Comparison of 172 & Cherokee 180

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
How does a 1969 172K with a 180hp conversion compare to a 1969 Cherokee 180?

I'm thinking the following areas might be good comparisons:

Fuel Burn
comfort/space
Speed
Useful Load
Short field & Takeoff Roll

Thoughts?

EDIT!!!!!! I am not looking for which one is better or which one you like more or whether high wing or low wing is better. I'm asking what are the real differences in the two planes!
 
Last edited:
You forgot shady place to sit during fly ins.
 
172 would be better for short field work. I'm guessing here. It may depend on the pilot a lot....

One thing's for sure, a 172 won't drag it's wings on scrub brush ...:dunno:
 
You'll actually be able to fit a human in the backseat of the 172, Cherokee not so much.
 
I'm a co-owner on a PA28-180 and have close to 1,000 hours in various 180hp 172 models. Very close, so my ultimate suggestion is fly both and see what feels right. But a few observations:

Burn--
is going to be pretty close, as they both are running Lycoming O-360s. I find that I typically get a few more knots out of a Cherokee 180 than a 172-180 conversion, but it isn't enough to base a decision on.

Comfort--
you need to try them out. Different people have different preferences. In the front PA28 is slightly wider, but it is rounded at the top so headroom is a bit less, so it depends on your build and height. The Cessna also is a slightly more vertical seating position. I personally don't notice much difference in the back seat... you are missing a bit of legroom in the 180, but it isn't as bad as some people claim. My buddy is 6' and 200 pounds and actually prefers the PA28-180 to the 172, but I'm 5'8 so the seat isn't all the way back when he is sitting behind me.

Keep in mind the PA28 series boards through the right overwing door; this could be a factor depending on who you are carrying.

Also, those big opening windows on the 172 are great on hot days; you can open the door on a PA28 on the ground, but this can be a bit awkward with a non-pilot passenger.

Space--
Baggage door on the PA28-180 is a bit bigger, but you can drop stuff over the top of the rear seat in the 172 a bit easier. The bench in earlier PA28s only leavers 10 inches or so of clearance so you are not loading anything big in that way. I find the shape of the PA28 baggage area a bit easier to pack, and limit weight is 200 pounds. I believe most 172s are limited to 120 in the baggage area.

Speed--
PA28-180s tend to be slightly faster, but not enough to really make it a selling point. Some well rigged 172s can probably keep up.

Useful Load--
When I was shopping the PA28-180s seemed to have a slightly higher useful load, but it varies A LOT from plane to plane. 90% of both will probably fall between 900 and 1050, but you'll need to get actual weight numbers for each plane you are looking at.

Short field--
High wings tend to be better on rough fields. Both aircraft have similar short field performance, but I'm a bit more comfortable in the 172 if it is extremely short.

Again, the aircraft are close in many respects, and even where one has a advantage it isn't really substantial. Best advice: fly both, see what one fits!
 
Boxers vs briefs. Fly both, buy the one you like better, not what all the pundits here prefer.
 
jesse said:
You'll actually be able to fit a human in the backseat of the 172, Cherokee not so much.
Click to expand...

You seemed to fit ok in the backseat of my Cherokee 180....I don't know that I agree with that sentiment.
 
AdamZ said:
How does a 1969 172K with a 180hp conversion compare to a 1969 Cherokee 180?

I'm thinking the following areas might be good comparisons:

Fuel Burn
comfort/space
Speed
Useful Load
Short field & Takeoff Roll

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

We can rent the older 172 w 180hp conversion at ptw. With the 40 gal tanks topped off you can carry 800+ payload. Climbs great, even at gross.
 
SkyHog said:
You seemed to fit ok in the backseat of my Cherokee 180....I don't know that I agree with that sentiment.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever being in the backseat of your cherokee. There is no real arguing the fact that the legroom for anyone in the back of a Cherokee 180 is horrible compared to a similar vintage 172.
 
