172N or PA28-140?

[eMKay]

I have a choice of these two for training, the club has two other planes I can use after I'm done, they are Archers. Would it make more sense to train in the Cherokee then? Or just spit time in both?

 

[poadeleted20]

If you plan to fly the Archers rather than the 172 after you get your license, then training in the Cherokee makes more sense due to similarities. Since the Cherokee is probably cheaper than the 172, that's another advantage. However, doing all the training in the 172 and then transitioning to the Archer wouldn't be a big deal, just less efficient than going Cherokee->Archer. The one thing that does not make sense is splitting the training between two different airplanes -- horses and streams, and all that.

 

[vontresc]

I learned in a Cherokee 140, and it's a great trainer. In some ways it's almost too easy to fly. Once you get your license it would be good to get checked out in the 172 as well, just to experience a different airframe, but as Ron points out, stick with one plane during your training.

 

[Bob Noel]

I learned in two different types, the 172 and the 161. It was my CFII's suggestion to add the 161, which we used after I solo'd. She would often have her students fly them both. One reason was that it made it a little easier to schedule aircraft as then we could use either the 172 or 161.

It was no big deal to fly them both.

edit: I'd buy a ticket to the show where Cap'n Ron tries to tell my instructor why what she did doesn't make any sense.

 

[jesse]

I'd go with the 172 - it actually has a soul and requires you learn what rudder is.

140s are terribly underpowered and not nearly as fun to fly IMO.

 

[poadeleted20]

140s are terribly underpowered

Let's see -- 2150 lb over 150HP or 2300 lb over 160 HP -- which one has the better power loading?

 

[Tom-D]

If the CFI is teaching good stick and rudder tactics why does it matter which aircraft you are in.

 

[MSPAviator]

I'd pick the 172. Better view of the ground. If you want to learn stick & rudder skills, you gotta fly a taildragger.

 

[Arbiter419]

I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently. I don't mean to say it's underpowered, but it would do nicely with a 180hp engine. And the rudder thing is true, you don't need to do much with them in a Cherokee.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently.

The 160HP Warrior III grosses out at 2440 lb, for a power loading of 15.25 lb/HP, which is definitely worse than the C-172N's 14.38. But the 140 Cherokee's 14.33 easily beats the Warrior III and better than matches the 172. The earlier 1950-lb MGW 140's are all the way down to 13.0 lb/HP.

 

[Pilawt]

The 160HP Warrior III grosses out at 2440 lb, for a power loading of 15.25 lb/HP, which is definitely worse than the C-172N's 14.38. But the 140 Cherokee's 14.33 easily beats the Warrior III and better than matches the 172.

A PA-28-140 and a PA-28-161 (or 172N) are apples-and-oranges. Wing loading, aspect ratio and airfoil are other relevant variables which make the Warrior and 172 better climbers than the PA-28-140 for a given horsepower.

Given the choice of a PA-28-140 (150 hp at 2150 lb) or a C-172N (160 hp at 2300 lb), and if takeoff and climb performance were the criterion, I'd take the C-172N without hesitation. The Warrior's wing (five feet longer, 10 sq ft more area, and modified airfoil in the outer panels) puts it right on a par with the 172.

The Cherokee 140 does have its virtues, such as lower initial investment, better front seat room, better inflight visibility, better standard fuel capacity and range. But head-to-head I think the 172 is a better trainer. It's often said that the Cherokee is too easy to fly to be an optimal trainer. It's likely a bit more difficult to transition from a Cherokee to a 172 later on than it would be to train in a 172 from the get-go and then move to a Cherokee.

The earlier 1950-lb MGW 140's are all the way down to 13.0 lb/HP.

Actually 13.9 lb/hp, because the engines of those aircraft were de-rated to 140 hp (2450 rpm). They were sold strictly as two-seaters and did well in that role.

 

[Graueradler]

If you are going to be flying Pipers, it makes more sense to train in a Piper. Any mix you want to make is do-able and not really a big challenge. I'm a Piper person. I don't necessarily think Pipers are better but I'm more familiar with them. My hands just know where to go. I don't have to think about where a particular knob or lever is. I have no problem flying a Cessna but I have to stop and think to locate whatever control (outside of yoke and rudder) I need to use.

