Cessna 172 vs PA28

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Had a search for the above comparisons but for some reason the PPRUNE search engine doesn't like "172" (it says it's too short!) so thought I'd ask directly.

Had a familiarization flight in a PA28-160 with an instructor yesterday as I have grown out of our club 152's (too slow, not enough seats, cramped etc).
The club has a few PA28's and one 172. I liked flying the PA28 - solid and stable albeit with rather stodgy handling compared to the 152 but I guess this is down to its weight and size. Visibility for nav wasn't as bad as I thought it may be although obviously a high wing would help with passengers who want to take pictures/enjoy the views. I wasn't that impressed with fuel consumption on the PA28 - at "VFR" altitudes it will apparently return 9 US gal an hour @ 2200rpm / 95 kts cruise.

I have another flight in the PA28 next week to do some upper air work before being signed off on it but I am wondering whether I should instead switch to getting checked out on the club Cessna 172?
Can anyone current on both the PA28 and 172 offer me a balanced opinion on the pro's and con's of both aircraft before I decide which one to use for UK (and some euro) touring with 2/3 passengers?

Which is the better short-field performer?
Is fuel consumption better on the 172?
Which one has better load carrying ability?

Thanks in advance

PS If anyone has a link to a similar discussion on here please let me know and I'll go check it out!

[Brooklands]

SquawkIdent,

The short answer is that the fuel consumption will be similar as the both have (pretty much) the same engine* (160HP Lycoming O-320).

I'd say the 172 is a better shortfield machine.

Load carrying will depend on the particular variant, but I'd guess it won't be vastly different between them. You really need to check the W & B schedule for each aircraft to be certain.

I only flew the PA28-180, which did have a better load carrying ability than the 160Hp 172s, but it wasn't by that much.

If the club only has one 172, then what's the availability like? You may find that its not easy to get when you want it.

Personally I don't think that there's a huge ammount to choose between them. Depending on the club currentcy rules why not get checked out on both?

Brooklands

*A generalisation I know, as some older 172s have the six cylinder 145 Hp Continental O-300, others have the 150Hp Lycoming O-320, and the newer ones have either the 160Hp Lycoming IO-360 (172R) or the 180Hp Lycoming IO-360 (172S)

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Thanks for the info Brooklands:ok:

I think I'll finish the PA28 check out next week and spend some hours flying it then ask for a check out on the 172.

I guess there is better availability on the three PA28's I should check! Thanks for the tip.

[172driver]

Squawkident, as my handle says, I do fly 172s quite often, albeit usually the RG version. I did, however, learn to fly on PA-28s (both the 160 and the 180 hp variant), so feel I know both. And no, I am not obsessed about this.

To start: fuel consumption will probably be very similar, depending entirely on the individual machine. Don't worry about that aspect.

The main differences in no particular order are:

Doors: Cessna 2 / Piper 1. You can enter and exit a Cessna 'normally' without climbing up a wing and then into your seat. You hint at size being a factor in moving up from a 150, in which case a 172 will definitely give you more comfort. All in, a 172 is a much roomier a/c than a PA 28.

Views: you see more from a Cessna, important perhaps more for the pax than for you.

Flying: the Cessnas have a much lower wing loading, some people feel that makes them a bit 'nervous'. I'd agree that a Piper usually feels more solid in the air. However, the service ceiling of a Cessna is considerably higher than a Piper. As for short field, a quick glance at two of my POHs shows the Cessnas are somewhat better in this regard.

All that said, availability is always a concern and you say that your club has a few PA28s and one 172, so think about this also. Of course, this can also mean, that most people fly the PA28s and you'd be the lone 172 guy :ok:

[Slopey]

You could always get checked out on both, then fly which ever suits your sortie best? :)

(doh - as has been mentioned already above - I *must* learn to read!)

[pulse1]

I agree with all the comparisons above. But, for me, the first time I flew a PA28 140 again after flying the 172 for several years, I started to enjoy my flying much more. I was aware of this the first time I went round a corner and looked down the wing instead being trapped under it.

It's partly a safety issue but mainly pure aesthetics.