I prefer the 180 172 ease of entry ,roominess for back seat pax. Better short field performance. Would fly either one however.
 
I like the looks of a low wing plane, but my biggest aggravation with my mooney is the single door.
 
rbridges said:
I like the looks of a low wing plane, but my biggest aggravation with my mooney is the single door.
Click to expand...
How's the ventilation in the Mooney? I'm finishing up my Commercial SEL in an Arrow and can't wait to take the checkride because its getting hot and its basically an oven on the ground
 
MickYoumans said:
I owned a Cessna prior to my Piper and got tired of climbing a ladder to fuel it. The low wing is so easy to fill up.
Click to expand...

And how is that climbing any different than climbing up on the wing of a piper for egress/ingress?

I use a little "three step" ladder for fueling my 182. It'd probably slide under your wing.

I'm not saying a high wing is better, but rather that your reasoning has little merit considering the "wing climb and contortionist act" required to get in & out of a low wing.

Climbing three steps to fuel seems very minor in comparison.
 
txflyer said:
172 would be better for short field work. I'm guessing here. It may depend on the pilot a lot....

One thing's for sure, a 172 won't drag it's wings on scrub brush ...:dunno:
Click to expand...

If you're talking soft, the cherokee probably breaks ground much faster. The distance to the obstacle is probably about the same however.
 
jordane93 said:
How's the ventilation in the Mooney? I'm finishing up my Commercial SEL in an Arrow and can't wait to take the checkride because its getting hot and its basically an oven on the ground
Click to expand...

It's not great. I need to get one of those scoop adapter thingies for the little window on the pilot's side. Right now, I stick a chart or something out to catch some air as I taxi.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
If you're talking soft, the cherokee probably breaks ground much faster. The distance to the obstacle is probably about the same however.
Click to expand...


I only have Piper time in a Cherokee 140 and very little time in a 172, so I'm not a good judge of either the Piper 180 or the 172 .....

I would think the gear on a 172 would be a little tougher because the mains are steel whereas the Cherokee's are struts.

Maybe why you see so many 172's as trainers ... :dunno:
 
I flew 172's to start my training, flew in a low wing and enjoyed it much more. I bought a 1977 Piper Warrior II and I am pleased with it as a trainer thus far. It is a tough plane and the oleo struts make for a comfy soft field landing...my opinion of course. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jordane93 said:
How's the ventilation in the Mooney? I'm finishing up my Commercial SEL in an Arrow and can't wait to take the checkride because its getting hot and its basically an oven on the ground
Click to expand...

Don't close the door until you are ready to pull onto the runway.
 
jesse said:
I don't recall ever being in the backseat of your cherokee. There is no real arguing the fact that the legroom for anyone in the back of a Cherokee 180 is horrible compared to a similar vintage 172.
Click to expand...

Try the back of a 180 '73 or later.
 
I prefer brand C so you should get brand C. Brand P smells like poopy diapers.
 
Ron Levy said:
Boxers vs briefs. Fly both, buy the one you like better, not what all the pundits here prefer.
Click to expand...

Not an issue of buying or which " feels better" and I'm not asking for what our POA pundits prefer as with all due respect to my blue friends if I were to buy I'm not going to ask should I get a high wing or low wing, and certainly not asking which is better. Rather asking for as objective of a comparison as I can get. Looking for facts not opinions ie one has a higher useful load, one is faster, one has more back seat room etc. I'm pretty familiar with the Cherokee line, just not as much with the Cessna. I get it that some like the look of one vs. the other but that's not what I'm interested in.
 
