PA28 or C172

[tobster911]

Hi all,

A real quick one this time. I'm wanting to do my training on one of the club aircraft so I can take more than one passenger. The options are either a Piper PA28 or a Cessna 172. Which would you guys recommend and why?

Many thanks

T

[9 lives]

You might want to review this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/286600-cessna-172-vs-pa28.html

[ChickenHouse]

Mercedes or BMW? It is all your choice.

I would look for other things, like which engine? If both are 180HP 360s, it does not matter which. If one is 180HP and the other 135HP, guess what ;-). If taking passengers, I prefer high wing for two reasons, looking out is usually nicer and it is easier to enter for elder pax.

But - when I trained, there was a passenger-never-ever-allowed-in-basic-PPL-training regulation. So, you are talking difference training or add-on ratings, I hope?

[tobster911]

Sorry, should've been specific. Recently received PPL, so looking to do conversion training. I'm drawn more to the Piper because of it's relatively forgiving characteristics, as mentioned. I aim to eventually have both, but one to begin with.
Thank you :)

[ChickenHouse]

Sorry, should've been specific. Recently received PPL, so looking to do conversion training.
Get yourself familiar with both of them, so you have a greater choice of aircraft to rent.

[Martin_123]

which PA28? there's a very massive difference whether it's Cherokee or Arrow .. anyway, go try them both and see what you like. For pax, C172 will probably be better as the pax in rear seat will see more of the scenery. For a PA28, guys at the back are sitting on the wing with a very limited view.

[9 lives]

which PA28? there's a very massive difference whether it's Cherokee or Arrow

Which 172? From 172, Hawk XP, 172RG, and other variants of some of those.

I agree that there is a difference (though not "massive") between the T tailed Arrows, and their low tail brothers, but otherwise, a PA-28 is a PA-28 near enough....

[abgd]

Take an hour in both and see which one you like.

My own view is that if you trained on low-wingers you'll go for the PA28 and if you trained on high-wingers you'll go for the 172.

If you haven't yet got your PPL then do most of your training on the cheaper one, and assuming you're a decent student make sure you get 10-15 hours on the other.

If you haven't got your PPL and there's a 152 or Tomahawk to rent, then save your money and train on it. It'll be simple to convert to the four-seaters later.

[TheOddOne]

But - when I trained, there was a passenger-never-ever-allowed-in-basic-PPL-training regulation

Whaaaaaat???

Do please quote chapter and verse, if it IS actually a regulation, not just a rule imposed by the training outfit.

The only restriction I would impose would be during exercises requiring the utility part of the envelope, such as stalling.

TOO

[rusty sparrow]

The one door on a PA28 rules it out for me on safety grounds. But I prefer a low wing to the high wing Cessna which has two doors. The Tomahawk is cheap and has great visibility but (IMHO) is built down to a cost - and that high elevator (out of prop slipstream) means it's authority on landing is limited so speed control is more critical - and arguably teaches you to be a better pilot.

[alex90]

I would definitely try both if I were you. Perhaps start with the one that is most familiar. For instance - did you learn on a C152? Give the 172 a go first, see how you like it. Then try the PA28.

I am only saying this because some of the reflexes you have learnt are in slightly different places in the Cessnas than the PA28.

Definitely do both!

[Airbornestu]

Having flown both, I find they're not too dissimilar to fly. Personally I prefer the low wing for visibility in turns, but I'm currently flying a high wing type and am very happy.

In your position I'd probably base my decision on what had the best availability and the lowest hourly rate.

[A and C]

From an aircraft performance point of view you could not slide a cigarette paper between the two aircraft and so the decision comes down to other factors.

I can't see facts backing up Rusty Sparrows opinion about PA28 safety issues but I do agree with his / her opinion about the PA38 being a very good training aircraft.

[India Four Two]

Cessna every time.

Two doors, so you can supervise and assist your passenger(s) entering the aircraft and getting strapped in.

High wing - easier entry, great view for all passengers, no grovelling around on the grass, draining fuel. The only drawback is the need for more vigilance during turns.

It's been a while since I've flown a Piper, but I prefer the landing characteristics of Cessnas. The key, as with any aircraft, is to be on speed and trimmed and hold-off as long as possible, to land on the main wheels.

[27/09]

My choice wold be a tapered wing PA28, especially for a touring aircraft, they're quieter and faster than a C 172 with nicer handling. The aileron control in a C172 is ponderous and the high wing provides very poor visibility for seeing other aircraft especially in the circuit.

