Archer II Vs C172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archer II Vs C172
Thinking of getting a 172 rating... issues with getting into the aircraft i'm rated on (38 and 28) its going to be about 600-800 NZD.
Never been too sure about the high wing cousins, anybody got any feeling about the pro's and cons of an Archer vs 172 - i'm talking 180 HP in both.
So far my big con is the vis,.. anybody got any different idea's, i heard the short feild perfromance is better on the 172?
our thoughts would be appreciated
Never been too sure about the high wing cousins, anybody got any feeling about the pro's and cons of an Archer vs 172 - i'm talking 180 HP in both.
So far my big con is the vis,.. anybody got any different idea's, i heard the short feild perfromance is better on the 172?
our thoughts would be appreciated
OK let me start out by saying I fly both types and to date have more hours on type in the 172 than the Pa28.
172
Good for those sightseeing trips you take family and friends on
Great for passengers with mobility issues
Better short field performance than Pa28
Pa28
More stable in flight than 172
Easier to refuel
More room inside than 172
I like flying both types for different reasons because their strengths play to my requirements. If I had to pick one I would probably go with the 172 because it can get into and out of more places than the Pa28 can, but I prefer flying the Pa28.
172
Good for those sightseeing trips you take family and friends on
Great for passengers with mobility issues
Better short field performance than Pa28
Pa28
More stable in flight than 172
Easier to refuel
More room inside than 172
I like flying both types for different reasons because their strengths play to my requirements. If I had to pick one I would probably go with the 172 because it can get into and out of more places than the Pa28 can, but I prefer flying the Pa28.
Moderator
Fly everything you can get your hands on Kiwi. They all have differences, but they're all the same too. Remember, all certified types have passed certification flight testing to the same standards. Those include many places where the design requirement says that flying the aircraft "must not require unusual pilot skill or attention". That means that with a good understanding of the flight manual, a compotent checkout, and application of good flying skills, you should be able to fly most aircraft without difficulty.
The Archer and the 172 do the same job, just a little differently, don't worry yourself about details. Yes the visibility is different, which leaves me preferring a Cessna with skylights over the Piper a little.... The 172 gets better credit for STOL, but perhaps because it is slightly more at home on rough ground. Depending upon which model (30 or 40 flaps), they might get in a little shorter than the Archer, but I doubt they get out much better, and there's not much point getting in, if you can't get out! You're not going into that short a strip anyway I would expect....
I'm primarily a Cessna man (having owned one for 24 years), but Piper are excellent too (as well as many other types). I was reminded though, while doing a flight test on a Navajo yesterday, that I like the way I don't have to worry about the Cessna high wings dragging in the snow banks!
Is 172 a "rating" in NZ? Is it not the "SEP" rating which I read about here, which covers all such types?
The Archer and the 172 do the same job, just a little differently, don't worry yourself about details. Yes the visibility is different, which leaves me preferring a Cessna with skylights over the Piper a little.... The 172 gets better credit for STOL, but perhaps because it is slightly more at home on rough ground. Depending upon which model (30 or 40 flaps), they might get in a little shorter than the Archer, but I doubt they get out much better, and there's not much point getting in, if you can't get out! You're not going into that short a strip anyway I would expect....
I'm primarily a Cessna man (having owned one for 24 years), but Piper are excellent too (as well as many other types). I was reminded though, while doing a flight test on a Navajo yesterday, that I like the way I don't have to worry about the Cessna high wings dragging in the snow banks!
Is 172 a "rating" in NZ? Is it not the "SEP" rating which I read about here, which covers all such types?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 34
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR, here in nz we are type rated for a specific aircraft model, for example I have type ratings for PA28-181, PA34-200T and alpha 160a. It covers 'similar type' so I can fly a PA28-161 and a robin r2160 on those type ratings (I don't think the seneca rating cross references to anything).
STOL performance has come up a couple times so Id just like to raise the topic of propellers, take off performance will vary greatly depending on the propeller fitted to the aircraft. One of the -181 I fly is fitted with a fine pitch prop, cruise is 115ktas and it gets off the ground in next to no time at all. The contrast is another -181 which is fitted with a coarse pitch prop of slightly larger diameter too, this is a totally different beast; it eats close to double the runway the other does and climb performance is about half but in the cruise it is happy at 135ktas which is pretty good for an archer!! Of course landing distance isnt affected the prop but one thing ive noticed with the -181 (and I'm guilty too sometimes) is coming on approach 10kt too fast and this results in a whole lot of floating down the runway. The -181 has good short landing capability (stopped in 100m on grass with bugger all wind) but as with all aircraft its down to technique.