MickYoumans said:
I owned a Cessna prior to my Piper and got tired of climbing a ladder to fuel it. The low wing is so easy to fill up.
Click to expand...
I get just a little annoyed at having to pull the ladder out, or seek out a ladder at a fuel stop each time I want to fill my 172's tanks, but I visited a friend that owns a low wing last week. I got a lot more exercise walking around the wing to go from front to back or vice versa than get climbing the ladder. When I park my 172 in my hangar, I can also park my cars under the wings.
But his Diamond sure was faster than my 172 although I can carry 850# to his 580#s.
I think the low wings are better looking but the high wing is more practical. And at my age, practicality has it all over looks.
 
coloradobluesky said:
It's really all a matter of which one you like.
Click to expand...

Eh not really. If I ask whats the difference between a Turbine Engine and a normally aspirated Engine its not a matter of which one I like. There are differences in the engines regardless of which one I like. Again I"m not asking a "whats your preference" question, I'm asking for a comparison!
 
AdamZ said:
Eh not really. If I ask whats the difference between a Turbine Engine and a normally aspirated Engine its not a matter of which one I like. There are differences in the engines regardless of which one I like. Again I"m not asking a "whats your preference" question, I'm asking for a comparison!
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the differences are not all that significant (which is not the case with a turbine engine vs normally aspirated engine).
 
AdamZ said:
Rather asking for as objective of a comparison as I can get. Looking for facts not opinions ie one has a higher useful load, one is faster, one has more back seat room etc.
Click to expand...
A 180HP Cherokee has more useful load, more payload, and more speed than a 145-160HP Cessna 172, but that's all about HP, and nothing else. Put a 180HP engine on a 172, and those differences pretty much disappear. Backseat room depends on model year, as the later 180HP PA28's had a cabin stretch.
 
Some random thoughts, having extensively flown both types under discussion (and currently own a 180 hp C-172):

Visibility is better from a Cherokee.

Cabin access, front and rear, is better in the 172.

Refueling is easier with a Cherokee.

Preflight inspection, especially of the landing gear, is easier with a 172.

Cherokee's manual flaps are simpler and more reliable.

172 doesn't have or need engine-driven or auxiliary fuel pumps.

Cherokee (except Warrior) has a larger, heavy-duty nose gear and tire standard.

172 can draw fuel from both tanks simultaneously.

Cherokee has adjustable rudder trim standard.

172 has better in-flight ventilation, and much better ground ventilation.

Performance is just about identical, but the 172 has the advantage on short fields and at higher altitudes.
 
I once had the misfortune of sitting behind a tall pilot flying an Archer. He had to run the seat pretty all the way back, effectively locking my feet into the airplane.

The limited rear seat space in the whole PA-28 line compared to Cessna is an objective fact. How much it affects a purchase decsion will depend on how often the buying pilot plans to carry adults in the rear seats.
 
Pilawt said:
Some random thoughts, having extensively flown both types under discussion (and currently own a 180 hp C-172):

Visibility is better from a Cherokee.

Cabin access, front and rear, is better in the 172.

Refueling is easier with a Cherokee.

Preflight inspection, especially of the landing gear, is easier with a 172.

Cherokee's manual flaps are simpler and more reliable.

172 doesn't have or need engine-driven or auxiliary fuel pumps.

Cherokee (except Warrior) has a larger, heavy-duty nose gear and tire standard.

172 can draw fuel from both tanks simultaneously.

Cherokee has adjustable rudder trim standard.

172 has better in-flight ventilation, and much better ground ventilation.

Performance is just about identical, but the 172 has the advantage on short fields and at higher altitudes.
Click to expand...
Mine uses one
 
The 180 hp 172 that I flew for about 50 hours, had a fuel burn of about 9.2 gph, at 2450, and 115 kts indicated.
Our cherokee 180 had a fuel burn of about 8.1 gph at 2345, and 115kts indicated.
Usefull load is close, with the cherokee being a tad higher.
The 172 would be better for unimproved strips.
Just take 'em both for a testdrive, and see what fits.
 
personally I like the higher wing loading on the Cherokee as it cuts through the bumps better, and find yourself a little high on final, cut that power back and you'll come down... (of course with the hershey bar wing)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top