PA-28 vs 172?

[Mike5250]

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.

Some Archers have the ability depending on their empty weight. Many of the mid 70's models have 1000lb useful loads. Fuel to tabs-34 gallons and you have about 800lb payload. The 172's I have flow all seem to hold about 150lbs less.

I always like the Stinson 108's but have never talked to an owner.

Mike

 

[Clark1961]

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.

A PA28-235 or -236 will fill that mission. Watch the backseat space and compare with the 182, but particular Cherokees will carry 4 people.

 

[AdamZ]

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.

I agree with Alan with perhaps the part about privately owned vs trainers. He really is on target. Aviv from what I recall you are going to attend college at Colgate in upstate NY where there is a lot of snow. Snow is easier to clean off of a low wing than a high wing. Other than that buy and fly what you want and what you can afford. Really they are both awesome planes You can get four lighter people in a PA28 if you don't go full fuel but you may not fly with four people very much. I'd venture a bet that not one person on this board would tell you that you made a mistake if you bought one over the other, they are both good aircraft. Should you look at something else? If you want. A Cherokee or a 172 are great so is a Traveler. A Traveler may even be a bit faster than the Cherokee or 172. As I said in a previous post given that you will be new to the U.S. and in college I'd consider renting for a while to get your bearings so to speak.

If you are set on buying there is actually a 172H with a new top IIRC for sale by a POAer down here in Philly. I've flown in the plane and it does have the O-300 but it is smoooooth.

 

[Anthony]

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.

Alan. Guess we missed each other when I was based at KFTG with my Tiger a few years ago. I had it hanagered there for three years, and while in the summer I mostly kept it to a two place plane while heading into the mountains it did fine. I am sure you know you can go just about anywhere at 12,500 ft, through the big rocks, so the Tiger and even my friends Cheetah were fine. The Tiger will do whatever a Cherokee 180 will do and a bit faster. Yes, it may need a little more runway, but that's not a problem, especially out west unless you are doing bush flying and Cherokees aren't good at that either. My Tiger's usefull load is 960 lbs and I've had it over 15K feet. The plane doesn't know its over rocks, trust me. I guess I'm still wondering why a Tiger won't cut it?

 

[Pilawt]

what do you guys think of a Grumman American Traveler?

Traveler or the newer Cheetah is a good choice for a first-time owner. It's a simple bird with decent performance and outstanding handling qualities - and great ramp appeal.

Having said that, I would strongly recommend any purchaser have access to a mechanic familiar with the breed. There are idiosyncrasies (not "bad" - just "different") that are best handled by a Gruman-savvy mechanic. Also, join the type club, International Grumman American Pilots Association (aya.org) for excellent advice and resources. They can steer you to good mechanics, and to good instructors who can properly familiarize you with the airplane.

 

[zaitcev]

How many cars have you owned with only one door?

Aviv would be looking to buy a Musketeer if he wanted a Cherokee with 2 doors. Clearly it's not an important criterium for him.

 

[Skylane81E]

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..

Then give up taking four people fuel and bags. You're gonna need a 182, Cherokee 235 or bigger to fit that mission.

A 172 or any of the smaller Cherokee's will take two people on a trip or four on a ride.

 

[PilotAlan]

A PA28-235 or -236 will fill that mission. Watch the backseat space and compare with the 182, but particular Cherokees will carry 4 people.

Agreed. That's why I said:

If you truly need four adult seats, you are in the territory of a 182, Cherokee 235 (but small inside)

Pre-1973 Cherokees have VERY short legroom on the back (essentially none). Post 73's have more leg room, but are still very narrow (as are 172s).
If you need to put actual 21st Century adult humans back there for significant periods, it's a tight fit width wise.
That's why a 182 would be a better choice for that mission as defined.

If you can fit your four people into a Cherokee, I would strongly recommend a 180 horsepower Cherokee (180, or Archer). The takeoff and climb performance difference is significant, for a minimal difference in purchase price right now.
And the purchase price difference between a Cherokee 180 and a converted 180hp Skyhawk is even greater than the difference between the 150hp Skyhawk and Cherokee.

 

[Tom-D]

How come, no one is calling for a Bonanza?

 

[PilotAlan]

How come, no one is calling for a Bonanza?

Tom, I think you set the record for the longest before the word "Bonanza" appeared in a "which plane" thread.