Also a lot of non pilot passengers like the "security" of having a wing between them and the ground.

PA 28 airframes are generally simpler and cheaper to maintain than a C172.

When you're looking at a PA28 you need to be aware of the different variants. Most of the early PA28's have the shorter fuselage and also a smaller elevator. They are usually much cheaper as the 140's especially are really a 2+2 seater. The later ones have a lot more room for the rear seat passengers. The larger elevator gives better control.

The 161 and 181 series have the tapered wing which doesn't stop flying like the old slab wing. Don't be 5 knots or more too fast over the fence otherwise you'll float for ever.

[ChickenHouse]

Whaaaaaat???

Do please quote chapter and verse, if it IS actually a regulation, not just a rule imposed by the training outfit.

The only restriction I would impose would be during exercises requiring the utility part of the envelope, such as stalling.

TOO
I looked up the current setting, taken from the UK CAA EASA Part-ORA based Template Approved Training Organisation Manual (https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294978595):

Carriage of passengers
Subject to the approval of the Head of Training and the privileges of his licence, a person may fly as PIC of a Company aircraft carrying passengers provided that the following conditions are complied with:
(a) He shall not act as pilot-in-command of a aircraft carrying passengers unless within the preceding 90 days he has made 3 circuits, each to include take-offs and landings, as the sole manipulator of the controls in a helicopter of the same type to be flown.
(b) Passengers may not be carried on student solo flights
(c) Passengers may not be carried on dual instructional flights with the following exceptions:
i. Another student on the same course of training may be carried if there is a training benefit to be gained.
ii. CAA inspectors may be carried on any dual instructional flight.
iii. Passengers may be carried on trial lessons provided that they have a clear and direct interest in the flight (e.g. parents, partner, etc.) and no remuneration of any kind is given in respect of their carriage.

I didn't look up the specific Part.ORA paragraphs, but as it seems, yes, you may carry special passengers on dual instruction trial lessons (whatever "trial" means in that context, I suspect i.e. not at airwork sessions, which would make sense?).



Btw, the FAA is easier to fetch:
FAA FAQ - Student Pilot Training and Limits (https://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/student_training/)

As a student pilot, can I carry passengers with me before getting my recreational or private pilot’s certificate?

No.

[Martin_123]

Which 172? From 172, Hawk XP, 172RG, and other variants of some of those.

I agree that there is a difference (though not "massive") between the T tailed Arrows, and their low tail brothers, but otherwise, a PA-28 is a PA-28 near enough....
a typical club cessna 172 goes at around 100-120kt, with your RG2 beeing capable of roughly 145kt.. 20-30kt difference between models isn't a big deal

Cherokee on the other hand, if it's one of those 140hp early models will struggle to achieve anything more than 90kt, where as some of the turbo charged arrows will do 170 ish.. Now that counts as a massive difference in my book

[9 lives]

I agree that the T tailed Arrows are a bird of a different feather. Otherwise, even the "regular" Arrows and Dakota fly basically the same as a Cherokee 140, just somewhat faster in cruise. Ultimately, you should be flying a 'plane at its proper speeds, the fact that they might be faster does not make the 'plane more difficult or different to fly, (unless you're trying to tuck it into a short runway).

I suppose that "massive" is subjective to the speaker, based upon their personal experience. For me, a "massive difference" is present between flying flying a Cub to an SM 1019, or Aztec to DC-3. But when I think of single engined Cessnas and Pipers I don't perceive massive difference, even C 172 to Caravan, just some additional steps, pounds and knots.

[Martin_123]

I agree that the T tailed Arrows are a bird of a different feather. Otherwise, even the "regular" Arrows and Dakota fly basically the same as a Cherokee 140, just somewhat faster in cruise. Ultimately, you should be flying a 'plane at its proper speeds, the fact that they might be faster does not make the 'plane more difficult or different to fly, (unless you're trying to tuck it into a short runway).

I suppose that "massive" is subjective to the speaker, based upon their personal experience. For me, a "massive difference" is present between flying flying a Cub to an SM 1019, or Aztec to DC-3. But when I think of single engined Cessnas and Pipers I don't perceive massive difference, even C 172 to Caravan, just some additional steps, pounds and knots.
yes, you are right, it is subjective to the speaker, and I was saying this with a thought in mind that the OP is a freshly qualified PPL holder, rather than umpteen thousand hour ace

[9 lives]

the OP is a freshly qualified PPL holder

Of course, and to assure the ease of piloting, all certified airplanes meet the design requirement of "must not require unusual pilot skill, attention or strength" (or words to that affect). This is deliberately intended to assure that newer pilots do not perceive massive differences between types. A little "getting use to" sure, but within their skill set, if they're understood the contents of the flight manual.