I do think that simpler is more reliable and do not understand why Cessna went away from the Johnson bar flap control to a more complicated electro-mechanical arrangement with more failure possibilities.

The Piper wider main gear stance and low wing also make it less sensitive to wind handling problems when on the ground. The Piper nose gear also seems to be able to withstand more abuse than the Cessna.

Maybe I do think that Pipers are better

 

[jesse]

Let's see -- 2150 lb over 150HP or 2300 lb over 160 HP -- which one has the better power loading?

The Cherokee 140 still seems terribly underpowered when you fly the two and compare them. I think the Cherokee 180 feels more like the 172N. Perhaps it's just an illusion. Or my Cessna preference

 

[vontresc]

Maybe it's just that ****ty Cherokee 180 you're stuck with

 

[jesse]

Maybe it's just that ****ty Cherokee 180 you're stuck with

It's not that bad.

 

[Jim_R]

I'd make my choices based on:

• Cost
• Dispatch reliability (is one constantly down for maintenance?)
• Schedule availability (is one consistently in higher demand?)

You can't train if the plane's not available, for whatever reason. Training's expensive...do what you can to minimize cost.

Either aircraft will be suitable for learning how to fly. There's really no compelling reason to prefer one or the other based on airframe alone. If you know for 100% sure what you're going to be flying after you get your ticket and cost/availability is the same between your choices, then it makes sense to train in the Warrior and "graduate" to the Archer.

However, Cessnas are generally more common in rental fleets, so if you go elsewhere that's what's likely to be available. That said, it's pretty easy to get checked out in a different plane, so that's not a showstopper either.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They're not terribly different from each other, BUT...

I learned in a Cherokee 140, and it's a great trainer. In some ways it's almost too easy to fly.

But head-to-head I think the 172 is a better trainer. It's often said that the Cherokee is too easy to fly to be an optimal trainer. It's likely a bit more difficult to transition from a Cherokee to a 172 later on than it would be to train in a 172 from the get-go and then move to a Cherokee.

Right on - And because of that, I'd go with the 172. The Cherokee will allow you to develop more bad habits. The 172 will really teach you how to fly. And going from a 172 to a Cherokee 140 or an Archer will probably be a simple, one-flight checkout after you get your ticket. Not necessarily so in the other direction.

The C172 makes a damn fine trainer - And that's a major reason why there have been so many of them built, and why an awful lot of people - Probably the vast majority in the last 20-30 years - have trained on them. They're easy enough, but they're also *just* hard enough to teach you the right things.

 

[Graueradler]

I agree that the Cherokee 140 (150HP) is a bit weak kneed for summertime in the South at gross weight. That is why I regularly used a Vx take off under those conditions to get as much altitude as possible before clearing the air field. When the engine was rebuilt, I went to 160 HP and also did the Art Mattson prop tip mod. 4 inches more pitch on the prop and still turning red line at WOT straight and level. No more concerns with summertime take offs.

 

[Henning]

Same-same... I'd choose depending on which criteria is more important to you, cost or quality of equipment. My personal choice would be quality of the plane. If that happens to be the 172, I'd choose that, and then maybe rent the Warrior for a dual cross country. That'll be a good work load flight and it'll serve for some check out time as well.

Yes, it will make for a more difficult flight in that there will be a lot for you to learn and do in preparation for it as well as during, that is a good thing. It will provide you with a sample of what it is to be a renter pilot, get the most training value that you can for your training dollar. Work hard, study hard and fly frequently. Demand more than the PTS, from yourself and your instructor. You can get a much better value than "minimums". I hate seeing the argument that backs the "easiest" or "cheapest" way. I like seeing people get best value for their dollar spent. I see the best value to you most likely being in training in the 172 so you are fully competent to do a 1 hour standard checkout where ever you go, and do a dual XC in the Warrior because that will both introduce the different airplane procedures (Here's a BIG HINT, use that checklist card as your base reference) and cross country procedures in the same flight. You will have to work harder in order to maximize your value and you can experience it and prove to yourself that you can do this. It can also serve as your Warrior checkout flight for that place for after you get your license. I was checkout in 150/152s, 172s, 172RG, 182, PA28-161, 180 and 200R in the 40hrs it took me to get my PPL. I also was checked out in a 285hp Navion and had flown quite a few unloggable hours with an old QB UFO.

