C172 v PA28 Archer

[Toppers]

Does anyone out there have concrete evidence on which will perform better in terms of groundroll for take off, short field performance etc.

[loglickychops]

Try the New Piper Aircraft Co. and Cessna

[Final 3 Greens]

Toppers

There are different versions of the PA28 Archer and the C172 that have different specs and different performance - e.g. PA28-180 non taper wing Archer and PA28-181 Archer 2/3.

Cessna have used three engines in the mainstream C172 (Contintental 145HP, Lycoming 160HP and derated Lycoming IO-360 160HP fuel injected in the current version) as well as the other derivatives such as the Hawk XP, the Reims Rocket and the Cutlass.

You need to compare the actual models in question to get the data, but in general terms (having flown both) my opinion is that the C172 has better field performance.

Hope this helps.

[Kermit 180]

Agree with Final 3 Greens. C172 for short field performance, Piper Archer series for cruising.

Kermie

[Toppers]

My apologies for being vague, I meant the C172R and the PA28 Archer II for the comparison.

[Chilli Monster]

Flown both

Archer wins on speed, C172 on short field performance and economy.

CM

[Final 3 Greens]

Toppers

This link gives you info on the C172R
http://skyhawk.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml

This link gives info about the PA28-181 Archer III (the II is not current)
http://www.newpiper.com/aircraft/line.htm

F3G