[the dean]

hi ident...

i have a lot of time instructing in both but i was cessna driver before piper.

you willl find this was debated before on prune .a dozen different pilots will give you a dozen different reasons why one likes a 172 and another a PA28...thats just a fact of life...like one man likes a girl another does not...and every now and again two will like the same girl..!!! .thats true of aeroplanes also...and the reasons can be varied...like i never liked having no door at my side... i want to be first out..!!!

my standard passanger briefing in the PA28 included how to open the door...exit towards the rear and included...''and do'nt slow down or look back 'cause you'll get run down by me as i'll be moving faster than you...''!:}

they are both nice planes and fun to fly. neither will set the world on fire with speed but very safe.

the 172 version i flew was the 145 continental six cylinder one as brooklands has pointed out ..but now its diesel...and very good and economical ( 50% power...80 knots...3.5 imperial gallons of JET A1 per hour ).:ooh:

for short fields ( do'nt recall what the books say)...but for me the 172 without a shadow of a doubt.

as you say, finish the check out and then do the 172 . give them both a chance and then join the club...as you will then have made up your own mind and you can step to one side of the line with whichever group of drivers you identify with...and believe me you will...!!!

good luck and safe flying...:ok:

the dean.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Gentlemen thank you - excellent advice.

I'll report back after I've had a chance to fly both:)

[bangoman]

Interesting thread, the same dilemma I'm going through having just got my PPL in June this year on the 152. The first thing I did post PPL was to get checked out on the PA28 - easier in the circuit esp with that wing out of the way on any turn (not just base to final) and it felt easier to land, prob because of that float. Things I didn't like - trim does not seem to be as good as the Cessna's, manual flaps, one door (SO annoying), seem to hit my knees on the yoke a lot.

Then came a club fly out to Brittany and I still had no takers to fly with me in a PA28 - would have been very expensive and boring on my own! However, the opportunity arose to fly a 172 with another pilot. I got checked out on the 172 and it flew like a dream the 400nm or so to Quiberon.

Likes re 172? Much more satisfying to get trimmed out around the circuit and the cruise. Love those "fire and forget" electrically driven flaps (just look out the window to check though!). TWO doors (yay!), more room in the cockpit. And the trim is right below the throttle which is where you want it on final approach, not on the floor somewhere like the PA28. A few bouncy landings in the 172 during checkout, I suspect because the PA28 had lured me into a false sense of security. Ok that wing's in the way again on any turn. Took the 172 out again today... when you get a good landing out of it, so much more satisfying that a PA28! Did a few circuits in the 172 as well and the landing and take off runs are considerably shorter, according to my random landmarks at Lydd.

Like you ident, there is only one 172 for rent, but two PA28's and a number of PA28 group aircraft as well as the two 152's, which are accessible to 172 pilots with no additional checkout, but of course these are running nearly 24/7 with PPL training!


Decisions, decisions. Right now I like the 172 probably because it feels more familiar, but also because everything in the cockpit seems to be in the right place with minimum fuss. And it has a nice paint job!

[BeechNut]

I have about a hundred hours in a 172, and a couple of hundred in a PA28 (owned the 140 variant, was checked out on the 180).

I have to say it's six of one, half dozen of the other. I happen to prefer the PA28 as I like low-wing better especially in turns. But the 172 is a fine machine. Of the two PA28s I flew, one (the 140) had the hershey bar wing, the other, (180), the taper wing. I think I liked the hershey bar variety better.

As for fuel consumption: about the same
Speed: about the same (not enough difference that you can notice on a short x-country)
Load ability: depends on the empty weight of the bird you're flying. More kit = less load. Basic VFR bird best if you need to carry a load. Both require careful W&B before taking off; the PA28 (at least 140) has a tendency towards nose-heaviness with two big lads up front and full tanks, in fact you'll be out of CofG range.
Short field: definitely Cessna.
Rough air: Piper.
X-wind landing: Piper.
Stodginess: about equal
Safety: both about equal, and fairly benign in a stall, and difficult (though not impossible) to get to spin.