The neat thing is you can rent planes in much of the world, and the 172 is the most highly available world wide by a very large margin with the PA-28 series being the next up. The DA-20s and 40s are building in the market as well, but have a ways to catch up.

Don't fall into the trap of doing as little as you can to pass, it will not serve you best. Will it cost a few extra dollars in the short run? Possibly, but no necessarily. It all depends on how well you prepare yourself. If you go sit in the plane on the ramp for an hour or two with the POH and go through all the checklists and familiarize yourself with the cockpit, and if it has a GPS unit you don't know, look through the manual or if it has a 430/530, download the demo and simulator. Know the airplane before you get in it to fly. Work hard, study hard, fly easy, learn it.

Don't be lazy training, and don't be cheap. You life depends on it.

 

[SkyHog]

Real pilots fly Cherokees. 172s are for students. Starting with the Cherokee puts you ahead of the game.

But that might just be my preference leaking through.

 

[poadeleted20]

The Cherokee will allow you to develop more bad habits. The 172 will really teach you how to fly.

I've flown and taught in a lot of 172's and Cherokees, and there just ain't that much difference between them as trainers. They're pretty much equally forgiving of sloppy technique.

 

[jesse]

I've flown and taught in a lot of 172's and Cherokees, and there just ain't that much difference between them as trainers. They're pretty much equally forgiving of sloppy technique.

The 172 has greater adverse yaw. It also requires more effort towards keeping the nosewheel up on landing (Cherokee pretty much falls down as soon as the main's touch). A smooth landing tends to be a little harder as well.

I think the 150 is an even greater challenge to fly since it's under powered and light. You get bounced around a lot more in a crosswind requiring faster corrections.

It is also a sin to stick an adult in the back of a Cherokee. There is just no legroom. 172 has plenty. The archer helped with this problem.

 

[Henning]

I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently. I don't mean to say it's underpowered, but it would do nicely with a 180hp engine. And the rudder thing is true, you don't need to do much with them in a Cherokee.

The best PA 28 I ever flew was the 180R. Marty Bevill had one that was 5 knots faster than any 200R I had ever flown, and we were loaded, 3 of us and my not insignificant luggage from FL to IN.

BTW, every plane outside of an unmodified Ercoupe requires the use of rudder to be flown properly. Next time you go up, fly straight ahead using only the rudder pedals to keep the wings level. Do that in turbulence some time as well.

Every time you apply pressure to the ailerons, you should be applying pressure to the rudder as well. Even if you don't notice the need for it in the front seat, believe that the people in the back seat will appreciate it. Personally I always lead with rudder pressure. If I can catch the wing with just a tap of rudder, then that's all it gets. Once I have light pressure in the rudder then I start tipping in aileron. I do this whether I'm turning or just flying along straight.

 

[SkyHog]

The 172 has greater adverse yaw. It also requires more effort towards keeping the nosewheel up on landing (Cherokee pretty much falls down as soon as the main's touch). A smooth landing tends to be a little harder as well.

I think the 150 is an even greater challenge to fly since it's under powered and light. You get bounced around a lot more in a crosswind requiring faster corrections.

It is also a sin to stick an adult in the back of a Cherokee. There is just no legroom. 172 has plenty. The archer helped with this problem.

If you ever sit in the backseat of a Mooney, you'll be VERY happy to go back to the backseat of a Cherokee. lol

 

[vontresc]

It is also a sin to stick an adult in the back of a Cherokee. There is just no legroom. 172 has plenty. The archer helped with this problem.

Hehe I wish I had know that before I put my 6'5" friend in the back of the 140

Another difference between the 140 and the 172 is in power on stall. The 140 will more or less just buffett. You hat to pretty much do an accelerated stall to get it to break. I learned about that difference in my 172 checkout when it broke with the ball more or less all the way to one side

 

[nosehair]

train to solo in the 172, do the x/c and PP prep in the cherokee.

