PA-28 vs 172?

G

giaviv

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
51
Display Name
Display name:
giaviv
hey,

i am thinking about my first airplane purchase. the main purposes are IFR and cross country flying, as well as flying with friends.
therefore, the 2-seaters aren't really an option although they are very cheap and burn less fuel.

unless you have other suggestions, i narrowed it down to either a 172 or a pa-28. i did most of my training on a 172 and i like it better than the pa-28's, but i noticed that the prices of a comparable pa-28 and a 172 (around mic 70's to late 80's, under 800 hours SMOH) are around $30,000-$35,000 and $40,000, respectively. pipers also usually eat up an extra gallon hour.

i sure like the 172's better, but do i like them $5,000-$10,000 better? why is the price difference so high?

other than fuel consumption, are the airplanes more or less comparable in terms of operational costs? are there any other airplanes i should be looking at?

thank you!
 
Do the AD list on both aircraft, then do the AD list on both engines 0-300, 0-320.

In this market we are starting to see aircraft like the 172XP in the upper 30s too. and a few 182s

and don't forget these

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1199617.html
 
Last edited:
yeah i did, and still there is a pretty big difference between the pa-28s and the 172's..
 
I learned in 172s and bought a PA-28 without a minute of time in type.
The PA-28s tend to run about 20% or more less than comparable Cessnas, simply because people learn in Cessnas and are uncomfortable changing.
Transitioning to the Cherokee took about 20 minutes and two landings.

The PA28 is one of the simplest planes to own and maintain. Some will point to oleo maintenance (and there is a little bit), but Cessnas have the seat rail issues, nosewheel shimmy issues, and the complex flaps that can eat up maintenance as well.
Also, most PA28s have been personal aircraft, and most Cessnas have been trainers.

Both are rock simple airframes, they are both some of the cheapest planes to own and operate. But the simple issue of price difference sent me toward the PA28.
 
PilotAlan said:
Also, most PA28s have been personal aircraft, and most Cessnas have been trainers.

Both are rock simple airframes, they are both some of the cheapest planes to own and operate. But the simple issue of price difference sent me toward the PA28.
Click to expand...

Got stats on that?

The 150/152 are very popular trainers, but so is the PA-28-140.

want to enplane the landing gear scissor issues with the piper line? all aircraft will have their maintenance issues, that doesn't make them any more cheaper to operate
 
Well you have identified the airplane you prefer, i would recommend an older O-300 172 as the best bang for the buck. It's performance is nearly identical to newer ones, parts wont be an issue for a long time (cases and cranks still being made by Continental), and its priced quite a bit lower than the Lycoming versions (market prefers Lycoming).

They are priced about the same as the cherokees,
Useful load generally around 900 lbs.
Two doors, usable backseat, same price.

Get a 172. It's what you really want.

This ad was paid for by Cessna Aircraft Company.
 
This is a religious discussion. And it's been hashed over innumerable times, in innumerable locations, including on this board. Do a search here on POA and read about the personal preferences because that's what it really comes down to.
 
giaviv said:
...i am thinking about my first airplane purchase. the main purposes are IFR and cross country flying

unless you have other suggestions, i narrowed it down to either a 172 or a pa-28. i did most of my training on a 172 and i like it better than the pa-28's, but i noticed that the prices of a comparable pa-28 and a 172 (around mic 70's to late 80's, under 800 hours SMOH) are around $30,000-$35,000 and $40,000, respectively. pipers also usually eat up an extra gallon hour.

i sure like the 172's better, but do i like them $5,000-$10,000 better? why is the price difference so high?

other than fuel consumption, are the airplanes more or less comparable in terms of operational costs? are there any other airplanes i should be looking at?

...
Click to expand...

I learned primarily in the 172, with about 10 hours of time in a warrior before passing the checkride.

I began my instrument training in a 172, but also used a warrior. Eventually I used the cherokee exclusively for my instrument training.

I found that I prefer the cherokee for instrument flying over the 172.

bottomline: you might want to try instrument flying in both the 172 and cherokee warrior/archer and see which one you feel more comfortable with.
 
Do you want the wing at the top or the bottom ?
Do you want one or two leaking doors ?

Those are about the only criteria I can come up with for this question.


A nice Cherokee 180 or Archer is one of the most economical ways to own an aircraft that still allows you to travel a bit if you want. If you can find a 235 at a good price, that may be another good option, if you want to fly it at 180 fuel burns and speeds you can allways throttle back but it will give you the option to fly in the mountains or get out of a shorter strip at gross.
 
weilke said:
Do you want the wing at the top or the bottom ?
Do you want one or two leaking doors ?

Those are about the only criteria I can come up with for this question.