STOL performance has come up a couple times so Id just like to raise the topic of propellers, take off performance will vary greatly depending on the propeller fitted to the aircraft. One of the -181 I fly is fitted with a fine pitch prop, cruise is 115ktas and it gets off the ground in next to no time at all. The contrast is another -181 which is fitted with a coarse pitch prop of slightly larger diameter too, this is a totally different beast; it eats close to double the runway the other does and climb performance is about half but in the cruise it is happy at 135ktas which is pretty good for an archer!! Of course landing distance isnt affected the prop but one thing ive noticed with the -181 (and I'm guilty too sometimes) is coming on approach 10kt too fast and this results in a whole lot of floating down the runway. The -181 has good short landing capability (stopped in 100m on grass with bugger all wind) but as with all aircraft its down to technique.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morrisman is right we don't have the broad categories like you guys in the US/Cananida 
which makes type ratings expensive hobbies (collect em all... if you have the money) although its model based so a PA-28 rating gives you warrior to the non complex archers and dakota's,... anything like an Arrow (CSU and landing gear) requires an additional complex rating if i'm correct?
Morrisman i like the robins alot i flew IN a DR400 when i lived in the UK and that sewed the seed, i just can't bring myseflt to pay 89K for the DR200 thats for sale currently. What are the 200's like they seem to be bigger planes than the tommie but with same HP are they a little underpowered?
As for the 172, im not bush flying (although very used to grass) and i'll save that for my tail dragger rating (which i'm sure i'll get around to, when i want to dent my ego). What are they like in crosswinds? i'm thinking high wing the component has to be less than the 28??
which makes type ratings expensive hobbies (collect em all... if you have the money) although its model based so a PA-28 rating gives you warrior to the non complex archers and dakota's,... anything like an Arrow (CSU and landing gear) requires an additional complex rating if i'm correct?Morrisman i like the robins alot i flew IN a DR400 when i lived in the UK and that sewed the seed, i just can't bring myseflt to pay 89K for the DR200 thats for sale currently. What are the 200's like they seem to be bigger planes than the tommie but with same HP are they a little underpowered?
As for the 172, im not bush flying (although very used to grass) and i'll save that for my tail dragger rating (which i'm sure i'll get around to, when i want to dent my ego). What are they like in crosswinds? i'm thinking high wing the component has to be less than the 28??
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 34
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morrisman i like the robins alot i flew IN a DR400 when i lived in the UK and that sewed the seed, i just can't bring myseflt to pay 89K for the DR200 thats for sale currently. What are the 200's like they seem to be bigger planes than the tommie but with same HP are they a little underpowered?
They don't have quite as much luggage room as a tomahawk but as far as seating room goes Im 6'1" and comfortably fit in.
On the topic of type ratings you can fly a -161 on a -181 rating but not the other way around from what I've been told. Before using the 'similar type' rule I would certainly find out from the authorities just to avoid trouble later on
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
PA28 More room inside than 172
Pray, tell - which mysterious variant of the PA28 are you flying ??
PA28 More room inside than 172
Pray, tell - which mysterious variant of the PA28 are you flying ??
My two cents - I did all my training and most of my flying until recently in PA28 (140, 151, 161, & 181) and a few months got a 172 rating. I have to say I love flying the 172, not that it's better or worse or anything, it's just different and a change. The downward vis is a huge bonus
NZ Ratings - Morrisman is correct. Rating go down not up - a 140 rating doesn't give you a 161 but a 181 rating does.......
Moderator
NZ Ratings - Morrisman is correct. Rating go down not up - a 140 rating doesn't give you a 161 but a 181 rating does.......
Years ago I spied the beautiful Bellanca Viking (there are less than 10 in Canada) newly in a client's hangar. I jokingly said to him "if that ever needs a fly, let me know...". The reply came back to me, "as a matter of fact, it does need a run, so take it up, and get used to it, 'cause I'll need you to check out a low time pilot/new owner in it next week". No type rating involved.
The aforementioned is not new for me, many of the types I have flown, I checked myself out in, as there was no one around to ride with me, much less give me a type rating! In Canada all helicopters are type rated, I believe principally because their autorotation characterisitics can be quite different.
