172N or PA28-140?

The 140 and the 172 are both very able trainers. Pick based on availability, cost, and COMFORT. Take 1.5 in each and see which one you like best. Stick with that until you clear your checkride. YMMV, but it's likely that if you mix planes in your initial training, you may spend substantially more money getting used to the feel, sight pictures, equipment layouts, and flight characteristics.
 
xaminmo said:
YMMV, but it's likely that if you mix planes in your initial training, you may spend substantially more money getting used to the feel, sight pictures, equipment layouts, and flight characteristics.
Click to expand...

Maybe my mileage did vary, but I used a mix of 172 and 161 in my initial training and passed my checkride at 48.1 hours. And to be brutally honest, I'm no ace.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. It couldn't be any simpler. Just remember when the CFI is checking you out and you select gear down and don't get any green lights to check the panel lights. If they're turned on, the gear lights are really dim.
 
One advantage of the 172 over the 140 is that you can comfortably carry passengers in the backseat. My instructor would usually instruct her students with 0, 1 or 2 backseat passengers so that the student didn't get too used to only one W&B configuration. This way the student wouldn't experience something completely new during the first solo (flying without her in the right seat)
 
Bob Noel said:
Maybe my mileage did vary, but I used a mix of 172 and 161 in my initial training and passed my checkride at 48.1 hours. And to be brutally honest, I'm no ace.
Click to expand...

Eh, compared to me, that's pretty ACEY. Aceish? Ace-like?

My checkride was at 85.5 hours and 4 months. I didn't solo until 35 hours and 7 weeks. To my credit, in the first 35 hours, I had I had 9 different CFIs, 3 makes, 4 models, and 8 tails, and a world of difficulty scheduling. There was NO structure to the training.

Things I learned in my primary training that seem important:
* MEDICAL: Start your medical early. A seemingly innocuous statement in front of the AME can lead to months of paperwork hassle.

* SELF STUDY: Have a really good ground school self study system. For the cost of 4 hours with a CFI, you can get unlimited hours with books, or Sporty's, or John & Martha. For Free, you can find an syllabus and PDFs of the FAA books. Try them all and the one that works for you. If you buy they FBO's kit, insist the instructor use it or get a refund.

* OWN YOUR SYLLABUS: Many FBO 141 courses are for the sign and their 61 training may have no structure. Always come in prepared with your own plans. Discuss the with the CFI before the flight. Engage them in working out what to study for and what you should do on the next flight.

* CFI CHOICE: Finding a CFI you like and who teaches your way can be difficult. A calm, patient, knowledgeable, and hands-off, well communicating instructor can be very helpful. The student should be doing the work, and the CFI should talk them through it. Exceptions might be a single demonstration as proof of concept.

* AIRPLANE: The plane type doesn't matter so much as sticking with one set of systems, one set of flight characteristics. Cheaper planes tend to be simpler, ie, fewer in-cockpit distractions.

* CONSISTENCY: Changing CFIs or airplanes can be very difficult. Each one has peculiarities on how they want things done. Scheduling can really make or break your training. It's extra difficult if you can't have the same days and times picked out of your own schedule.

With variety, there are bonuses in the long run, but it doesn't pay out in the short run. Keep it simple.
 
Jim_R said:
I'd make my choices based on:

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

I was reading through the thread and composing a response in my head, and Jim nailed it.

Cost - Because you can fly more, and if your goal is to learn to fly...

They may not share the dispatch reliability with you, but ask around the club. If you hear the words "Hangar Queen" run away.

Schedule availability is, of course, based on popularity, but with everything in a slow-down, it's probably not a huge problem in any rental right now. If you see a "stuffed full" schedule already on one of the aircraft though, use the other. It'll only get worse as summertime and a slowly better economy keep coming...
 
xaminmo said:
Eh, compared to me, that's pretty ACEY. Aceish? Ace-like?

My checkride was at 85.5 hours and 4 months. I didn't solo until 35 hours and 7 weeks. To my credit, in the first 35 hours, I had I had 9 different CFIs, 3 makes, 4 models, and 8 tails, and a world of difficulty scheduling. There was NO structure to the training.

Things I learned in my primary training that seem important:
* MEDICAL: Start your medical early. A seemingly innocuous statement in front of the AME can lead to months of paperwork hassle.

* SELF STUDY: Have a really good ground school self study system. For the cost of 4 hours with a CFI, you can get unlimited hours with books, or Sporty's, or John & Martha. For Free, you can find an syllabus and PDFs of the FAA books. Try them all and the one that works for you. If you buy they FBO's kit, insist the instructor use it or get a refund.

