Cessna 172 Vs PA-28

[BOZR_DOUGIE]

Hey

I have just recieved my PPL from the CAA , and I was hoping to move up from a larger aircraft than the Cessna 152 (Being 6'3 , its a tad uncomfortable I remember having a dead left leg after a 2.5 hour skill test! ) . My flying club has a few PA-28's and one Cessna 172 . I am stuck choosing which one to pick to move upto , I like the high wings and the 172 seems to be a sensible move up from the 152 , but the PA-28 is slightly cheaper to rent and there are more of them in the club .

I was wondering what other people would suggest, the Cessna 172 seems to be easier to move up to than the Piper , and the contols seem to be in a similar place to the 152 which would be easier to get used to, I dont seem to be that keen on having the trim located in the roof!!!

Thanks
Ewan

[Katamarino]

I prefer the C172 due to the 2 doors; however, my club seems intent on selling many decent planes (some of our Cessnas, and our Diamond), and leaving us with a fleet of mainly Pipers and Robins :( Might soon be time to move on, I think, as this would put a stop to my Africa visits...

Anyway, it's really entirely personal choice; both options are very easy to fly, and won't take you long to convert to. My PA28 club check was 12 minutes chocks to chocks :ok:

[Rod1]

Go for the PA28, you will learn more and with a bigger fleet you will have less chance of being grounded with tec problems. Have you joined your local LAA strut, and have you considered buying a share?

Rod1

[BOZR_DOUGIE]

Definatly not a share, I am at uni atm, so I am in a No Captial flying club . I havent thought of a LAA to be honest .

[the dean]

Well done Dougie. Congratulations.

I have spent many years and many thousands of hours instructing in both.

I would say it matters little. you will want to try them both. they really don't vary a great deal but its more that there are Cessna people (the view down is better ) and there are Piper people ( the general skyward view is better). It really does'nt matter a great deal in the end, just a matter of choice. Try both over time and find out which you like.

Personally , like you, i learned in a 150 (well in fact before that my basic training was in a tail dragger Citabria...so a high winger), i have always preferred Cessna but for no real valid reason (if anything the cabin is possibly a little wider on the PA28 but i am subject to measurement correction on that).....

In fact, its not really a matter of Cessna =v= Piper but more a matter of whether you like high wingers or low wingers...as they handle a little differently in ground effect on departure and arrival.

As they handle a lot alike, i would try the 172 first after flying the 150. it is considerably heavier in stick forces (especially elevator, so trim is much more important than in the 150)....but just a bigger animal than the 150, and then when you are comfortable with that, try the PA28.

Go on from there....safe flying....:ok:

Gear up....

[BOZR_DOUGIE]

Ill definatly try both :-)

The cessna looks so roomy that seems to be the big attrraction to me, I also enjoy a high wing . The only low wing aircraft I have flown in the circuit is a Grob 115 and I missed the view out .

[AdamFrisch]

I've flown both types and it's just the age old thing of what you prefer.

I'm high wing all the way. I really love looking down at landscapes below me, it gives me a therapeutic joy of some sort. I don't think I would ever own a low wing design myself If I ever bought. I would go for a midwing Aerostar in a heartbeat, but having the wing any lower than that just wouldn't feel right.:)......

Others feel exactly the opposite.

I would say that the PA28 is slightly easier to land well, though. But then you're stuck having to do acrobatics to get into the thing.

[david viewing]

This has been done to death numerous times before but as someone who does roughly similar hours in each (both 160 HP) here's a few thoughts (with a bit of UK:US perspective thrown in):

Performance: nothing in it except the 172 feels slightly more relaxed on short fields, maybe 'cause the wing is further from the bushes.

Convenience: C172 far better with two doors, but PA-28 far better for luggage space and access. C172 ('R' and up) a right pain to check tanks (13? drain points!). All C172's a pain to fill up (not in US, where someone always rushes to do it for you!). And less you remember the fuel selector, many C172's will drain your fuel away overnight if there's the slightest tilt.

Sightseeing: C172 far better in most situations, excepting over the water, when the PA-28 wing between you and the sea offers a degree of fools' comfort. Opening windows in C172 a huge bonus for photography.

Efficiency: C172 mixture control allows much better leaning control that the Briggs n' Stratton lever fitted on the PA-28.

Safety: Nothin in it, except the C172 is far more likely to blow over (or away) in strong winds than the PA-28. Not a factor in the US where there are always tie-downs.

Availability: as said already, in UK typically PA-28 much more available than C172. In US, very much the reverse.

