Transitioning to a Piper from a Cessna?

MrAviator180

MrAviator180

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 16, 2013
Messages
57
Location
Alaska
Display Name
Display name:
MrAviator
I have about 25 hours in a Cessna 150s, 152 (Sparrowhawk Mod), and a few in a 172M. My first intro flight was in a PA-28-181.

I'm thinking about transitioning to a PA-28-140 my flight school just received. Any thoughts, tips, conclusions, concerns with this? I want to know if this is the right choice.

My main reasons, are the speed and the range, as well as how comfortable it is compared to the 152. I think I am making the right choice.

Other input requested! :dunno:
 
MrAviator180 said:
I have about 25 hours in a Cessna 150s, 152 (Sparrowhawk Mod), and a few in a 172M. My first intro flight was in a PA-28-181.

I'm thinking about transitioning to a PA-28-140 my flight school just received. Any thoughts, tips, conclusions, concerns with this? I want to know if this is the right choice.

My main reasons, are the speed and the range, as well as how comfortable it is compared to the 152. I think I am making the right choice.

Other input requested! :dunno:
Click to expand...


All more or less the same thing, at your point, Id go with the cheapest option, once you hit 100hrs then start looking at some fancier options, till then get the most amount of hours for the least amount of money.
 
I did my private in a 172R and switched to the PA-28-161 for instrument. Took about 5 hours just to get a feel for the new plane, and an hour in the pattern worked wonders with the flare. Now I fly them interchangeably.
 
The main differences you'll find are:

1. Pipers feel 'sturdier'.
2. PA-28s have direct nose wheel steering vice the Cessna bungees.
3. Low wing gives visibility through the base to final turn.
4. The low wing enters ground effect sooner on landing.
5. Pitch control is heavier

Overall a pretty simple transition, and I prefer Pipers to their Cessna counterparts, but it's not a mind blowing difference.
 
I like the 140 ,when I was renting I would rent the 140 as it was cheaper to rent in my area. The 140 feels heavier and more stable than the 152. Also feels much roomier. Makes a nice two seat airplane .
 
An airplane is an airplane is an airplane.

The 140 is more comfortable.
The 152 costs less to rent (assumption)
By the time you have a few hundred hours you will realize the differences are meaningless for just boring holes in the sky.
Fly what makes you happy :D
 
NWADC9 said:
I did my private in a 172R and switched to the PA-28-161 for instrument. Took about 5 hours just to get a feel for the new plane, and an hour in the pattern worked wonders with the flare. Now I fly them interchangeably.
Click to expand...
For someone with less than 100 hours, that sounds typical based on my experience giving transition training.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
The main differences you'll find are:

1. Pipers feel 'sturdier'.
2. PA-28s have direct nose wheel steering vice the Cessna bungees.
3. Low wing gives visibility through the base to final turn.
4. The low wing enters ground effect sooner on landing.
5. Pitch control is heavier

Overall a pretty simple transition, and I prefer Pipers to their Cessna counterparts, but it's not a mind blowing difference.
Click to expand...
My preference goes the other way, but it's still a plane.

I'd also add to the list:
6. Remember to switch fuel tanks on the Piper
7. Cessna slotted flaps seem more effective to me
8. Piper uses manual flap extension with a "Johnson bar"

The biggest issue I had really was that some stuff on the panel was in a different location (trim, ammmeter, vacuum guage, as examples) but one gets used to it. The "6 pack" is in the same place though.
 
During my primary training, I had the unfortunate experience of switching around to multiple flight schools (bad instructors, bad flight schools, moving, etc.). I started out in a C172 and switched to Warriors, Archers, and then back to C172. As others have mentioned, an airplane is an airplane. But if you are under 100 hours, it may take a bit to get used to. It would be like getting in a rental car. You might be uncomfortable for a few hours as you get to know where things are. You might turn on the wipers instead of the turn signal, etc. But unlike a car, there are some things that are different enough that warrant extra attention (use of flaps, fuel pump always on during takeoff/maneuvers, etc.).

The sight picture in landing is a bit different. You are more nose-high in the Cessna, so on your first few landings, you will probably balloon the Piper. You will probably be scared of hitting the nose wheel -- at least that was my experience. But if you do it a few times with an instructor, you'll get the hang of it in 5 hours max.
 