 

[Arbiter419]

The best PA 28 I ever flew was the 180R. Marty Bevill had one that was 5 knots faster than any 200R I had ever flown, and we were loaded, 3 of us and my not insignificant luggage from FL to IN.

BTW, every plane outside of an unmodified Ercoupe requires the use of rudder to be flown properly. Next time you go up, fly straight ahead using only the rudder pedals to keep the wings level. Do that in turbulence some time as well.

Every time you apply pressure to the ailerons, you should be applying pressure to the rudder as well. Even if you don't notice the need for it in the front seat, believe that the people in the back seat will appreciate it. Personally I always lead with rudder pressure. If I can catch the wing with just a tap of rudder, then that's all it gets. Once I have light pressure in the rudder then I start tipping in aileron. I do this whether I'm turning or just flying along straight.

Obviously it needs some coordinating rudder, it's just significantly less than what I was used to with the Cessnas I was flying. As mentioned above, they have less adverse yaw, don't require as much rudder during the turn, blah blah. I do whatever I have to to keep the ball in the center. The warrior is definitely better at handling crosswinds though. Went up the other day 15G25 across the runway, I probably would've thought twice about it in a Cessna. (CFII was aboard, he's just along for the ride though )

Now to derail slightly, how much difference am I going to notice going from the Warrior III to an Arrow III when I start on my commercial? I've heard it called the "scare-ow" around the airport. It can't be that different, can it?

 

[Ghery]

I learned in a 180 hp C-172N. A little 150 time (4.1 hours, no more since). Club also has a 1969 PA-28R-200. I'm checked out and current in it. The big difference? The 172 is more comfortable. There is something about the seat and angle to the pedals that makes 3 hours an endurance contest in the Arrow for me. After 3 hours my knees are gone and it's all I can do to crawl out of the plane. Not so much of an issue in the 172. Now, the 182, that's a whole different ballgame. Sure wish we had the Garmin 430 in the 182.

 

[Tom-D]

After 3 hours my knees are gone and it's all I can do to crawl out of the plane. Not so much of an issue in the 172. Now, the 182, that's a whole different ballgame. Sure wish we had the Garmin 430 in the 182.

Getting out of a PA 28 series reminds me of climbing out of a hole.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've flown and taught in a lot of 172's and Cherokees, and there just ain't that much difference between them as trainers. They're pretty much equally forgiving of sloppy technique.

The three biggest differences:

1) In comparison to the 172, the PA28 feels like it lands itself. This is the biggest one, and I think it'd be a lot harder for someone trained in a PA28 to learn to land a 172 than vice versa. In terms of being forgiving, the PA28 is more so here IMO.

2) You can pretty much keep your feet on the floor in a PA28 unless you're landing with a decent crosswind. The 172 won't fly horribly without any rudder input, but it is noticeably "worse" (as in, better for teaching you the right thing to do with the rudder).

3) There's not much of a stall in a PA28 - Buffet, mush, but no break. The 172 will break, but not buffet IME. Not a big difference in forgiveness or difficulty on this one, just a difference in flight characteristics.

They really are very close, but for the first 2 reasons I think the 172 is a (slightly) better trainer.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Now to derail slightly, how much difference am I going to notice going from the Warrior III to an Arrow III when I start on my commercial? I've heard it called the "scare-ow" around the airport. It can't be that different, can it?

You'll have a few extra knobs (prop, gear, emergency extend) and another gauge (manifold pressure). Other than that, not a whole lot of difference except that you're going much faster and you'll have more to do (raising/lowering gear, adjusting prop RPM), but not much. Personally, I think the Arrow III is the best of the Arrows (I have flown all 4 varieties).

If they call it the "Scarrow" it might just mean that particular airframe is prone to maintenance issues or something. But the emergency gear extension system in the Arrow is dirt simple, and if I had a gear emergency in IMC, I'd sure hope to be in an Arrow... Anything else tends to require pumping, cranking, etc. whereas the Arrow drops with gravity and might require a slight slip or momentary load factor increase to help it down the last little bit.

