Cessna 172 vs PA28
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Near mme
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by rotornut; 21st Aug 2007 at 10:00.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The throttle on the PA28 is enough alone to prefer it, they don't just look better but are so much easier to use.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Middlesex, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'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