Indeed, this does pose a challenge to the ace test pilots who evaluate these aircraft, as they have to detune their skills to some degree, so as not to accidentally mask a demanding characteristic with their skill, which the new pilot might not have.

Aviation tends to contain elements of pilots telling other pilots how different aircraft are to fly, and a little "enthusiasm" sprinkled into their comments. Many types have been warned to me before I flew them, for the most part, I found a pleasant airplane. The only fire breathers I have found are a few taildraggers, who will let you know if you're not applying rudder adequately!

[The_Pink_Panther]

Tobster,

I flew 152s for a while after getting my PPL, then switched to Pipers - firstly 160 Warriors, then a 180 Archer that I'm doing my IMC (IR(R)) in. I've flown the 172, and to me it just feels like a bigger 152, perfectly nice.

There's lots of good advice already here (especially the "give both a go first") but there is one thing that I seem to be different with - I could always grease a 152 in, and on the numbers. Although the Pipers do seem to handle cross winds better, the floating you get from low-wings mean that I can't grease them in on the numbers; it's either greased but a little long, or a little firmer on the numbers.

TPP

[alex90]

TPP

I think practice makes perfect!!! With a little more practice, perhaps you might just get your "greaser" on the numbers! I think this is all with perception of how high you are vs how high the wings are, you'll get there!

The biggest difference between the 152, 172, PA28...etc... Will only be your position in the cockpit, and your view of the outside world. Some will feel higher than others, and others will feel wider...etc... You'll get used to this soon enough! There are a few key knobs that aren't where you expect them, and finding where the fuel drain can always be a little fun (especially in the 172SP which seem to have 5 under each wing and 3 under the cowling... For some reason...).

Something to bear in mind, and something that I only noticed just after my PPL, doing circuits in the high winged plane is a little different to the PA28s in the sense that when you're turning, you can't see WHERE you're going as easily (ie where you're turning to) whilst you generally can in the PA28.

Give them both a spin, do a few hours in each, see which you prefer flying - but do give it a few hours. It'd be silly to make your judgement in haste! :)

[n5296s]

Give them both a spin
Probably best avoided.

It's true that low wing planes work differently during landing. You have to actively land a high wing plane, but ground effect is a much bigger deal in a low wing plane. That actually makes landing easier - you just hold the right landing attitude and wait for the wheels to touch the ground. If you want to get it on the numbers you have to aim some distance before them, likely before the actual runway - which can be a bit unnerving.

There's no actual merit in landing on the numbers, unless you are trying to get into sub 1000 foot runways. I'd suggest to try initially at a fixed point say 1000 feet down the runway (if it's long enough) and when you've got the visuals sorted, then try and do the same thing for landing on the numbers.

[booke23]

I've flown both and as already said each have their own good points and bad points....I actually like both types for different reasons.

I would base my decision on what variants are available at your airfield. A PA28 140 is not really a proper 4 seat tourer....with 4 adults on board you'll need to severely limit fuel to stay under MTOW. The same is true for earlier C172 variants.

I'd have a look at the POH for each of the aircraft at your airfield and convert to the one that carries the greatest payload.

[alex90]

Probably best avoided.


Glad someone spotted that! :-) Made my day! Thanks n5296s!

[India Four Two]

Probably best avoided.


I disagree with that. The 172 spins very nicely (in Utility category). I can't remember if any of the PA-28s that I've flown, are approved for spinning- perhaps the 140?

[mary meagher]

Good grief! what a raft of wimps? Alex 90, you at least are a British pilot, presumably. N5296s is an American Pilot, and they don't like spins over there, so took them out of the training syllabus....

After going through stalls, spins, etc etc in glider training, by the time I turned up for my first lesson at the Wycombe Air Centre, and asked especially to fly with the Chief Flying Instructor, he decided as I was a silly old woman, to put me through the experience as I would probably change my mind about learning to fly and so becoming a danger to the public.

A 152 Cessna, approved for these maneuvers, is good for practice.

Proper training at some stage should include stalls and spins, so you recognise the difference between these interesting events and spiral dives, and use the correct recovery. Of course, best practiced at higher altitudes. On your final turn you will not have sufficient height to recover if you get it wrong, and so it could be your final turn.....

