C172 V Cherokee
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok boys lets keep it nioce please
Not keen on anything that's more complexe than it needs to be for basic casual flying, IE R/G, don't need the extra headache for a few knots more. Am in no hurry to be anywhere these days. At my age it's a pleasure just getting there !
Actually I would buy a PA18 Cub but it's a little too slow & can't carry enough, great plane for shear fun tho!
Some are comparing the Archer with the C172, that's not the same really. The Archer although a great load carrier & a good all round performer has more gee gees than the stock Cessna so the tapered wing Cherokee Warrior is the match I believe.
'walrus 7' you bring good points to the chat here, tnxs.
CW
Not keen on anything that's more complexe than it needs to be for basic casual flying, IE R/G, don't need the extra headache for a few knots more. Am in no hurry to be anywhere these days. At my age it's a pleasure just getting there !
Actually I would buy a PA18 Cub but it's a little too slow & can't carry enough, great plane for shear fun tho!
Some are comparing the Archer with the C172, that's not the same really. The Archer although a great load carrier & a good all round performer has more gee gees than the stock Cessna so the tapered wing Cherokee Warrior is the match I believe.
'walrus 7' you bring good points to the chat here, tnxs.
CW
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't waste your money on a 20, but you would on a 22, however most of us don't have that kind of cash.
Surprised everyone is stuck in the dark ages talking about 172's and other corroding metal crap boxes. It's the 21st Century and there's heaps of other options out there.
Most of the newer plastic stuff at MTOW will out perform your 172's and the like, empty.
Surprised everyone is stuck in the dark ages talking about 172's and other corroding metal crap boxes. It's the 21st Century and there's heaps of other options out there.
Most of the newer plastic stuff at MTOW will out perform your 172's and the like, empty.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone mentioned the Arrow? Certainly not the IV. Man the Arrow IV is the ****est aircraft I've flown. Many a hairy moment with a stude at the controls on a hot day in crosswind...Glad to see the back of its stupid T-tail.
I'd buy a C172. Easier to get in and out, easier to spin and theres a million 172 spare parts lying around.
I'd buy a C172. Easier to get in and out, easier to spin and theres a million 172 spare parts lying around.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX,
Yes, the "plastic fantastics" will out perform the traditional metal skins in terms of speed, but they don't cope so well with goat-track runways ... and there are a hell of a lot of those in the outback! It is so easy to crack spats and tail cones. I actually drew a comment from the Cirrus distributor a couple of years ago that they really are a sealed runway aeroplane. No nosewheel steering doesn't help when you're trying to keep her straight on shifting gravel, either.
And these days the wing area is much smaller, resulting in a higher wing loading and less lift for airspeed. In that aspect, a very important one on short gravel runways, the Archers and C172s of the world leave the plastics for dead.
Walrus
Yes, the "plastic fantastics" will out perform the traditional metal skins in terms of speed, but they don't cope so well with goat-track runways ... and there are a hell of a lot of those in the outback! It is so easy to crack spats and tail cones. I actually drew a comment from the Cirrus distributor a couple of years ago that they really are a sealed runway aeroplane. No nosewheel steering doesn't help when you're trying to keep her straight on shifting gravel, either.
And these days the wing area is much smaller, resulting in a higher wing loading and less lift for airspeed. In that aspect, a very important one on short gravel runways, the Archers and C172s of the world leave the plastics for dead.
Walrus
From an engineering perspective a cherokee will be a tad more expensive to maintain than a cessna,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tnxs 27/09 that's exactly the sort of info I'm after. Although there are pro & cons to all makes & models.
'strim' same thing with the "T" lance, hot day full load = UGLY ! Out of YMEN for Eg one would hope that they have their "E-Tag" paid up for the FWY can be handy for extra TODA
CW
'strim' same thing with the "T" lance, hot day full load = UGLY ! Out of YMEN for Eg one would hope that they have their "E-Tag" paid up for the FWY can be handy for extra TODA
CW
It's many moons since I flew either, but what I remember. All of the older Pipers I looked at appeared to have corrosion proofing (looked like zinc chromate) done at the factory. Maybe some LAME's out there could comment. Also, I found the low wing Pipers were better in really strong crosswinds but maybe that's just 'cos back then I was a student. The Cherokee wing span is less than the Cessna, which could influence where you hangar it.
strim - allow me to elaborate... the straight tail, naturally aspirated PA-28R-201 Arrow III is my personal favourite piston single
Capt Wally - Have you had a word to the local engineers? They often know which models are plagued with problems, and which ones are fecking awesome!