Actually I like my current mount better than either: Beech C23 Sundowner 180. Very quick ailerons (in fact mine is one of the rare aerobatic-certified Sundowners). The Beech is stodgier in appearance, but has quicker handling especially in roll, and an even higher wing loading than the Piper, which makes a very stable rough air platform (at the expense of a highish 73 mph stall speed).

Anyway to sum it up, if your club has both, go for the one that's least popular, or more numerous. You'll have better availabilty, and about equal measures of fun, but to be safe, get checked on both. Variety is the spice of life.

[WorkingHard]

I asked an instructor for advice about 30 years ago on which to choose. After a few moments he said not much between the two BUT if its raining you wont get wet in and out of a 172 and bye the way i havent seen many low wing birds about!
I now have several thousand hours in Cessna alone and still like them a lot. just abought another in fact. But at the end of the day it is what YOU like. happy flying.

[18greens]

Its like trying to compare a vauxhall astra to a ford focus or the old Cannon/Nikon debate. They are built to fulfil the same operational requirement and they do the same job quite well. (I think evern the speeds are all the same)

I personally love the manual flap in the piper (never liked electric flaps- the students cant see the trim change) and the fact you dont have to pick up the wing before you turn. (make sure whoever teaches you to fly the 172 gets you to pick up the wing before you turn)

172s are roomier and have a better view of the ground. PA28s feel like an airliner with the quadrant throttle and low wing.

I think your decision should be based on availability (and the one with the best paint scheme to impress the girls)

[david viewing]

I fly both types on a fairly even basis. I'm convinced from the actual reaction of friends, family and prospective passengers that the biggest single factor in PA-28 sales has been the appearance. "Oohh, it's just like a real plane" I can hear them say.

The 172, on the other hand, is sometimes greeted with incredulity. "You fly in that?" is an authentic quote.

So which do I prefer? In America, I love the 172 for its sightseeing properties and camera friendly opening windows. In UK, I love the PA-28 for it's huge luggage bay, able to take the largest computer system, and the confidence it apparently instills in relatives.

In almost every other respect I find them indistinguishable!

[SQUAWKIDENT]

I fly both types on a fairly even basis. I'm convinced from the actual reaction of friends, family and prospective passengers that the biggest single factor in PA-28 sales has been the appearance. "Oohh, it's just like a real plane" I can hear them say.

I've had that:ok: Both my Dad and my best friend (who both recently flew with me) prefer the PA28 due to its looks.

I conclude from all of this..

Trips into short strips with aviators = 172
Longer trips into bigger strips with non-aviators= PA28

I'll go and sit in the 172 tomorrow and check it out then complete my PA28 checkride and book some time with an instructor in the 172.

Thanks for all the very useful info:)

Adam

[Lasiorhinus]

With many hours in both 172s and PA28s, I really don't have a strong preference either way.

The 172 is a little harder to get trimmed out than the Cherokee, but once you do, it flies like a dream. The Cherokee is more solid in flight.

On the ground, the 172 wins big points for TWO DOORS and a rain-shelter wing. The Cherokee wins in the air for the low wing, and the airliner-feel to the power quadrant.

Cherokees once again lose big points for the single-door system, which I find awkward and indeed compromising safety, but when flying by myself I simply fly them from the right-hand-seat.

I did my PPL in Cherokees, then hour-built in 172s. Did the CPL flight test in an Arrow (PA28), and now am working in a GA company with a fleet of both Cessna 210s and PA32's. Same complaints and compliments about these aircraft as the four-cylinder versions - otherwise identical.

I dont care anymore which aircraft I fly - the Cherokee and the 172 are so very very similar, but the choice on the day should be dictated by the requirements of the flight, and the availability on the field.

Safe flying

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Completed my dual check on the PA28 yesterday afternoon. Glorious weather so climbed to 5000 ft to perform stalls, advanced turns etc.

Either I am rather unfit or the PA28 requires the application of a hefty back force on the yoke to stay level during steep turns? At 45 degrees I underestimated the amount of force required and kept losing altitude:rolleyes:
Feeding in more power and trimming back slightly seemed to help so once I had mastered that bit we went on to stalling.