I do like the Cessna, if you are worried about seeing conflicting aircraft, lift your wing and look around properly. Same goes for both high and low wings, each has a blind spot relative to the others and so a good lookout is vital. And do remember to fasten your seatbelt and shoulder straps SECURELY!

[nkt2000]

I recall from my training that my instructor and I could not get our C172SP to spin no matter what we tried. It just sorted itself out every time. BTW, I chose to train on a 172 rather than a PA28 Warrior because my instructor said the 172 was more challenging to land properly.

[DirtyProp]

That's my experience as well.
Tried to spin a 172 (version M, if I remember correctly) but the darn thing just kept floating and mushing. Full rudder did the trick, but as soon as you let go it straightened itself out of it.
It's almost spin-proof.

[Ebbie 2003]

I have a PA28.

I learned on a 172.

I found landing the 172 very difficult (and I do mean very); then I bought my PA28 a year and a half after last flying (my test), flew a BFR with an instructor including a few landings and no problem.

So I agree PA28 seems better in landings, especially cross winds.

The PA28 (mine is an Archer) is faster than the 172SP and carries more - not a problem if only one passenger.

The landing thing notwithstanding, I think the 172 more fun to fly.

The 172 is better for passengers and the view out and down is better, the opening window better, the fact of two doors better BUT the most important thing is not having to climb up on the wing to get in, very important for older less agile passengers.

Both are good airplanes though, but if I was learning to fly the 172 every time - better to learn and switch to something easier to land than the other way round.

[alex90]

Ebbie 2003.

I didn't find landing either planes particularly challenging... Yes it feels a little different, the view outside is a little different, the flare is at what appears higher or lower depending on the type (and perhaps interior). But overall they are very docile, and relatively easy to fly planes.

Passengers I have flown seemed rather indifferent to flying in either the 172 or the PA28. I occasionally flew both the same day, and found the split between which passengers liked which plane most depended more so on the comfort of the seats than anything else.

Re: Spins - all the C172s and PA28s that I have flown in the UK have placards stating "Spins Prohibited"... Then the POH states "intentional spins prohibited". I have had spin training in an Extra200 (which was really fun to fly actually - at some point you should give that a go Tobster - so much more fun than the Cessna / Piper / Robin / Beechcraft I have flown thus far for local play...).

[9 lives]

I took don't find either type more or less "difficult to land". It's helpful to remember that landing most tricycle GA planes is best accomplished by arriving on the centerline of the landing surface, flying along the intended path, and positioning the mainwheels a few inches above the surface with nearly no vertical speed, while slowing, and thereafter holding the nose light, and along the centerline, until you need to turn off for a taxiway.

All tricycle 'planes and many taildraggers I can think of will respond well to that. How you manage speed and power will affect where you land, and how far you roll out. Yes, a new pilot is entitled to practice a few to figure out the eye height, gust response, and crosswind handling, but really that's the most of it. I you find that ground affect is really making your landings more or less challenging, you're flying too fast. If you're having trouble figuring out when to close the throttle, you're leaving it too late.

If you fixate on the things which can go wrong, they will become more apparent as they do. If you feel overwhelmed by having to retrim, keep it straight, flare, close the throttle, land, and lower the third wheel all in such a short time, stretch it out, so there is more time between some of those - retrim way back, and leave it alone, power off earlier, third wheel down later. Give yourself some time to enjoy the flare!

[Victorian]

I fly both (-161 vs. 172SP) alternately and can speak with some experience:

In America, the Cessna is King because of the superb sightseeing, not just out of the side windows, but also the one piece wrap around windscreen. And the wonderful FBO people who rush out with their own stepladders to 'top off' your tanks for you before the prop has even stopped turning.

In UK, the -161 is King for the opposite reason: no-one fills your tanks for you, and the low wing means you can watch the fuel rising to the filler and not splash it all over the wing, as seems to happen to me as I'm balanced precariously on some creaky stepladder (or a discarded oil drum in New Zealand, where all stepladders seem to have been concealed out of view of pilots).

A couple of other -161 benefits: in UK, where your family are likely to live if you're a Brit yourself, younger relatives are prone to saying "Ooh, it's just like a real aeroplane" when they first see it, and since flights to anywhere involve crossing the sea, there's an imaginary comfort factor in having the wing between you and the storm tossed whitecaps. And a much bigger luggage area.