I transitioned a bit later -- about 120 hours -- but 5 hours seems long for this. I didn't take that long on my initial complex transition, and I'm no ace pilot.

The big things are fuel management -- in addition to switching tanks, you also have an electric boost pump to manage -- and the sight picture and blind spots. Everything else you'll figure out pretty quickly.

I don't think any trainers are less comfortable than a 152.
 
When going to the Piper from a Cessna there is a tendency to keep landing upside down as you are used to the wing being above your head instead of in its right place, below your head.
 
biggest differences for me is remonding myself to switch tanks, not to use carb heat except for engine rougness and suspected carb icing, and landing flat. you shouldbe fine after about 5 hours
 
I went from a 172N to a PA-28-181.
Loved the low wing view especially turning base to final.
Hated the clockwise/counterclockwise trim handle in the ceiling.
Loved the manual flap bar.
Actually loved not having a door to worry about flying open.(weird fear, I know)

After training in the 180, I feel like I'm hanging in the air in a high wing plane and it's very uncomfortable. I'm probably done with high wing planes until I fly one that makes it worth it.
 
jordane93 said:
biggest differences for me is remonding myself to switch tanks, not to use carb heat except for engine rougness and suspected carb icing, and landing flat. you shouldbe fine after about 5 hours
Click to expand...

:confused: Landing flat? Why on Earth would you land a Cherokee flatter than a 172? As for the carb heat, use it the same way as you would in a Cessna, won't hurt a thing to pull it on on final if you want, just remember to turn it off on a go around, same as a Cessna.

The one thing you left off your list was the electric fuel pump. The biggest difference between a Cessna and Piper is that gravity will feed the Cessna fuel, the Piper needs a pump, that's why we turn on the boost pump for T/O and landing, redundancy, and why we turn the boost pump off for taxi and the run up, to make sure the mechanical pump is working.
 
Coming from a 152, the Cherokee will feel huge (not a function of brand, same is true going from a 152 to a 172).

Otherwise a light plane is a light plane, the only differences are:
Direct nose steering
Rides better in bumps
Oleos are more forgiving of botched landings
Fuel pump on
Change tanks

Other than that, it's just learning where the knobs and switches are.

PS: I had never flown a Cherokee until I bought one. Piece of cake transition.
 
I think the Cherokee 140 is a complete abortion of an airplane, but if you must, the transition is pretty easy. Just remember if the engine starts to quit, boost pump on and switch tanks.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
2. PA-28s have direct nose wheel steering vice the Cessna bungees.
Click to expand...

PilotAlan said:
Direct nose steering
Click to expand...

PA-28s built from the 1974 model year onward do have bungees in the nosewheel steering circuit, which eases the necessary ground steering force, especially at low speeds. The significant difference is that Cessnas all have a centering cam in the nose strut, so that the nosewheel is always centered when the strut is extended in flight. Piper nosewheels turn with the rudder in flight (photo below). So if you touch down in a cross-control crosswind correction, a Cherokee's nosewheel will be pointed toward the downwind side of the runway.

pa-28-180_1970_slip.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here are some reasons why I hate the Cherokee 140:

-crappy, inefficient wing.
-underpowered.
-stupid trim crank on the ceiling(of the 45 hours I have in Cherokees, all but 5 was dual given, so on the rare occasion I got to fly the thing, I could never remember which way to turn the stupid thing)
-Hot in the summer.
-only 1 door.
-terrible soft field performance.
-and just overall a terrible airplane to learn in.
 
GCA319 said:
Here are some reasons why I hate the Cherokee 140:

-crappy, inefficient wing.
-underpowered.
-stupid trim crank on the ceiling(of the 45 hours I have in Cherokees, all but 5 was dual given, so on the rare occasion I got to fly the thing, I could never remember which way to turn the stupid thing)
-Hot in the summer.
-only 1 door.
-terrible soft field performance.
-and just overall a terrible airplane to learn in.
Click to expand...

Man, do I hate that darn crank. :mad2:
 
It all comes down to what you prefer and have more time in. I would advise you go for a flight in the Cherokee if you really dislike the Cessna. Otherwise just wait until you receive your licence, as transitioning then will be easier. I prefer the Warriors and Archers over the Cessnas, but I have more time in the Pipers. I even like flying 152's more than 172's, but size isn't an issue for me.
 
