silvaire

you make a good point...a plunger might be a better mecahnism for the mech aspects...but the human aspects the throttle quadrant is much nicer...tell me how come cessna twins have the throttle system like piper????

as to struts...anything as slow as a caravan or a cessna 172 really don't lose too much in aerodynamics...but how many people have been hurt falling off the wing struts checking the gas?

and the only way you can check the stall warning is to suck on it...just lift the tab on the piper!

the piper super cub is the ultimate FUN plane and some of its idocyncricies are just part of the fun.

Works without the electrics on in C172 though :)

One of the main advantages of a PA28 is that is has a real direct nosewheel steering, e.g. push the rudder and it turns - without applying differential braking.

Went down to White Waltham today (free landing voucher in this month's Flyer. Me, tight? Nah) and was struck by the amount of low wing stuff and nary a Cessna to be seen; which proves my theory. Being as all southerners are women they were all flying Pipers.

Speaking seriously for a very rare once I was quite impressed with the friendliness of the chap on the radio/manning the office. Didn't catch his name but a credit to WW.

Edit: I might add I arrived in a 28.....:O

Now that we're talking C172s and PA28s in the same thread...

My club, for historic reasons, has a mix of PA28s, C172s and DR400s, plus a few one-offs such as a R2160. Due to various unrelated accidents all our C172s are currently U/S. Two are total loss, and one is currently being repaired after a bounced landing which essentially wrecked the firewall forward and part of the cabin structure.

In the meantime the club is, and has been for a while, looking at buying, leasing or long term renting one or two C172s, but they claim they cannot find any C172 that is available and in decent condition. Something that doesn't seem to be a problem with PA28s or DR400s.

Can anyone confirm or deny that C172s in decent condition are getting few and far between? Are owners hanging onto them, or is the type simply end-of-life?

I agree. I find that plunger throttles are much more comfortable to operate and more intuitive than the awkward lever affair found in later-version PA28s, especially when making power changes on the approach. The oversized handle thing looks as though it should be operated using the palm of the hand however small movements, as necessitated by the short travel of the mechanism, are difficult to make if the throttle is held in this way.

I'd say that the C172 is a better trainer than the PA28 even though the latter is generally a better aeroplane. PA28s breed co-ordination laziness thanks to the aileron-rudder interconnect and the Warrior/Archer is too easy to land to be a good trainer in my opinion.

Agreed, but IMHO the PA-38 is a far better trainer than either of them (or than a 150/152 for that matter). If you can fly a PA-38, the transition to a Cherokee/Warrior is trivial.

flying stone...if the electrics are out , you are right, you lose the stall warning on the piper

but you lose the flaps on the cessna.

hmmmmm

oh, and if you want to really think ahead, the piper arrow has a much nicer system than the comparable cessna retractable...

And on a super cub, which is also a piper, when the electrics are out you lose the radio. That's all. Because that's all there is to lose. No stall warner, mechanical flaps, no navaids on ours, just fun to fly.
Once ran it for six weeks with no functioning generator.
Charged the battery from time to time for starting, as hand swinging with shower of sparks mags is a royal pita.

I couldn't agree more - I really don't see any disadvantage of having a free-fall emergency gear extension.

Both PA28 and C172 are good aircraft, each has its advantages and drawbacks, but if I had to vote it would be PA28. Low wing - excellent visibility (for safety, not for passengers taste), manual flaps, one of the easiest aircraft to land (both straight and tapered wing), no need to use carb heat for normal landing, rudder trim (though I think it's optional in C172), L/R fuel selector*, normal refueling, good RG (PA28R) - it beats C172 in my opinion.

* - when you do fuel balancing on C172 in cruise and forget the selector to L or R and then make turns during the approach, only then you see the real value of L/R fuel selector. Also, when people convert from Cessna or even from two-seats with single tank, they don't have a clue how to use aircraft with L/R fuel selector. They see it as an on/off switch.