If I were bound by the rating system presented in this thread, I'd be off to the authority to ask why? All the [certified] aircraft are certified to the same standards, why would one light aircraft be significantly different from the other - beyond what the flight manual might tell you about it?
Too much government?
I had never heard that NZ ratings go down the series but not up, so I did a bit of checking, and AC61-10 states:
So it seems that it is entirely up to the instructor giving you the type rating as to what aircraft you can and cannot fly. For example, my license has Pa28 181 and Pa28R 200 on it, so the law as written suggests I cannot legally fly a 140 or 161 as PIC. If you have Pa28 on your license you are good to go up and down the range.
Similar aircraft types
Rule 61.55(d) allows for an aircraft type rating to include any other aircraft, if in the opinion of the qualified flight instructor, the type is so similar as to require no further conversion instruction or type competency demonstration. The flight instructor must endorse the logbook with the type and submit to the Director a certified copy of the logbook entry.
The decision on similar type is entirely the responsibility of the qualified flight instructor who is current on type and conversant with the experience and ability of the candidate.
Rule 61.55(d) allows for an aircraft type rating to include any other aircraft, if in the opinion of the qualified flight instructor, the type is so similar as to require no further conversion instruction or type competency demonstration. The flight instructor must endorse the logbook with the type and submit to the Director a certified copy of the logbook entry.
The decision on similar type is entirely the responsibility of the qualified flight instructor who is current on type and conversant with the experience and ability of the candidate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahh this makes no sense, so i did my PA28 rating in a 181 (Archer II) so i can fly the Warrior but not the Dak then? but only if my instructor thinks i can? News to me, as it was explained it was an airframe thing until you get to complex stuff.
I can see why you would want a check ride and a few hours tuition with some WB stuff going from 28 to 172 (which really all a rating is) the POH will be fairly different, new systems to learn. where as the systems on a 28 probebly wont differ so much between variants??? streching how much i know about this stuff here..
I can see why you would want a check ride and a few hours tuition with some WB stuff going from 28 to 172 (which really all a rating is) the POH will be fairly different, new systems to learn. where as the systems on a 28 probebly wont differ so much between variants??? streching how much i know about this stuff here..
Guest
Posts: n/a
To be honest I'm only going on what I was told by my instructor. I had a 140 rating and then 'needed' to do a rating for the 181 which, he said, would also cover me for the 161 too........
I did PPL in the UK and CPL here (NZ) - like others I prefer the 'type of aircraft' rating i.e SEP system as apposed to the 'type of engine' rating i.e. 140, 151, 161, 181, 172 system employed here.
I did PPL in the UK and CPL here (NZ) - like others I prefer the 'type of aircraft' rating i.e SEP system as apposed to the 'type of engine' rating i.e. 140, 151, 161, 181, 172 system employed here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also liking the double doors in the C172! forgot that bit...
So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?
So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?
Moderator
Far be it from me to challenge the New Zealand pilot licensing authority, but this type rating for single engine Pipers and Cessnas sounds like a way of masking for inadequate pilot training. A properly trained and informed pilot should be able to safely fly aircraft of similar types, without a formal demonstration of skill in each type.
Why are we testers and approvers of aircraft, going to such effort to assure design compliance with the common standards, if the licensing regulator is going to bypass our efforts, and require specialized training anyway? This is better managed by the insurers of the aircraft, who will consider more factors in a pilot's skill and experience.
Part of the problem might be found in:
Lots of pilots being "heard" to express their opinions on the characterisitcs of different aircraft types, where all of these aircraft have demonstrated compliance with the handling requirements. Yes, some do fly "better" or "differently" than others, but they all meet the minimum requirements. They're not that different! I opine that you might see more difference in characterisitcs in the PA 28 when flying it a gross weight forward C of G, compared to light weight aft C of G, than you'd experience between similarly loaded PA 28's and 172's. Yes secondary controls and design philosophies vary, but that's why you read the flight manual.
I think it unlikely that pilots will commonly fly these aircraft with such skill, or in consistant conditions, so as to notice the nuances of crosswind handling in each.
In general, don't worry yourself, read the flight manual, and go and enjoy the aircraft. Enjoy the differences, but don't worry that they are so great that you will not be able to manage them if you are paying attention and applying your skills.