Unlike the 152 which I trained on, the PA28 seems extremely reluctant to do anything frightening at the stall. Power off recovery S&L lost a couple of hundred feet on the first try. "Base turn to final" recovery was better - 50-75ft.

Take-offs and landings were on Denham's 24 Grass runway. The experience was more comfortable than landing on grass in the 152. I guess the PA28 has a more forgiving undercarriage which my passengers will like:oh:

[er340790]

Been flying both regularly for 7 years. At the end of the day it really does come down to:-

A. Do you prefer to sit in the sunshine?

or

B. Do you prefer to sit in the shade?

[SQUAWKIDENT]

A. Do you prefer to sit in the sunshine?

or

B. Do you prefer to sit in the shade?

Shade please:ok:

[Asrian]

I'm interested in the same question!
Now...apart from doors, views etc..are there any differences in flying characteristics?

I'm thinking about doing my PPL and if a flight school offers the C152/C172 combo or trains on Pipers...if the cost would be the same..which one would You choose for basic training?

[SkyHawk-N]

I'm interested in the same question!
Now...apart from doors, views etc..are there any differences in flying characteristics?

Slightly less workload in the 172, no tanks to swap and no fuel pump.

The 172 flaps win hands down.

[Contacttower]

The throttle on the PA28 is enough alone to prefer it, they don't just look better but are so much easier to use. I would much rather have the Warrior in a X wind as well and it seems to work better as an instrument flyer.

I've always wondered which one has better landing gear, the PA28's looks quite advanced (love the nose wheel steering) but the cessna's is also very strong, any thoughts?

[sternone]

I've always wondered which one has better landing gear, the PA28's looks quite advanced (love the nose wheel steering) but the cessna's is also very strong, any thoughts?

Nothing beats the cessna's main landing spring steel landing gear...

[cotterpot]

The throttle on the PA28 is enough alone to prefer it,

In earlier PA28's the throttle is a plunger type as the C152/172

[SkyHawk-N]

The throttle on the PA28 is enough alone to prefer it

Contacttower, you are VERY easy to please! ;)

[carbheathot]

An instructor once told me that the design of the air intake to the carb was such that it was less likely to ice in the PA28-161 that I flew.I don't know if that is correct or not, I always follow the drill properly.
Aside from that, the feel of the PA28 beats the 172 everytime, IMHO particularly in rough air and the ease of sticking it back on the ground.
Theres also the extra fidling about changing tanks which gives one something to do to relieve the boredom in a long cruise

[BeechNut]

I'm thinking about doing my PPL and if a flight school offers the C152/C172 combo or trains on Pipers...if the cost would be the same..which one would You choose for basic training?

I would prefer a Piper to own or to fly cross-country. But training is a different matter. IMHO the Piper is a bit too docile to use as a good trainer, and too stable. I would go for the 152 in training. It has excellent flying characteristics but is less stable in chop...you have to work at it more and so you will develop your reflexes better. Plus, to teach incipient spins (or full spins...I know, no longer on the syllabus here in Canada or in the UK, but some want to learn), it is better. Less capable in a crosswind. While a bad thing for general use, this is again an advantage in training. If you can learn to land the 152 in a gusty crosswind, when you move up onto something more stable, you will have confidence and crosswinds will no longer make you sweat. Of course, you could chose to learn on a taildragger if you can find one...

That said, the 152 is an excellent trainer, and a not-so-bad entry level fun machine too. I think you will learn to be a better pilot on the 152. The PA28 is an excellent machine, but IMHO just a bit too docile as a trainer.

[rotornut]

If you are thinking of buying one it's a different matter. The 172 is a better airplane from an AME's (mechanic's) point of view. Generally bulletproof except for a bad series of engines in the late 70s. However, the PA28 is not really a bad airplane. It's just that the 172 is better in terms of maintenance.

[WorkingHard]

And if you buy a HAWK then there is no contest!

[Contacttower]

I do here though that the latest 172s sold have had quality problems, the starter motors have a tendency to break and also one club I know had a cowling crack after just 200hrs. I completely agree though that for training alone the 152 is better than both the PA28 and 172, it is less stable and the ability to teach spinning is a big plus.

