't flown a C172, but while re-validating my long expired PPL, I did about 29 hours on the Pa28 and developed an acute dislike for it. I eventually decided that as a touring aeroplane, it was probably just about acceptable, but as a training aeroplane it was quite unsuitable. The C152 is much cheaper to train in and in my view by far the superior training aeroplane.

The Pa28 has visibility from the cockpit like an armoured security van. In the turn, the top of the window frame comes down and obscures your view in the direction of turn. There is no rear view at all. This makes it difficult for a student pilot to learn circuit work, especially when doing right hand circuits.

Flying straight and level, a huge area of the ground is obscured by the wings, making navigation more difficult than it needs to be for a student pilot.

The trimmer wheel seems to be attached to the trimmer tab with elastic bands and the trimmer wheel is too highly geared. It is difficult to trim the aeroplane and even when you do, seconds after you have removed your hand from the trimmer wheel, the elasticity in that big, long linkage causes the linkage to contract, putting you out of trim again.

Add to this the fact that there is a door on only one side of such a big meaty aeroplane and you have an aircraft that in my view scores about two out of ten as a training aeroplane and four out of ten overall.

Broomstick.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

172 every time. Great flaps, two doors, super elevators (shame about the ailerons, but they're no worse than the those on the PA28).

And, it's the safest aeroplane ever, according to the stats. The 172 is a pilot's aeroplane (if you fly it properly - most are landed 3-point despite those lovely elevators.:rolleyes: C'mon guys - do it right and use what Mr Cessna gave you! )

The PA28 has no redeeming features for any airman. They are for transport. Fly one? I'd rather read Poly Toynbee in the Gruniad.

SSD

[BroomstickPilot]

acuba 290,

Is it possible during PPL course with one type to make 1 or 2 hour with another type or it is not good for training?

It is possible, but unadvisable. You should have a trial flight in both before you start your course, choose one aircraft type, and then stick to it until your course is over.

You can change types during your course, but doing so will set you back a little while you convert onto the new type. You will have to spend money on perhaps four or five hours for type conversion. In the South of England, for example, that could cost you an extra £500.

Broomstick.

[Kaptain Kremen]

Hi,
I'm assuming you mean the Archer series and C172 for my points.
I instruct on both. I think the C172 will float a bit further on a calm day if not flown accurately on speed. However, it is better on short/soft field work for sure if flown properly. The advantage for nav / photos is there with a high wing, but suffers in the lookout as a result, esp in turns.
Fuel pumps are an extra thing to faff with on the 28 as are the tanks, but not so much that i would choose the 172 because of them.
Fowler flaps on the 172 are superb - in the right hands - but should be taught well to avoid problems.Being electrically driven you can usualy select any flap setting you like, though of course can lead to problems following an electrical failure. The 28 may have only a few flap settings, but less likely to not work.
The 172 pax will feel way far back, esp during climb out and can be uncomfortable with the pitch attitude. Not sat in the back of a 28, so not sure there.
The 172 is better to be upside down in following a sudden stop! Sorry, just had to put that one in!
The 28 is smoother and more responsive airborne, though can depend on the individual aircraft and rigging. My current 172 is a delight to handle.
Both have benign stall characteristics and are quite stable in the aproach.
Its best to have a flight in both types to see for yourself, they are both lovely aircraft. I would say the most important thing to look at is the type of field you are operating from. the 172 will win hands down on soft / short field performance.
hope this helps, just my thoughts.
KK

[Final 3 Greens]

One similarity between the two types.

They need to be flown at the book airspeed number on short final, otherwise a float will the outcome.

[acuba 290]

thanx a lot for recommendations. I think i'll prefer 172, but will take after course some hours with p28;)

[dublinpilot]

My advice would be to take the cheapest one available to you. (Assuming they are at the same school). You can convert to which ever you prefer afterwards.

If they are at different schools, then the decision should be based on the school itself rather than the aircraft types.

dp

[WHBM]

Anyone who does both types ever noticed that in slight turbulence the PA-28 tends to pitch up and down (nodding) whereas the Cessna tends to go more for a roll (wing waggling).

I've often wondered why.

[dublinpilot]

Purely a guess, but I'd suspect the PA28 is more stable in roll, due to the larger dihedral on the wings.

[acuba 290]

just passed my skill test yesterday with 172 and tried out p28 today. Its really difficult to compare, but i was impressed from Piper-28 Archer 2 very much.
With electrical trim on control column and throttle like airliner style...
I mean i was happy to study with 172, but maybe will prefer p28 to fly for fun, but not always (172 is also very nice and good airplane);)

[BeechNut]

* The PA28 is not cleared for intentional spinning (can't remember about the C172) so if you decide you want to do the full spin training during your PPL course (not a requirement but something I would recommend you experience), you will need to do that in an approved type such as a Chipmunk or a C152.

Not so. This is true of the taper wing models (Warrior, Archer) and some of the hershey bar wing models, but not all. I was once the owner of a PA28-140 that was cleared for spinning. Models that had a ventilation blower in the tail, or that were equipped with air conditioning (must have been a negative climb rate at MGTOW with the air con on), were not. Many of those without these features were cleared to spin in the utility category (rear seats empty).

I now own a Beech C23 Sundowner that is also cleared for spinning; I own one of the very rare aerobatic models. Most are not cleared.

That said a PA28-140 is very reluctant to spin indeed and tends to go more into a spiral dive. The C23 is the same, you need both full rudder and full opposite aileron to get it to spin, otherwise it spirals and speed builds very quickly.

I've spun every aircraft I've owned. Most interesting was the Beech Skipper I briefly owned.

Beech

[david viewing]

I fly a PA-28-161 in UK and a C-172-R in the US. Both are 160HP and exhibit very similar performance in almost all flight regimes, as they should. However:

I find the PA-28 low wing comforting over the expanses of cold grey sea that surround these Islands. (Somewhere in my deluded dreams I imagine I could ditch and stay right way up!). And the luggage bay is capacious compared with the Cessna, which will only take a standard suitcase with difficulty. That's just as well as I carry bulky computer kit in the UK that would be difficult to get into the Cessna at all.

On the other hand, the Cessna's goldfish bowl windscreen is a scenic wonder and the expanses of SW desert scenery that I have seen out of that window will stay with me forever. With the seat high and forward the view is like having a personal Imax cinema. (Make sure it's clean before takeoff!) Not so the PA-28 with it's airliner pretend styling and central pillar. And in a forced landing in the desert, I delude myself that the high wing would stay clear of the numerous boulders and and sage brush.

The final decider is fuelling, though. In the UK I have to fuel myself, so low wing is King, whereas in the US it's almost never neccessary and the FBO guy will scrabble with step ladders for you! That clinches it for me. Vive la difference!