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

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

[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 ).

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...

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 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
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

[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

[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.