[wonko the sane]

The throttle on the PA28 is enough alone to prefer it, they don't just look better but are so much easier to use.

Very subjective opinion. I find the PA28 throttle awkward, uncomfortable and just, well, wrong - but that's after climbing into a PA28 cockpit new after 180 hours in C172. Like a lot of ergonomics - it's often just a matter of what you're used to.

[NH2390]

The cracking cowlings are replaced under waranty.

With many hours in both, I find they are both very good training airplanes. I'd give a slight edge to the new 172s. I prefer the G1000 to the Avidyne setup, and the overhead swtches in the Archer are a little bit annoying. The visibility is also, I think, much better in the 172.

[BeechNut]

One thing to keep in mind is price.

Here in Canada, a good PA28-140 can be had for a good $20k less than a C172 with the more desirable Lycoming O320. The -140 has a few inconveniences though, like lack of a baggage door. It is said that a -140 has less useful load but that will depend on the equipment on the bird; and standard tanks on the 172 are 38 gal, whereas the PA28 can hold 50 gallons and has convenient tabs to mark off, I think if memory serves, something like 36 gal.

In fact a good late-model PA28-140 and an older 172 (with the 6-cyl continental) go for about the same price. The Lycoming 172s are priced beyond all good reason.

In short though each type has its merits and drawbacks. I happen to prefer low-wing...and brunettes....! For some it's high-wing and blondes!

[Pilot_in_the_making]

I still consider myself to be a low hours pilot (approx 80 hours TT) so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I currently fly both types at our club and to date have approximatly 30 hours on each type.

In my experience, they are both very comfortable and an absolute joy to fly. Although they both cost exactly the same per taco hour at our club, the PA-28 seems to use more taco time to do exactly the same trip as the 172, so I would say that the PA-28 is slightly less economical.

For looks I prefer the PA-28 with out a shadow of a doubt. As far as passengers are concerned, it depends who your passengers are. My friends who are all in their 20's seem to like the PA-28 more because it has more room (I didn't hink there was much in it to be honest) and it looks less flimsy (apparently).

However, older passengers such as my parents who just want to enjoy the view and take photos prefer the 172 because of the better visibility and really don't care what the aircraft looks like.

If you want to carry heavy loads or do short field landings, the 172 is a better option in my opinion. The PA-28 has heavier controls and I find it more tiring to fly (as well as having to remember to change fuel tanks and turn the fuel pumps on and off).

Looking at the performance charts, there isn't much in it, although the 172 has a very slightly better load carrying capacity, and doesn't require as much of a takeoff/landing run for a given weight.

The PA-28 seems to be slightly more stable and smoother than the 172 in my mind, especially in rough weather. It also seems to cope with crosswinds better than the 172.

Going flying tomorrow (weather permitting) and have to decide which one to take PA-28 or 172............I think I'll take the PA-28!!!

Don't know what it is, the statistics suggest that the 172 is a better aircraft, but the PA-28 just seems to have a certain appeal to it and is my aircraft of choice. I just can't get my head round it. :ugh:

[sternone]

Quote:
I'm thinking about doing my PPL and if a flight school offers the C152/C172 combo or trains on Pipers...if the cost would be the same..which one would You choose for basic training?
I would prefer a Piper to own or to fly cross-country. But training is a different matter. IMHO the Piper is a bit too docile to use as a good trainer, and too stable. I would go for the 152 in training. It has excellent flying characteristics but is less stable in chop...you have to work at it more and so you will develop your reflexes better. Plus, to teach incipient spins (or full spins...I know, no longer on the syllabus here in Canada or in the UK, but some want to learn), it is better. Less capable in a crosswind. While a bad thing for general use, this is again an advantage in training. If you can learn to land the 152 in a gusty crosswind, when you move up onto something more stable, you will have confidence and crosswinds will no longer make you sweat. Of course, you could chose to learn on a taildragger if you can find one...

That said, the 152 is an excellent trainer, and a not-so-bad entry level fun machine too. I think you will learn to be a better pilot on the 152. The PA28 is an excellent machine, but IMHO just a bit too docile as a trainer

I agree totally, go for training on 152 ?