Capt Wally - Have you had a word to the local engineers? They often know which models are plagued with problems, and which ones are fecking awesome!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes am starting to go beyond just asking here 'cap'n Arrr'. I know a few LAME's but wanted to ask real owners their opinions first. So far it's more a personal choice as far as looks go 'cause out of the two (C172 & Cherokee) their similar in many ways. Might & I say this loosly might go for an Archer (beyond my original concept here) if I can find a good one at a fair price. I've done about 700 hrs on Cessna singles & about 200 or so on Cherokee's so am comfy in either. I plan to do some outback touring so the Cessna might be good for shade & viewing but like the ruggedness of the stumpy low wing. Decisions decisions!
CW
CW
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a maintenance side of things each type has pro's and cons.
Early 172's( 1960's), as mentioned earlier, do appear to fair better as far as corrosion is concerned. Possibly due to worldwide alluminium quality during the 70's being low as quite a few aircraft manufactured during this decade have very severe corrion issues. (P68's, beech spar caps and the M,N,P 172's to name a few).
The old 0-300 that these beasts are coupled to is a downside, they seem to convert fuel to noise and not much else but the upside to this is it's reflected in the aqquistion price. Manual flap on the A-D models eliminates the flap motor problems aswell as allowing for the aformentioned 'boost'of lift as the fence approches!!!!
Early cherrokee's(stub wing) have their issues as well. Lack of inspection panels in the wings can mean that corrosion in the main spar is invisible unless the fuel tanks are removed. This is a must when carrying out a pre-purchase on these early models. The shorter wing also struggles a bit on a hot day and glides like a brick with the power off.
All cherokees and in fact all pipers(not so the new ones) have steel fittings riveted to bare alluminium which makes for very nasty corrosion if not inhibited regularly.
My advice is the money spent on a thorough Pre-purchase by an experienced LAME known by you or recomended by someone you trust is money in the bank when the first 100hrly rolls around as you wont have bought a bucket of bolts and any issues there are can be expected and planned for.
JS
Early 172's( 1960's), as mentioned earlier, do appear to fair better as far as corrosion is concerned. Possibly due to worldwide alluminium quality during the 70's being low as quite a few aircraft manufactured during this decade have very severe corrion issues. (P68's, beech spar caps and the M,N,P 172's to name a few).
The old 0-300 that these beasts are coupled to is a downside, they seem to convert fuel to noise and not much else but the upside to this is it's reflected in the aqquistion price. Manual flap on the A-D models eliminates the flap motor problems aswell as allowing for the aformentioned 'boost'of lift as the fence approches!!!!
Early cherrokee's(stub wing) have their issues as well. Lack of inspection panels in the wings can mean that corrosion in the main spar is invisible unless the fuel tanks are removed. This is a must when carrying out a pre-purchase on these early models. The shorter wing also struggles a bit on a hot day and glides like a brick with the power off.
All cherokees and in fact all pipers(not so the new ones) have steel fittings riveted to bare alluminium which makes for very nasty corrosion if not inhibited regularly.
My advice is the money spent on a thorough Pre-purchase by an experienced LAME known by you or recomended by someone you trust is money in the bank when the first 100hrly rolls around as you wont have bought a bucket of bolts and any issues there are can be expected and planned for.
JS
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Vegas
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captn Wally,
The Grumman Cheetah/Tiger series are sensational to fly and very reasonable to maintain if you're open to straying from the vanilla flavoured cessnas/pipers. Expect about 50K for a Cheetah and 70+ for the Tiger (70s models).
All the best on the purchase and it would be great to get updates on the process. I dare say there are many of us who are also keen to dip the toe eventually, despite the well worn three f's theory!
The Grumman Cheetah/Tiger series are sensational to fly and very reasonable to maintain if you're open to straying from the vanilla flavoured cessnas/pipers. Expect about 50K for a Cheetah and 70+ for the Tiger (70s models).
All the best on the purchase and it would be great to get updates on the process. I dare say there are many of us who are also keen to dip the toe eventually, despite the well worn three f's theory!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who in their right mind would want a plastic plane? talk about no longevity! The old cessna's & pipers might be old & tired but their still going after 40 yrs or so. Shall see where the fiberglass 'toy's are in 40 yrs time, I'd say at the bottom of the tip ! Capt wally stick with the known, there are very good reasons as to why the likes of Cessna & Piper haven't gone down the rd of plastic & fiberglass for major structual sub assemblies as they could have years ago!