And 172 benefits: in America, where en-route altitudes go all the way up to 12,000, a vernier mixture control that really works, in contrast to the lawnmower handle in the -161, and a wing high enough to pass over boulders and mesquite bushes during that emergency landing (itself less likely in the SP due to the absence of a carburettor, since carb ice is blamed for most -161 land outs).

As to actually flying these aircraft: I'm not sure there's any difference at all. The Cessna is slightly better at staying on heading due to pendulum effect, an advantage since the autopilot is inevitably broken in either aircraft.

[9 lives]

and a wing high enough to pass over boulders and mesquite bushes during that emergency landing

Emergency landings notwithstanding, in Canada, we appreciate the high wings for passing over snow banks, a much more common event!

[27/09]

Neither aircraft is hard to land, if you find they are then you're doing it wrong.

For my money the PA28 (the tapered wing versions) teach you to control your approach speed properly as they don't slow as easily with smaller flaps than the C172 and experience more ground effect with the low wing. 5 knots of extra airspeed has a much greater effect in a PA28 than it does in a C172.

Yes you are allowed to spin at least some model C172's when flown in the utility category, but they are a dreadful aeroplane to teach spinning in. You need pro spin aileron and they come out of the spin the minute you relax any control inputs.

[9 lives]

Yes you are allowed to spin at least some model C172's when flown in the utility category, but they are a dreadful aeroplane to teach spinning in. You need pro spin aileron and they come out of the spin the minute you relax any control inputs.

The only 172s which are not permitted spinning, when properly loaded, are the172RG, and float equipped 172's. All others include spinning within their limitations.

172's are not aerobatic aircraft, and were never intended for aerobatic training, thus their tendencies in a spin are optimized for safety, not aggressive or demanding handling (you can't have it both ways). They will spin and recover nicely, with conventional recovery techniques, and are thus adequate for training spins, and certainly far superior for teaching spins to a spins prohibited 'plane! Yes, you can mishandle a 172 into a spin with ailerons, though they will enter and recover nicely with no use of ailerons at all. An unmodified 172 will not recover from a spin until recovery is initiated, though once recovery is initiated, it is rare for aggressive recovery control input to be needed to affect recovery.

[mary meagher]

Yep. They DO teach spins in the Cessna 152 at the Booker Flying outfit at High Wycombe! The CESSNA 152 can be used for spin training, and works very well. Not all variants are approved for this, so ask. And not all instructors are confident or EXPERIENCED ENOUGH to do this training!

Looks well on the way to being a lost art, except in gliders, of course.

But your education is not complete if you avoided what the Wright Brothers called "well digging!".

Story goes that a spin was always fatal, in those early days, because the pilot on seeing the ground rushing up at him, pulled back on the stick like mad.
Until one guy, deciding may as well get over it quickly, moved the stick forward instead.....

It is counterintuitive, you know.

[A le Ron]

Go up in an aerobatic type with an aerobatic instructor, and do some fully developed spinning. You will soon come to love it.

[India Four Two]

Until one guy, deciding may as well get over it quickly, moved the stick forward instead.....Not quite right - Parke's Dive:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Parke

[27/09]

Step Turn: They will spin and recover nicely, with conventional recovery techniques, and are thus adequate for training spins, and certainly far superior for teaching spins to a spins prohibited 'plane! Yes, you can mishandle a 172 into a spin with ailerons, though they will enter and recover nicely with no use of ailerons at all. An unmodified 172 will not recover from a spin until recovery is initiated, though once recovery is initiated, it is rare for aggressive recovery control input to be needed to affect recovery.

I admit my experience with spinning C172's is limited, but the one or two I did try spinning would only spin with pro spin aileron and recovered without any actions other than removing any aileron and rudder inputs. In my opinion they were not worth using to teach spin recovery, so I never wasted my time bothering to use that type again for teaching spin recovery.

Sure they will spin much better with some flap extended but I'm pretty sure flap extension is not permitted for intentional spinning.

Perhaps my limited sample were much better rigged than is usual for the type didn't reflect the general C172 population.

[India Four Two]

27/09,

That's very interesting. I've done spins in at least four 172s and have never had any problem getting them into stable spins, using elevator and rudder only.

I don't remember where the CG was relative to the forward limit, but that can be a significant factor in an aircraft being reluctant to spin. I have extensive spinning experience in Blanik gliders and it was quite noticeable that with a lightweight student in the front seat, the spin was very stable. With a heavyweight (e.g. me) in the front seat, the spin would often turn into a spiral dive, even with the stick back on the stop.