* OWN YOUR SYLLABUS: Many FBO 141 courses are for the sign and their 61 training may have no structure. Always come in prepared with your own plans. Discuss the with the CFI before the flight. Engage them in working out what to study for and what you should do on the next flight.

* CFI CHOICE: Finding a CFI you like and who teaches your way can be difficult. A calm, patient, knowledgeable, and hands-off, well communicating instructor can be very helpful. The student should be doing the work, and the CFI should talk them through it. Exceptions might be a single demonstration as proof of concept.

* AIRPLANE: The plane type doesn't matter so much as sticking with one set of systems, one set of flight characteristics. Cheaper planes tend to be simpler, ie, fewer in-cockpit distractions.

* CONSISTENCY: Changing CFIs or airplanes can be very difficult. Each one has peculiarities on how they want things done. Scheduling can really make or break your training. It's extra difficult if you can't have the same days and times picked out of your own schedule.

With variety, there are bonuses in the long run, but it doesn't pay out in the short run. Keep it simple.
Click to expand...


The advantage I had in solo'ing at ~8 hours (6 weeks) and passing the checkride at 48.1 hours and 6 months was frequent short lessons with the same instructor. One month I flew 14 times. My instructor was not afraid to kick herself out of the airplane and wasn't there to maximize FBO profit. The fact that the weather was incredibly cooperative was apprecriated.
 
Fly whichever is cheaper, unless you have reason to think one or the other will fall out of the sky. Then again, if you have reason to think that about any of their aircraft, you should go elsewhere.
 
Bob Noel said:
The advantage I had in solo'ing at ~8 hours (6 weeks) and passing the checkride at 48.1 hours and 6 months was frequent short lessons with the same instructor. One month I flew 14 times. My instructor was not afraid to kick herself out of the airplane and wasn't there to maximize FBO profit. The fact that the weather was incredibly cooperative was apprecriated.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Consistency really makes a big difference. Seems to be the consensus as this thread tapers off.
 
BudRiggs said:
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.
Click to expand...


Not really.

FWIW I was a very good trike pilot -- centerline, stiff crosswinds, yada, yada.

It still took 5 hours to transition. I've owned it a little over a year and now 100 hours later, it still teaches me each time I fly.

Unless you've flown a lightweight, low-powered taildragger, you simply cannot assume you're good enough to make the transition without some instruction and some time.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
It's ridiculous what the 172 will let you get away with. It really is the airplane that rewards poor airmanship.

C150, Cherokee 140.... Different story.
Click to expand...

Okay... What?

All trainers are forgiving and let you get away with things... But IMO the 172 somewhat less so than the PA28's.

What does the 172 let you get away with that the PA28 doesn't?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Okay... What?

All trainers are forgiving and let you get away with things... But IMO the 172 somewhat less so than the PA28's.

What does the 172 let you get away with that the PA28 doesn't?
Click to expand...

2 things to try in each aircraft (with plenty of altitude, in utility category and a qualified CFI on board.)

1)Falling leaf stall: In a 172 your feet won't be busy at all. Most of the time you'll find yourself holding pressure on one rudder as a descending slip develops. The Cherokee will keep your feet fairly busy as it tries to depart.

2)Stall a slip: In a 172 it's very stable. Slight buffett, high sink rate and heading will wander in the direction of the applied aileron. The Cherokee will buffett, give you warning, then start to roll away from the applied aileron and into the deflected rudder. If not corrected an over-the-top departure will occur.

Also, in most training configurations (Student/CFI & full fuel) the 172s CG is usually up in the forward limit. It is difficult to get a spin to develop if the pilot managed to couple yaw & roll during a stalled maneuver. Although the Cherokee's CG is still far from aft, it will depart much more readily.

It was probably a little harsh to say the 172 rewards poor airmanship. You do have to use that right rudder in a climb! It is a little frustrating while attempting to demonstrate what NOT to do with a student and the airplane just wallows around and stays mostly upright.:mad2:
 
Last edited:
I talked to my instructor yesterday, he says the Cherokee is much easier to schedule, and he likes the way it flies better too, so that's two votes for the Cherokee from club members. I'm scheduled for 10am tomorrow (weather permitting) for first ride
 
eMKay said:
I talked to my instructor yesterday, he says the Cherokee is much easier to schedule, and he likes the way it flies better too, so that's two votes for the Cherokee from club members. I'm scheduled for 10am tomorrow (weather permitting) for first ride
Click to expand...