A nice Cherokee 180 or Archer is one of the most economical ways to own an aircraft that still allows you to travel a bit if you want. If you can find a 235 at a good price, that may be another good option, if you want to fly it at 180 fuel burns and speeds you can allways throttle back but it will give you the option to fly in the mountains or get out of a shorter strip at gross.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, one of our school 172s has had it's doors slammed so many times they no longer even remotely seal (but if I look as good after flying 16,000hours...) however not one drop of water ever makes it in and you can't notice the air leakage in flight.

To the OP, you said you like 172s more? Can you afford the extra cost? If so then yes they are worth the extra money just so you have a plane that you love just that little bit extra. Same goes for the low-wingers, buy the plane that makes you happy.
 
I like my Warrior, it's a very forgiving airplane, so much so that even I can fly it with confidence. C-172s seem to be a little more touchy about landing, my Warrior simply lands.

C-172 has one great feature for cross country flying, you can set the fuel tank on "both". A PA-28, on the other hand, gets real picky about what tank it wants to sip fuel from, ya gotta remember to change tanks every half or full hour.

I like to think my Warrior is faster than a C-172, but I'm not sure if that is factual or not.

In a Warrior, with judicious leaning, you can get your fuel burn considerably below what the POH claims you are going to need, but I guess that would be true in a 172 as well.

I took my check ride in a 172 after flying nothing but a warrior during my entire training (many, many, years) I like some things about the 172, like the touristing visibility, and the way it handled in hot air out in Arizona. I did not like the way it landed, you gotta be 100% on top of it or you can be bouncing down the runway like some sort of overweight sea creature.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I would keep my Warrior.

John
 
Last edited:
PilotAlan said:
I learned in 172s and bought a PA-28 without a minute of time in type.
The PA-28s tend to run about 20% or more less than comparable Cessnas, simply because people learn in Cessnas and are uncomfortable changing.
Transitioning to the Cherokee took about 20 minutes and two landings.

The PA28 is one of the simplest planes to own and maintain. Some will point to oleo maintenance (and there is a little bit), but Cessnas have the seat rail issues, nosewheel shimmy issues, and the complex flaps that can eat up maintenance as well.
Also, most PA28s have been personal aircraft, and most Cessnas have been trainers.

Both are rock simple airframes, they are both some of the cheapest planes to own and operate. But the simple issue of price difference sent me toward the PA28.
Click to expand...
What Alan said.

I too had most of my training time in a 172 and ended up buying a PA28-161. I had flown Pipers before and had time on the Cherokee and Tomahawks.

Really it is 6 of one, half dozen of the other. They both make good planes to own. Similar flying characteristics and similar maintenance cost. When I was shopping I looked at both and found the Warrior that I bought as the best value, best maintained and best equipped plane on the used market at the time. I say don't limit yourself to one or other. Keep an open mind and see what pops up.
 
awesome. thanks. im going to look at both.

as far as the 172's goes, i had been advised to go for the L, M or P models. i am also quite familiar with the actual airplane.

i don't know the pipers at all (i have 1.6 hours on an archer). what is the difference between the cherokee, archer and warrior? what are the different models and which ones should i look into?
 
giaviv said:
awhat is the difference between the cherokee, archer and warrior? what are the different models and which ones should i look into?
Click to expand...

They are all 'Cherokees', Piper somewhat randomly attached names to various models. In the mid 70s, there only a fleeting relation between the names and the specs of the aircraft it seems.

Cherokee 140 PA28-140: 150hp 2-seater with a bench seat thing in the back to place the flight-bag upon. trainer aircraft , able to lift itself and a bag of groceries on a hot day. Straight 'hershey bar' wing.

Cherokee 180 PA28-180: Same as above, just with 180hp and quite functional.

Cherokee Archer PA28-181: later model, same hp, semi-tapered wings (although iirc there are a couple with the archer label that still had the hershey bars)

Cherokee Warrior PA28-161: Basically successor to the 140, except with a bit more power and semi-tapered wings. For a while, both Warriors and 140s were built in parallel.
 
Last edited:
giaviv said:
awesome. thanks. im going to look at both.

as far as the 172's goes, i had been advised to go for the L, M or P models. i am also quite familiar with the actual airplane.

i don't know the pipers at all (i have 1.6 hours on an archer). what is the difference between the cherokee, archer and warrior? what are the different models and which ones should i look into?
Click to expand...
The only real thing to watch for other than ADs and general maintenance is the O-320-H2AD engine. Read up on it, understand the issues and the fixes to help avoid any problems or buyers remorse issues.
 