Style: Taking someone flying in a C172 sometimes leads to a "is that it?" moment. On the other hand, the PA-28 once generated an "Oooh, it's just like a real aeroplane" from a young relative. So if young ladies are on your itinerary then that's a vote for the PA-28.

Preference: Do fly them both. In UK, PA-28 has a slight edge because of availability and possible escape from a ditching. In US C172 is a clear winner on grounds of sightseeing and again, availability.

All views expressed are personal and probably rubbish!

[172driver]

OK, given my 'handle' here, I am obviously biased, but here goes :E

I learned to fly on PA 28s (160 and 180) and moved away from them after getting my ticket. One reason was availability where I was flying at the time (mostly Cessna fleet), but more importantly the sheer pleasure of actually stepping into your a/c rather than clambering over the co-pilot's seat. Also, you say you are 6'3" - I am 6"2' and believe me, I feel your pain! A 172 is a much roomier a/c. Add to that the much better views..... I guess there has to be a reason why the 172 with all it's innumerable variants is the best-selling light a/c of all time.

If you want/need short field capabilities, the 172 has the edge over the PA28.

All that said, you have to take availability into account. Talk to the club as to how many hours/week/month the PA28s and the C172 are available. The fact that there's only one doesn't necessarily mean much, if everyone flies the PA28s!

Other than that, it really comes down to choice. Happy flying.

[BackPacker]

The one thing I really don't like when flying the 172 is that my head is essentially *in* the wing (I'm 1.86m). This very much limits the horizontal view out - which is where the traffic is that I'm worried about.

Other than that, horses for courses really. Both are very docile planes with about equal performance. And both within the PA28 and C172 fleet you'll find clapped out planes with torn seats, stone-age avionics and that typical 30-years-of-vomit smell inside, and brand new, leather seats, state-of-the-art avionics and new-car-smell ones.

It's easy enough to stay current on both, so why not try them both and only decide what you're going to fly on the day itself, depending on availability and mission?

[jxc]

172 allday long as I enjoy short strips (on my women)

[dont overfil]

Most of it has been said here except about economy. The C172 has been available with fuel injection since 1999 and I believe the Majority of PA28s, even recent ones still have carbs.
The advantage of F.I. is no carb heat required and substantially better economy.
My Archer used 40ltrs ph. A C172 SP I use burns closer to 30ltrs ph for similar airspeeds.
In fairness the Cessna is 20 years newer.
DO.

[BOZR_DOUGIE]

Thanks :-)

Ill definatly try both before I decide which one I like best :-) !

[GetShorty]

I'm even lankier than you are at 6'7" and other than a single flight in a 150, I did all my training in a C172.

I did, however, do a few hours in a Piper post-PPL, and never - never - got used to the idea of having to clamber across the seats to get in.

It wasn't a high- vs low-wing argument for me there are just not enough doors on the Piper for my liking ;)

As others have observed, it's obviously a very personal thing so have fun trying them both out.

[Rod1]

“just not enough doors”

Doors are for cars:E

Rod1

[pasir]

...Cessna 172 - especially if fortunate to fly the Rheims 172J version with fuel injection (no constant checking of carb heat) extra power uprated 210hp and prop pitch control etc . - although you would be hard pressed to find one available to day no doubt. Other C172 attributes - Good glide performance - Good (by comparison) short field performance - Atributes I felt lacking on Piper low wing a.c.

Just a personal view having flown but an hour or two in a PA28

...

[digits_]

Of course it depends on the performance of both aircraft, but I you have 2 more or less the same powerfull aircraft available, I'd go for the piper. It feels more like an airplane to me. Low wing, more airlines-like power throttles :)

And yes, the door problem sucks, but it's still worth it. Since you just got your license, I assume you'll be flying around local airfields in civlisation (eg: no remote short fields somewhere in deep Russia), so the short-runway advantages of the C172 are not really an issue here. The low wing might be a change to you in hot weather, so be sure not to approach to hot on speed, because you're landing distance will drastically increase then.

Oh, and your P28A is cheaper, still a good argument ! Have fun.

[J.A.F.O.]

As a lot of people have said, there's not a lot in it and you can fly both.

Thanks :-)

Ill definatly try both before I decide which one I like best

That's why aeroplanes are better than women (or men depending on gender/preference) they don't make you decide which one you like most - you can have them both. You don't have to marry one, you just have to take them out once in a while.

I like things about both of them and fly what is available/cheapest at the time.