C172 or P180 for XC's?

D

DavidEM

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
11
Location
north Alabama
Display Name
Display name:
Skypuppy
Your opinions, please?

And is transitioning from the 172 world to the 180 as easy as an hour's checkout in the 180?

(couldn't figure out which area this should be posted in so just chose this catch-all)

Thanks.
(first post)
 
DavidEM said:
Your opinions, please?

And is transitioning from the 172 world to the 180 as easy as an hour's checkout in the 180?

(couldn't figure out which area this should be posted in so just chose this catch-all)

Thanks.
(first post)
Click to expand...

Welcome! I hate to assume things, so are you talking about going from a Cessna 172 to a Cessna 180, or to a Piper Cherokee 180? I think the first scenario would take a lot more than an hour, but the second really shouldn't be a big deal depending on your experience level. :D
 
Well, the title asks about the Cessna 172 versus Piper 180, so yeah, the Piper Cherokee PA-28-180 (thought I don't know just why Piper has to put so many letters in a name...)
 
It took me about an hour to get checked out in a 140 after doing the PPL in 172's. The 180 is no different.

If you're asking which is better in an XC, both are perfectly fine. You might get a little better speed in the Piper 180 vs. a 160 hp 172, but if you compare it to a 180 hp 172 SP they are pretty equivalent in load and speed. All personal preference. I like low wings personally but those big wings on top do make nice sun shades.
 
Ummmm. Both?

To refine the answer, tell,us more about the XC missions (distance, number of people, etc). Also share what is driving force behind the question.

But both are fine for XCs of any length. Often a question like this boils over into a Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge vs Toyota vs all others discussion. Pick a good one and go fly.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Often a question like this boils over into a Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge vs Toyota vs all others discussion. Pick a good one and go fly.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy! everyone knows that low wings are more better!
 
I'm guessing there haven't been more than 10,000 threads on this or similar subjects during the past 12 months, all with the same answer. The low-timers all rattle about how this one feels and why they like that one better, the old-timers say there's no real difference, just fly whatever you got, or if you got a choice fly whatever you like.
 
I'm looking to get one and wondered if there was enough of a difference to matter. Besides price. :)
 
DavidEM said:
Well, the title asks about the Cessna 172 versus Piper 180, so yeah, the Piper Cherokee PA-28-180 (thought I don't know just why Piper has to put so many letters in a name...)
Click to expand...

It helps if you are asking a question to be precise. Piper does not make an aircraft called the P180. (Piaggio does, it is a twin engined turboprop and would take some time to get checked out in) They have made several models with 180 horse engines. If you were asking about a PA-24-180 you would need to get a complex endorsement for your cross country trip as it has retractable gear and a constant speed propeller. For a PA-28-180 that is not the case. Clarity is everything.
 
Don't you think the PA-24-180 is more equivalent of the C172 than a PA-28-180?
 
wabower said:
I'm guessing there haven't been more than 10,000 threads on this or similar subjects during the past 12 months, all with the same answer. The low-timers all rattle about how this one feels and why they like that one better, the old-timers say there's no real difference, just fly whatever you got, or if you got a choice fly whatever you like.
Click to expand...

Don't exaggerate. We're Just now approaching the 1,000 mark.
 
You better stick to the Cessna 172 for now. It just seems you don't really want to engage in a new plane at the moment. If managing the name correctly is a problem then you are really going to hate the whole movement of the wing from hi to low.

The PA24-180 is a Comanche. Complex. You might get signed off in 1 hr but I doubt it.

The PA28-180 is a Cherokee. 30 hp more than a typical Cherokee trainer which doesn't require a checkout to move up from a Cherokee 140.
 
wabower said:
I'm guessing there haven't been more than 10,000 threads on this or similar subjects during the past 12 months, all with the same answer. The low-timers all rattle about how this one feels and why they like that one better, the old-timers say there's no real difference, just fly whatever you got, or if you got a choice fly whatever you like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, then I usually start getting ornery and tell the whipper snappers to get off my lawn.

Of course, some folks might say a P180 = Piaggio. In which case...
 
First, I've never heard of a 180 Cherokee being referred to as a "P180" -- that usually means a Piaggio P180, and couldn't understand why anyone would be comparing the two.

As for 172 (unless you're talking about the larger engined Q/S models) vs 180 Cherokee, they're not exactly a direct comparison, thanks to the bigger engine in the Cherokee. Having flown both types a good bit, I'd say the 180 Cherokee wins hands down -- more payload, more speed, and only marginally greater hourly cost (like $8-10 more per hour for fuel and that's it). Change the engine in the 172 via one of the 180HP O-360 STC's or getting a 172Q (if you can find one -- rare in the USA), then it's dealer's choice based on personal subjective preference.
 
Last edited:
DavidEM said:
Don't you think the PA-24-180 is more equivalent of the C172 than a PA-28-180?
Click to expand...
The PA24-180 is a 180 HP Comanche -- retractable gear, c/s prop. The C172 is usually a simple 145-160 HP fixed gear/fixed prop plane. The PA28-180 is a simple, fixed gear/fixed prop 180 HP plane. The Piper products most similar to the C172 are the PA28-140/150/160 Cherokees, all with the same basic O-320 engine as the vast majority of the 172 fleet. The Cessna products to which the 180 Comanche is probably most similar are the 172RG Cutlass and 177RG Cardinal RG.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, then I usually start getting ornery and tell the whipper snappers to get off my lawn.

Of course, some folks might say a P180 = Piaggio. In which case...
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
First, I've never heard of a 180 Cherokee being referred to as a "P180" -- that usually means a Piaggio P180, and couldn't understand why anyone would be comparing the two.
Click to expand...

Nice.