Thanks for the advice. What does AD stand for?
Also, I would like the plane to be able to carry 4 people + a little baggage and fuel. If this isn't possible it kind of defeats the purpose of not getting a 152..
Which models should I look at then?
 
Archers are good airplanes. I find the Warriors to be more than a little bit underpowered. Great flying airplanes if you can get past that though. I have my time pretty well split between Cessnas and Warriors, did my instrument rating in a Warrior 161. Honestly, find something that pops up in your price range, go look at it/fly it, and write the check on what you like. For the sake of this discussion, an airplane is an airplane. You're gonna like either one.

Have fun!
 
giaviv said:
Thanks for the advice. What does AD stand for?
Also, I would like the plane to be able to carry 4 people + a little baggage and fuel. If this isn't possible it kind of defeats the purpose of not getting a 152..
Which models should I look at then?
Click to expand...
AD=Airworthiness Directive. Learn about them and which ones apply to which airframes. Learn about Service Bulletins too. When you are buying a plane you want to make sure that all ADs and SBs are complied with, but you should also understand the real serious ones and how they could impact your maintenance costs.

If you want 4 people and a little baggage then I hope those are small people because a PA28-160(1) or 172 ain't the plane for that mission!! You are talking 182 or bigger.

But either a PA28 or 172 is a big step over a 152. You will be able to carry more and go faster in a more comfortable airplane.
 
I don't know which I prefer.

I learned in a 160 HP Piper Warrior. I LOVED that plane. The fact it was low-wing didn't bother me. I didn't care that i couldnt look to the side and see the runway. I just thought low wing looked cooler in appearance.

I got about 41 hours in a Piper Warrior, then I moved across the country and went to a Cessna 172SP, mainly because without looking too hard, it was all I could find. I really hated it at first. My first main complaint was, having the wing drop when turning and blocking your view. In the warrior, I would never lose sight of the airport. In the Cessna, I occasionally do when the wing drops turning in the pattern.

Really though, the only real difference I noticed in handling, was you have to flare a Cessna a tad more compared to a Piper, due to ground effect differences associated with high wing and low wing (?). My instructor told me, going from a low wing to a high wing, i'd probably land flat my first time or two. And I did.

Now I have about 60 hours in high wing, and have gotten used to the above "complaints". I could really go either way now. Just my comments on the two.
 
The archer II I fly has a 1000 lb useful load. 48 gallons and 700 lbs is nice to have. I beleive you can tell if it has the tapered wing if the last number is a 1. Ex pa28-181

I always thought the archer was 10kts faster.

Mike
 
giaviv said:
Thanks for the advice. What does AD stand for?
Also, I would like the plane to be able to carry 4 people + a little baggage and fuel. If this isn't possible it kind of defeats the purpose of not getting a 152..
Which models should I look at then?
Click to expand...

That would be the Stinson 108. The original Franklin engine may be an issue - but many have been converted to the Lycoming O-360.
 
weilke said:
Do you want the wing at the top or the bottom ?
Do you want one or two leaking doors ?

Those are about the only criteria I can come up with for this question.


A nice Cherokee 180 or Archer is one of the most economical ways to own an aircraft that still allows you to travel a bit if you want. If you can find a 235 at a good price, that may be another good option, if you want to fly it at 180 fuel burns and speeds you can allways throttle back but it will give you the option to fly in the mountains or get out of a shorter strip at gross.
Click to expand...

How many cars have you owned with only one door? ;)

I swear...sometimes I think that as pilots we have all truly gone round the bend.

(And the 206/Stationaire concept is just as bad)
 
thanks but i don't want a 182 because of a) the relatively high fuel consumption and b) the higher maintenance costs relating to the CSU and so forth..
 
what do you guys think of a Grumman American Traveler?
 
alaskaflyer said:
How many cars have you owned with only one door? ;)

I swear...sometimes I think that as pilots we have all truly gone round the bend.

(And the 206/Stationaire concept is just as bad)
Click to expand...

I actually find it easier to get in/out of my cherokee 140 than the 172.
 
giaviv said:
what do you guys think of a Grumman American Traveler?
Click to expand...
I was going to say... Don't limit yourself to just Pipers or Cessnas. There are MANY aircraft out there that would fit your mission. The newer the aircraft, the more expensive but there are lots over 20 years old that have some good stats and lots of life left in them.
The other thing not to worry as much about SMOH. Many are more than capable of exceeding their manufacturer's time. That depends a lot on usage. A concern is insurance (how would they handle a claim on a plane over SMOH).
Get a good mechanic. Have him do a full annual on the plane as a pre-buy inspection. Make sure ANY purchase and sales agreement includes a satisfactory result from the pre-buy.
Go thumb through a Trade-a-Plane or Controller. See what is out there.
 
i dont even know which other airplanes to look at.. any ideas?
 
giaviv said:
i dont even know which other airplanes to look at.. any ideas?
Click to expand...