Yp simply can't beat a Piper & Cessna, their easy to repair, almost anybody with basic skills can fix 'em, fiberglass & plastic require special skills, don't do it CW The PA28 is a no vice plane & would still give many years service & even at 40 yrs of age unlike today's 'toys'
No doubt some shall get their noses out of joint with what I wrote above (personal opinions is all it is) but none of the above is directed at anyone one person, shall see how quickly the nasty ones amongst us respond here!
F
Yp simply can't beat a Piper & Cessna, their easy to repair, almost anybody with basic skills can fix 'em, fiberglass & plastic require special skills, don't do it CW
The PA28 is a no vice plane & would still give many years service & even at 40 yrs of age unlike today's 'toys'No doubt some shall get their noses out of joint with what I wrote above (personal opinions is all it is) but none of the above is directed at anyone one person, shall see how quickly the nasty ones amongst us respond here!
F
To twist your words slightly, who in their right mind would want a forty-year old plane? Old and tired is not a good point!
I'll take a modern, composite aircraft any day over an old, tired model of 40 years ago. I drive a modern car, and trade it in every few years when needed, so I don't see what the advantage is to struggling along with ancient technology.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally - check yer PMs.
Horses for courses - personally have a few hundred hours in each (the C172 and the PA28) and prefer the Archer. First solo was in a 172.
Horses for courses - personally have a few hundred hours in each (the C172 and the PA28) and prefer the Archer. First solo was in a 172.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Las' next time yr wondering around a typical flight line at a modern flying school take a look at what's there lined up by the zillions (figure of speech) NOT plastic planes that's for sure ! Oh their there alright a few of them but for one single reason only "COST"!!!! If they where half as good as you reckon & others then there would be few if any old Cessna's & Cherokees' about, but there aint & for good reason. The Jumbo Jet Capt's of todays learnt in them (proper planes) & so they will for many years yet!
Plastic & fiberglass has it's place, in 'toy' planes !
F
Plastic & fiberglass has it's place, in 'toy' planes !
F
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hahahhahah good point there Lasiorhinus, I just saw what Flyitboy wrote but even tho the future is just that modern materials for now I think that the old 'buckets' will be around for a while yet!
CW
CW
Cheap C172??
Hello Capt Wally,
Aye Aye Capt,
Have a look at 'Collision At Northam' by 'Unctuous' a bit further down the page.....
Could be very 'cheep' 172 going for the sake of a port mainplane, strut, u/c and associated fuselage damage...........
Price would be well under 'budget', and like the 'Commonwealth Bank'....they're everywhere...
Just a thought.......
And, yep. You get to fly 'in the shade'.....
Griffo..
Aye Aye Capt,
Have a look at 'Collision At Northam' by 'Unctuous' a bit further down the page.....
Could be very 'cheep' 172 going for the sake of a port mainplane, strut, u/c and associated fuselage damage...........
Price would be well under 'budget', and like the 'Commonwealth Bank'....they're everywhere...
Just a thought.......
And, yep. You get to fly 'in the shade'.....
Griffo..
Cessna C172N, seemed to be plagued with corrosion and had that horrible Lycoming engine that had some nasty AD's and poor engine life.
Cessna C172M, seemed to be a better aircraft all round.
Still plenty of the C172's with manual flap around from the early 1960's.
Piper's used to fly one of the original PA-28/140's in this country and never showed any sign of corrosion and it would well over 40 years old.
The old PA-28/180 always looked a good performer.
Pays to ask around, i know a guy who acquired a very nice one owner PA-28/180 that was bought knew in the sixties and the old guy used it on the farm and then when he lost his medical it was pushed into the farm shed and there it sat until the owner moved to the big airfield upstairs.
Cessna C172M, seemed to be a better aircraft all round.
Still plenty of the C172's with manual flap around from the early 1960's.
Piper's used to fly one of the original PA-28/140's in this country and never showed any sign of corrosion and it would well over 40 years old.
The old PA-28/180 always looked a good performer.
Pays to ask around, i know a guy who acquired a very nice one owner PA-28/180 that was bought knew in the sixties and the old guy used it on the farm and then when he lost his medical it was pushed into the farm shed and there it sat until the owner moved to the big airfield upstairs.