I hope you enjoy the flight!
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
2 things to try in each aircraft (with plenty of altitude, in utility category and a qualified CFI on board.)

1)Falling leaf stall: In a 172 your feet won't be busy at all. Most of the time you'll find yourself holding pressure on one rudder as a descending slip develops. The Cherokee will keep your feet fairly busy as it tries to depart.

2)Stall a slip: In a 172 it's very stable. Slight buffett, high sink rate and heading will wander in the direction of the applied aileron. The Cherokee will buffett, give you warning, then start to roll away from the applied aileron and into the deflected rudder. If not corrected an over-the-top departure will occur.
Click to expand...

Okay - But neither of those maneuvers is in the PTS, and most student pilots aren't gonna see them, other than maybe as a brief exercise.

Also, in most training configurations (Student/CFI & full fuel) the 172s CG is usually up in the forward limit. It is difficult to get a spin to develop if the pilot managed to couple yaw & roll during a stalled maneuver. Although the Cherokee's CG is still far from aft, it will depart much more readily.
Click to expand...

I haven't spun anything but an Extra, but I hear that it's a lot easier to spin the 172 from a skid, and the base-to-final turn is where that's gonna kill 'em, so that's probably the best demo.

It was probably a little harsh to say the 172 rewards poor airmanship. You do have to use that right rudder in a climb! It is a little frustrating while attempting to demonstrate what NOT to do with a student and the airplane just wallows around and stays mostly upright.:mad2:
Click to expand...

Heh... Okay, I'll buy that. :yes:
 
I've been instructing in Cherokees since 1973 and 172's since 1977, and flying both longer than that. Any way you look at it, there ain't two cents worth of objective difference between them as primary trainers -- the differences are entirely subjective, and thus, entirely in the mind of the beholder.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've been instructing in Cherokees since 1973 and 172's since 1977, and flying both longer than that. Any way you look at it, there ain't two cents worth of objective difference between them as primary trainers -- the differences are entirely subjective, and thus, entirely in the mind of the beholder.
Click to expand...


No arguement with that. Transition time between the two is about 30 minutes on the ground and 5 minutes in the air.
 
Henning said:
No arguement with that. Transition time between the two is about 30 minutes on the ground and 5 minutes in the air.
Click to expand...
Well, my experience as an instructor is somewhat different. For the average low-time PP-ASEL with experience only in one, I find it takes at least an hour on the ground to properly cover the differing systems (including operation and normal/emer procedures) and performance data (especially since Piper uses graphs while Cessna uses tables), and an hour to an hour-and-a-half in the air (including steep turns, slow flight, stalls, all the variations of normal/short/soft takeoffs/landings, balked landings, etc).

But if you've been able to sign folks off for one from the other in 0.5 of ground training and one lap around the pattern, I'd be interested to hear about it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, my experience as an instructor is somewhat different. For the average low-time PP-ASEL with experience only in one, I find it takes at least an hour on the ground to properly cover the differing systems (including operation and normal/emer procedures) and performance data (especially since Piper uses graphs while Cessna uses tables), and an hour to an hour-and-a-half in the air (including steep turns, slow flight, stalls, all the variations of normal/short/soft takeoffs/landings, balked landings, etc).

But if you've been able to sign folks off for one from the other in 0.5 of ground training and one lap around the pattern, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Click to expand...

We were talking about taxiing.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, we were talking about transitioning a 172-trained pilot to a PA-28 or vice versatile.
Click to expand...

I'd never pay 2 hours instructor time to learn what's in the POH to start with.
 
Tom-D said:
I'd never pay 2 hours instructor time to learn what's in the POH to start with.
Click to expand...
And I'd never sign someone off in a plane just because s/he said, "Don't worry about that -- I read the book." Although perhaps he skips items in the annual inspection checklist if the owner says, "Don't worry about that, I've already checked it."
 
I took the Cherokee up, what I noticed, excellent visibility, cramped interior, uncomfortable seats, no human with legs will ever be in the back when my instructor and I are in front. I had a lot of fun though so I guess it flies fine, not like I have anything to compare it to but I think I want to try the Cessna out, that one seems a bit more comfortable.
 
eMKay said:
I took the Cherokee up, what I noticed, excellent visibility, cramped interior, uncomfortable seats, no human with legs will ever be in the back when my instructor and I are in front. I had a lot of fun though so I guess it flies fine, not like I have anything to compare it to but I think I want to try the Cessna out, that one seems a bit more comfortable.
Click to expand...