If retractable gear is something you'd be willing to accept in a first airplane, then according to the many posts I've read on PoA from Mooniacs over the years, a Mooney would be a good choice. I see a reasonable number of Mooney M20Cs and M20Es available with asking prices under $40k (some even on $30k.)
 
my main concerns are high fuel consumption and high maintenance costs. since i am building hours i would like to keep these at a minimum..
 
A 172 is really only a three person airplane, if you are hauling around "normal" sized Americans. The Grumann's are great airplanes and are worth a look, but probably still only a 3 person plane. If you are like most pilots/airplane owners, you will wind up flying a huge percentage of the time alone or just with your wife. A good alternative is to get checked out in a 182 somewhere that has one for rent, then buy a cheaper plane to build time in, maybe even a 152. If you are firm in wanting to own a true 4 person plane, it will wind up costing you quite a bit.
 
giaviv said:
i dont even know which other airplanes to look at.. any ideas?
Click to expand...
Beech, Commander, Navion, Rockwell, Socata... Like I said, start with the magazines I mentioned. Look in the for sale sections of Atlantic Flyer or Pacific Flyer. Keep a browser handy to look them up. If you find one you like, ask about it like you did with the Pipers and Cessnas.
I bought the plane I spent most of my training time in. It is a finely appointed Piper Warrior with two NAV/COMMs and a KLN89B but I might have gone for a plane with more capacity had I looked around a bit more.
 
I've owned a 1967 H model 172 for 28 years. I can't give you a comparison to Pipers but I can tell you about my ownership experience. Originally, it had the O-300 engine, and I found the acft to be under powered. I upgraded to an O-360 180 HP, and what a difference. I have taken off fully loaded in 100 F temps without a problem and I gained about 15 kts in speed. With this engine conversion, the aircraft is eligable for a gross weight increase of 250 lbs[200 net since the Lyc weighs 50 lbs more]. That puts my useful load at 1096 lbs and that is a real 4 place acft. With this engine it is a very good short field acft, which is nice because I like to visit those fields. So you will see a price difference in the old 172's that have the engine upgrade. My particular model has a remarkable low number of AD's, none of which are expensive, and only one recurring [seat rails]. Someone mentioned flap problems with the 172. The only time I've had a flap problem is when the actuator screw wasn't properly lubricated as it should have been at annual. The acft still has the original flap motor. It also still has the original vaccum pump [wet]. I got my instrument rating in this acft and my son also learned to fly in it. It has steel spring main landing gear and it can take a beating. The last time I had a problem with the nose strut was about 15 years ago. Parts are easy to come by and mechanics know the airplane. I pay about $720/year for insurance with a hull value of $65,000. Annuals run about $1200-1300 if nothing major pops up. I've had the airplane repainted in the original factory colors [more style in the 60's than now] and the interior redone. Frankly, I would rather have this airplane than a new 172 that costs 300K. It will out perform a new 172 and carry more weight. If there is a more safe and economical airplane than my 172 I don't know what it is. As long as you are not in a hurry to get where you are going, the 172 is a great all around airplane. I've flown this plane all over the country and it has been very good to me and my family.
 
Last edited:
There is another consideration that could be major, depending on where you live and plan on going. If Your thinking about dirt runways in the southwest, you are not going to want a low wing airplane. Our dirt runways are not dirt or grass, they are sand and gravel.

John
 
There isn't that much difference. Buy what you want You will get more bang for your buck with the Piper.
 
If you want a four (adult-sized) person aircraft, that is a different class of airplane. Neither a 172 or a PA28 will fill that mission.
That said, lots of people buying their first plane say the need to carry four people, and then never do.

Unless you are a special case (like having two big kids who will fly with you frequently to your upstate cabin or something), the vast majority of flights will be one person, some with two, and a vanishingly small percentage with three.
If you truly need four adult seats, you are in the territory of a 182, Cherokee 235 (but small inside), or something else with a 6-cylinder engine and a constant speed prop.
But if you are in the world most of us inhabit, three seats is what you need.

Having been where you are, I would look at a Cherokee 180. If you are going to travel with two adults and two small kids (or three adults occasionally), there's plenty of room in the back and plenty of payload.

Also consider the Tiger. Plenty of room for three, fast and efficient, fixed prop and gear.
Unfortunately, out here in summer I frequently am taking off with density altitudes over 9000ft. A Tiger doesn't cut it here. If I lived at sea level, I'd be all over a Tiger or Cheetah. They are expensive compared to 172s and PA28s, but the performance and efficiency will save money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top