 

[spiderweb]

I'd pick the 172. Better view of the ground. If you want to learn stick & rudder skills, you gotta fly a taildragger.

that's what I was thinking. I have even heard tell that some CFIs start students off with feet on the ground. How is that helpful?

 

[spiderweb]

I'm flying a 160hp Warrior III now, and I find myself wishing for more power pretty frequently. I don't mean to say it's underpowered . . ..

Oh, yes you do. :wink2:

 

[spiderweb]

Real pilots fly Cherokees. 172s are for students. Starting with the Cherokee puts you ahead of the game.

But that might just be my preference leaking through.

Don't say that! A Cessna 172 is my choice 60% - 70% of the time, if only because it is easy and fun to fly.

The Saratoga I sometimes fly is obviously a much suaver airplane--and faster and roomier, too--but it does come at a very dear price!

 

[spiderweb]

. . . .

I think the 150 is an even greater challenge to fly since it's under powered and light. You get bounced around a lot more in a crosswind requiring faster corrections.

. . . .

Agree. Landings are easier in the C172, and even easier in the C182 (as long as one understands that you cannot land on the nosewheel!).

 

[BudRiggs]

... If you want to learn stick & rudder skills, you gotta fly a taildragger.

Not true. One can fly a nosewheel airplane just as precisely as a taildragger.

In fact, if one did, his transition to taildraggers would be a matter of finding the switches and dials instead of a major 10 hour ordeal of relearning to fly.

 

[Henning]

Obviously it needs some coordinating rudder, it's just significantly less than what I was used to with the Cessnas I was flying. As mentioned above, they have less adverse yaw, don't require as much rudder during the turn, blah blah. I do whatever I have to to keep the ball in the center. The warrior is definitely better at handling crosswinds though. Went up the other day 15G25 across the runway, I probably would've thought twice about it in a Cessna. (CFII was aboard, he's just along for the ride though )

Now to derail slightly, how much difference am I going to notice going from the Warrior III to an Arrow III when I start on my commercial? I've heard it called the "scare-ow" around the airport. It can't be that different, can it?

I find that a 172 handles about 8kts more crosswind than a PA 28.

The only transition you'll notice into the Arrow is you'll have a gear switch and a prop lever and you'll climb harder and be faster. As far as handling goes, it's all the same.

 

[eMKay]

Thanks for the replies guys, the only thing the club member mentioned different between them is the Cherokee likes to drop like a rock when you cut the throttle, making it a little more difficult to land, he said the Archers aren't like that because they obviously have different wings, the Cherokee is short and stubby the Cessna and Archers are longer, more modern. He says the Cherokee is a bit more difficult to fly which is a bonus in my eyes, start out with the trickier plane and it would be easier to adjust to the Archers or 172.

He also said whenever he takes just his wife anywhere or flies alone he takes the Cherokee. I didn't ask about this but which one is better on fuel? I would assume the Cherokee is and that's a factor.

 

[jesse]

But the emergency gear extension system in the Arrow is dirt simple, and if I had a gear emergency in IMC, I'd sure hope to be in an Arrow... Anything else tends to require pumping, cranking, etc. whereas the Arrow drops with gravity and might require a slight slip or momentary load factor increase to help it down the last little bit.

Ed Fred's favorite airplane, the Beechcraft Sierra, also has a simple pressure release valve you turn and the gear instantly drops.

I find the Debonair extension to be kind of a PITA. The position of the handle makes me move the seat back to the point where I can't reach teh rudder pedals anymore. 55 pretty-stiff cranks with almost no leverage on a tiny handle is also a lot of work.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I find the Debonair extension to be kind of a PITA. The position of the handle makes me move the seat back to the point where I can't reach teh rudder pedals anymore. 55 pretty-stiff cranks with almost no leverage on a tiny handle is also a lot of work.

Yeah... Not something I'd want to do in IMC sans autopilot. And even with a/p, you're adding a bit more fatigue to the equation...

Then there's the quadruple-redundant system in the Apache I did my AMEL in: Normal system (engine-driven hydraulic pump), backup electrically-driven hydraulic pump, manual pump, and CO2 blowdown. Though I think if I was IMC sans autopilot I'd probably hit the blowdown third if it got to that point.