The cherokee 140 doesn't usually have the useful load for passengers in the backseat anyway.

I found that the 172 wasn't as comfortable as the cherokee 140. But I didn't mind rubbing shoulders with my primary instructor in the 172 or cherokee. :)
 
eMKay said:
I took the Cherokee up, what I noticed, excellent visibility, cramped interior, uncomfortable seats, no human with legs will ever be in the back when my instructor and I are in front. I had a lot of fun though so I guess it flies fine, not like I have anything to compare it to but I think I want to try the Cessna out, that one seems a bit more comfortable.
Click to expand...

Stock seats in the Cherokee aren't all that great admittedly (mine are wonderful, but that's another story...) but what do you care? You'll be flying an hour at a time. Like I said, which ever is cheaper or more convenient. There really isn't enough of a difference to justify a three page thread. Good luck.
 
fszczerba said:
True, but if we try real hard we can make it four.
Click to expand...

Four pages? FOAR PAGES!?!?!

I'm sure we could come up with more details about the differences in lateral stability, and visibility between high wing and low wing.
 
xaminmo said:
Four pages? FOAR PAGES!?!?!

I'm sure we could come up with more details about the differences in lateral stability, and visibility between high wing and low wing.
Click to expand...

Though I prefer the Pipers, I personally feel that ATC communication is easier in a 172.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
Both fly pretty crappy upside-down, so I really don't see the point at all...
Click to expand...

I think even with the dihedral, the Piper would fly more stable inverted than the Cessna.

Plus, rumor has it that some of the PA-A-28 Chincul-Piper aircraft were manufactured with AEIO engines for military training.
 
xaminmo said:
I think even with the dihedral, the Piper would fly more stable inverted than the Cessna.

Plus, rumor has it that some of the PA-A-28 Chincul-Piper aircraft were manufactured with AEIO engines for military training.
Click to expand...

That dihedral has the effect of an anhedral when the aircraft is flown inverted. Fun stuff. It'll just be divergent in roll and really not want to be there.

That would be badass to have an acro Cherokee. Roll it on takeoff and climb out of the downwind inverted! Nobody would suspect the Cherokee!

Or an F33C Bonanza!
 
xaminmo said:
I think even with the dihedral, the Piper would fly more stable inverted than the Cessna.

Plus, rumor has it that some of the PA-A-28 Chincul-Piper aircraft were manufactured with AEIO engines for military training.
Click to expand...

Well I already picked the Cherokee, and had my first flight in it. I did try to keep it from going inverted, did a pretty good job too!
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
It's ridiculous what the 172 will let you get away with. It really is the airplane that rewards poor airmanship.

C150, Cherokee 140.... Different story.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but it rewards good airmanship, too. Particularly during landings (as opposed to the Cherokee types).

And many 172s have been wrecked by stupid pilot tricks... it's not idiot-proof, like the Ercoupe... no, wait, that's right- nothing's idiot-proof. :D
 
Make something foolproof and the world makes a better fool? :)
 
eMKay said:
Well I already picked the Cherokee, and had my first flight in it. I did try to keep it from going inverted, did a pretty good job too!
Click to expand...

The bottom line is to enjoy flying no matter what type of aircraft you choose. I found a lot of the comments regarding preference had little to no substance whatsoever. Some of the Cessna drivers sound like you aren't a "real pilot" unless you suspend yourself under the wing. Horse manure! Others make noises that Cessna aircraft require real flying skills while it's harder to make good landings in a Cherokee. Huh? To me it's like arguing who is the more passionate woman: blondes or brunettes? Everyone knows it's redheads. :goofy:

Enjoy your training and future flying and don't pay too much attention to preference opinions.........even mine. :wink2:
 
eMKay said:
Because you're missing your front teeth and saying Cesssssna is easier?
Click to expand...

Heh, no. Because in the 172, ATC calls you "Cessna" or "Skyhawk". If they get really confused, you might hear "Skylane".

In the PA28s you get "Piper", "Cherokee", "Warrior", "Archer", and sometimes "Arrow" or "Dakota". Theoretically you could also be a "Cruiser" or a "Pathfinder" as well, but you don't hear those very often. I have, however, been called "Cessna 16566" in the Arrow I rent.... Really have to keep your ears open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top