That being said, additional training is appropriate for tricycle pilots, who are planning to fly taildraggers.
Why are we testers and approvers of aircraft, going to such effort to assure design compliance with the common standards, if the licensing regulator is going to bypass our efforts, and require specialized training anyway? This is better managed by the insurers of the aircraft, who will consider more factors in a pilot's skill and experience.
Part of the problem might be found in:
So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?
I think it unlikely that pilots will commonly fly these aircraft with such skill, or in consistant conditions, so as to notice the nuances of crosswind handling in each.
In general, don't worry yourself, read the flight manual, and go and enjoy the aircraft. Enjoy the differences, but don't worry that they are so great that you will not be able to manage them if you are paying attention and applying your skills.
That being said, additional training is appropriate for tricycle pilots, who are planning to fly taildraggers.
So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?
Seriously, the 172 does not have the direct nose wheel steering linkages that the Pa28 and a lot of other aircraft have. Instead it has some sort of indirect elastic bungy type linkage (not factually correct but it certainly feels like it). The result is that the steering response is not as sharp nor as accurate as you may be used to. You get accustomed to it fairly quickly however.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the differential braking similar to the C152, if so i found this to be very effective. i did find the turning circle without braking to be much wider that the PA28.
Moderator
The steering of Cessnas can take a bit of getting used to, when you're fresh off a Piper. Yes, there are springs in there. This permits the nosewheel to not turn in flight with the application of rudder. It also insulates the rudder control system, and pilot's feet, from shocks from rough ground, or nosewheel shimmy. Yes, without differential braking, the Cessnas may have a larger turn radius, but it is managable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
sounds like a way of masking for inadequate pilot training. A properly trained and informed pilot should be able to safely fly aircraft of similar types, without a formal demonstration of skill in each type.
From personal experience I'm glad I did a couple of rounds with an instructor in the 172 after flying nothing but Pipers. I found it very different in most respects, particularly how slow you can get the suckers before the stall, how slow you have to get them before they'll land and how freakin far they glide - I was gob smacked (in comparison to the 140 flying brick)....... This is not to say of course that I didn't possess the competency just that it was good to be able to draw on experience (in this case an instructor) during my first hours in a Cessna - I'm not too big of a man to turn down knowledge from one more knowledgeable then myself.
Just on a note re pilot training - it is my understanding that in general pilots trained in New Zealand are held in high regard. I've trained in the UK and NZ and found both countries to be very high quality and safety focused.
Last edited by HercFeend; 18th Feb 2011 at 01:37.
Moderator
I agree that perhaps it is a cash grab, but the regulator really should not be perpetuating it. I would not speak to the skill level of any one nationality relative to another, it would be totally unsupportable generalization, and of no value. Instead, it is probably fair to point out that a compotent pilot, with adequate review and understanding of the flight manual, and perhaps a briefing, should be able to safely fly any aircraft of the same "type". My experience getting "checked out" has generally been pretty dissapointing. I have not seen a demonstration of the skill set I would expect of a flying instructor. Some know their limitations, and say so, others have alarmed me with their innocence, yet attitude!
If we hold the hand and baby every pilot into thinking that they cannot figure things out for themselves, because we had to show them, a whole layer of self confidence will be stiffled. Pilots need to feel the rush of "Oooo, can I do this?" from time to time, to keep them sharp. If a compotent PA 28 pilot cannot get a 172 safely back on the ground without supervision, I'm worried....
I assert that a flight which is going wrong in the PA 28, could demand much greater skill and versitility in the pilot, that the transition to the 172.
I'll be thinking about this, as I have to go and test fly a PA 28-161 for an approval, in a month or so, and it's probably been 20 years since I have flown one. I'm confident that I will manage safely.....
If we hold the hand and baby every pilot into thinking that they cannot figure things out for themselves, because we had to show them, a whole layer of self confidence will be stiffled. Pilots need to feel the rush of "Oooo, can I do this?" from time to time, to keep them sharp. If a compotent PA 28 pilot cannot get a 172 safely back on the ground without supervision, I'm worried....
I assert that a flight which is going wrong in the PA 28, could demand much greater skill and versitility in the pilot, that the transition to the 172.
I'll be thinking about this, as I have to go and test fly a PA 28-161 for an approval, in a month or so, and it's probably been 20 years since I have flown one. I'm confident that I will manage safely.....