 

[Ghery]

Make sure you fly both, and not just for a few trips around the pattern. All my Cherokee time is in an Arrow (folding gear) and I have determined that 3 hours is my limit. Something about the seat to pedals or something, but my knees are gone after three hours and it's all I can do to crawl out of the Arrow. No such problems with a 172 or 182. Everyone's different and this is my one concern with the PA-28R-200. Otherwise, they've both got wings, they both convert 100LL to noise and they're both fun. And a 180 HP 172N will carry more weight in the cabin with full tanks than the Arrow. 755 pounds with full long range tanks for our club's 172N.

 

[RobertSubnet]

I never understood why there was only 1 door for the Piper and on the passenger side no less! One of the reasons why I like the Tomahawk so much was that it is a low wing trainer with 2 doors - neither leaked!

 

[zaitcev]

Many airplanes have 1 door on the right, not just Pipers. Mooney and Bonanza are like that. Some of Musketeers too (not many, but N1000J is one). As to why, my guess is that a passenger can board while prop is turning (or at least could back in 1960s -- although my CFI did it in 2010), but pilot really should not be doing that. Or perhaps making pilot slid across to/from the other side is more appropriate than forcing a passenger to do it. But I wonder.

 

[PilotAlan]

Or perhaps making pilot slid across to/from the other side is more appropriate than forcing a passenger to do it. But I wonder.

I know I brief my passengers that in the event of a forced landing, as soon as the plane comes to a stop they are to EXIT, go straight to the rear of the aircraft, go 20 feet past the tail, and meet up.
Do not check on me, do not wait for me, do not try to rescue me. Get OUT.

So, if the plane only has one door, I want it on the passenger side so they can get out whether I'm awake, alive, or occupied shutting off electricals and fuel.

 

[Pilawt]

My guess is that having the single door on the right was a holdover from the Cub design (throttle was on the left sidewall, so the door went on the right).

The only postwar US low-wing light planes I can think of that had the lone cabin door on the left were the Navion Rangemaster and the prototype American Aviation AA-2 Patriot.

 

[Neal Howard]

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

Also Cherokee 140 PA28-140, 150hp, non-trainer personal airplane, 4 seats with 2 individual seats in the back plus a baggage area and "hat rack" behind the rear seat. Able to lift itself plus 3 adults, fuel to the tabs, loaded up to the full 2150lbs max gross on a hot Texas summer day, and do it in accordance with the book's published numbers (as long as you don't have a 1900+ hour runout engine).

Also significantly wider front seat shoulder room than a 172, and much quieter inside than a 172.

Low wing allows you to keep the runway in sight while making turns in the pattern. :wink2:

Hershey wing makes childs play out of gusty crosswind landings. Rides turbulence a little smoother than the Cessna wing.

No ladder needed to refuel the plane.

Adult in rear seat almost needs to sit sideways, else enjoy riding with his knees in his armpits.

Insurance with $30k hull coverage included typically ran me $600/yr.

Annual inspections typically ran me under 1 AMU per year unless I was upgrading radios, stereo intercom system, new strobes, etc at the same time.

I owned one for almost ten years, then became addicted to Vans RVs

 

[Neal Howard]

Aviv would be looking to buy a Musketeer if he wanted a Cherokee with 2 doors.

Watch out for bird strike damage on the trailing edges of the wings and tail on those Mousketeers

 

[Skylane81E]

How come, no one is calling for a Bonanza?

Cuz if a 182 is too much plane a Bo might as well be a 747

 

[DavidWhite]

172

<starts clapping>

 

[weilke]

Cuz if a 182 is too much plane a Bo might as well be a 747

Not according to the 'well, if you fly a bo just slow enough' theory of auto-suggestion.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Yes, this is indeed a discussion that is almost about religion due to such strong opinions. To throw some facts in the equation, go look up the accident statistics on each plane. In this statistical area, the Piper wins.

I would like to point out that although I own a Cessna, I have no dog in the hunt in this discussion. In fact if it came down to one or the other for me, it would probably be the Piper if all things were equal such as engine time, condition and so forth.

My $0.02,
Doc

 

[Sac Arrow]

All things being equal I'd be happy with either a Cherokee or a 172 if I was limited to those choices and I'd probably get whichever was the best value. Which, would probably end up being a Cherokee. But, in my case, my critera (turbo, retractable gear) made a Turbo Arrow a clear choice over an equivalent Cessna, cost wise. Plus Cessna has a really funky retract system.

I also learned on 172's but flew mostly PA 140's before getting the Arrow. I don't have the Arrow anymore but if I replace it, I'll probably get something in the Cherokee or 172 class - fixed gear, normally aspirated, "four" seater. Like, a DA40 if one can be had for less than the premium they are currently going for.