As far as C-172 versus a PA-28-180:
Which is cheaper to rent, which has better avionics, and do any of your passengers have mobility issues (if so, C-172 might be better due to entry depending on the issue and person)?

If the answer to those is neither, get checked out in the cherokee so that you have more options available for renting and just take whatever is available that day =D
 
I like them both equally. I think I mentioned this in another similar thread, but I prefer the Cessnas when it gets hot out because you can open the windows and the air vents are worlds better at cooling you off as compared to the useless floor vents on the piper. OAT not withstanding, theyre pretty much the same in most other aspects of flying them.
 
I would prefer the P180 Avanti for the XC's.
 
Nearly all my 200+ hrs is in cessnas but I recently got checked out on the Cherokees for the reason cited above...to have more scheduling options at the FFBO. That paid off last week when we decided on short notice to take a 3day, 800nm round trip, and the Cherokee 180 was the only plane available. I about doubled my total time in the cherokee on the trip.

Sticking strictly to XC considerations, these are my observations:

1. If you are really into pilotage and dead reckoning, the high wing and higher seat of the 172 is better. If the view is not that important to you, then you can discount that.

2. Anything more than an hour in a 172 numbs my butt and back. This week I comfortably flew a 2 hr leg outbound. On the return there was a little get-home-itis so we flew 3.5 hrs. That was a little too long, but I can't imagine doing that in a 172.

3. One of the reasons we were anxious to get home was our departure was delayed while we tried to get frost and snow off the wings. If that had been a 172, I'd have been forced to wait longer for the sun to melt the frost resulting in a nighttime arrival which is below my personal minimums, or rationalizing that I had gotten 'enough' frost off to launch. Advantage to the Cherokee there.
 
Van Johnston said:
Nearly all my 200+ hrs is in cessnas but I recently got checked out on the Cherokees for the reason cited above...to have more scheduling options at the FFBO. That paid off last week when we decided on short notice to take a 3day, 800nm round trip, and the Cherokee 180 was the only plane available. I about doubled my total time in the cherokee on the trip.

Sticking strictly to XC considerations, these are my observations:

1. If you are really into pilotage and dead reckoning, the high wing and higher seat of the 172 is better. If the view is not that important to you, then you can discount that.

2. Anything more than an hour in a 172 numbs my butt and back. This week I comfortably flew a 2 hr leg outbound. On the return there was a little get-home-itis so we flew 3.5 hrs. That was a little too long, but I can't imagine doing that in a 172.

3. One of the reasons we were anxious to get home was our departure was delayed while we tried to get frost and snow off the wings. If that had been a 172, I'd have been forced to wait longer for the sun to melt the frost resulting in a nighttime arrival which is below my personal minimums, or rationalizing that I had gotten 'enough' frost off to launch. Advantage to the Cherokee there.
Click to expand...

A 3.5 hour leg in a 172 isn't that bad. I've done a few of those, although I much prefer a 3.5 hour leg in the Mooney.
 
I may be biased here but I would prefer a PA28-180 (FAA code name PA28A) to a Cessna 172. I've put in a lot of time on an Archer early on. It was well equiped, fairly new, and more readily available to private pilots as the students generally prefered the cheaper Warriors. On the other hand, the C172 is mostly the aircraft I've rented outside my home airport. We did have a Warrior a couple of times down in Manteo, NC but they eventually went over to C172s.
Either works for me. All I really ask for is a good radio and the standard 6 pack gauges.
 
Most of my time is in a 172, but I flew the school's Archer once and I loved it. So much smoother and a better seating position for me. The seats were more comfortable, too.
 
The fact the C172 only has 38 gallons usable has always been a sore spot for me when comparing it to the piper line. In that respect alone I consider it an inferior XC airplane than even my 160HP Warrior II even though I prefer the seating, back seat dimensions and door/ingress/egress of the Cessna. Finding a 172 with organic 50 gallon wings is like a needle in a haystack and the STCs to increase fuel capacity are not bolt-on and are expensive (wing tip tanks or baggage area tank STCs all require pumps).

Last year I had a 840NM round trip mission which I accomplished flawlessly all 30 times on the warrior and the fundamental difference that allowed me to accomplish those flights without a necessitated fuel stop was the 50 gallon capacity on the airframe. As much as I prefer the Cessna setup, had I owned a 172 of the same vintage, I would have been doing a fuel stop on the return legs west when windy (read, guaranteed in the winter months). That was a significant difference to me when talking about XC in these trianer types.

I'd go with the cherokee 180.
 
To me I think it depends on where you live. Living in NJ I hated skyhawks because I couldn't see traffic as soon as i began my turn. Out in Colorado with the mountains and pilotage being such a necessity I prefer cessna's. I will say that after ~75 hours in the 152/172 the second I stepped into a Cherokee I fell in love... but that was because it was just the novelty of something different than the cessna line up, so once that new feeling wore off I switched back to Cessna. YMMV
 
DavidEM said:
Well, the title asks about the Cessna 172 versus Piper 180, so yeah, the Piper Cherokee PA-28-180 (thought I don't know just why Piper has to put so many letters in a name...)
Click to expand...
No offense, but your title says C172 to P180.....technically a P180 is this thing:

10058d1294364762-triple-tandem-wings-future-piaggio_p180_avanti_ii_a.jpg


As far as the diff between a 172 and a PA28-180....not much. If you are poficient in the 172 and hour in the PA28 will do fine.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No offense, but your title says C172 to P180.....technically a P180 is this thing:

10058d1294364762-triple-tandem-wings-future-piaggio_p180_avanti_ii_a.jpg


As far as the diff between a 172 and a PA28-180....not much. If you are poficient in the 172 and hour in the PA28 will do fine.
Click to expand...

If only my wallet would accommodate this.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top