I flew high wings early in my training - the first time I started - over 20 years ago so I don't remember too much about them other than I really like the sight picture in a low wing over a high wing. I can see plenty when I'm gawking around in cruise but where it's important - in the pattern - the low wings wins hands down.

I fly a Cherokee 235 now so the performance is markedly different than a 140 but I'll say this. Cherokee's are pretty dang docile - like flying a truck...quite forgiving as well.

All the important things other's have mentioned. I don't know why people complain about the crank so much - I learned to like it. The only thing I hate about it is the grasping around I do from time to time trying to find the crank. Otherwise it's very simple - Right for Raise, Left for Lower.

You might want to read through this though - I think you'll find it very helpful.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/piperpa28.htm
 
GCA319 said:
Here are some reasons why I hate the Cherokee 140:

-crappy, inefficient wing.
-underpowered.
-stupid trim crank on the ceiling(of the 45 hours I have in Cherokees, all but 5 was dual given, so on the rare occasion I got to fly the thing, I could never remember which way to turn the stupid thing)
-Hot in the summer.
-only 1 door.
-terrible soft field performance.
-and just overall a terrible airplane to learn in.
Click to expand...

-The Cherokee has a slightly better glide ratio than a 172.
-The Cherokee 140 has the same power plant as the equivalent 172's. Many Cherokees and 172's have bigger engines. It depends on the model.
-The trim crank doesn't take long to get used to and only the older models have it.
-There are plenty of vents, if you know where they are, but all planes without air conditioning get hot in the summer.
-I admit, two doors is nicer, but not the only deciding factor for buying or choosing an airplane.
-Why do you say soft field performance is bad? The specs on both the 140 and the 172 are pretty darn close.
-I learned to fly in a Cherokee and found it easy and quite docile. Why do you think it is a terrible plane to learn in?
 
GCA319 said:
Here are some reasons why I hate the Cherokee 140:

-crappy, inefficient wing.
-underpowered.
-stupid trim crank on the ceiling(of the 45 hours I have in Cherokees, all but 5 was dual given, so on the rare occasion I got to fly the thing, I could never remember which way to turn the stupid thing)
-Hot in the summer.
-only 1 door.
-terrible soft field performance.
-and just overall a terrible airplane to learn in.
Click to expand...

Hmm... we all have our opinions! :D

Why I love my Cherokee

-I can afford to keep it and fly it.
-It is safe, pretty docile and actually takes effort to mess up.
-Love the overhead crank for trim.
-Always has got me home from a trip.
-Slow, but that just means I get more hours.
-Lifts a respectable load.
-Wing is in the right place.

Gary
 
John221us said:
-The Cherokee has a slightly better glide ratio than a 172.
[snip]
-Why do you say soft field performance is bad? The specs on both the 140 and the 172 are pretty darn close.
[snip]
-The Cherokee 140 has the same power plant as the equivalent 172's.
Click to expand...
Published specs may be close, but don't necessarily reflect reality. Real-world experience confirms that the 172's higher-aspect-ratio wing and different airfoil make it a more efficient performer at higher angles of attack. The PA-28 "hershey-bar" wing's "laminar" airfoil has higher induced drag at high angle of attack (such as in soft-field operations).

I have 530+ hours in C-172 and 620+ in Cherokee 140 and have owned both. No way the Cherokee 140 glides anything close to a C-172. If you rely on published specs, try this one -- with the same engine, the published service ceiling (max density altitude for 100 fpm climb) of my '77 Cherokee 140 was 11,000'; while for a C-172M it's 13,100' -- with a MGW 150 pounds higher than the Cherokee's. In practice, my Cherokee 140 struggled to get much above 10,000', even lightly-loaded; while I've taken my C-172 (which then still had its original, tired old O-320-H2AD) up to 14,500' density altitude.

That's why Piper adopted the tapered wing for the original PA-28-151 Warrior -- it too has the same engine as the PA-28-140 and the C-172I-M. But the Warrior's wing looks more like the 172's, in area, aspect ratio and airfoil (in the outer panels, at least), and therefore the airplane performs more like a 172.

I'm not bashing the Cherokee 140. I like it. It's a good, safe, roomy (in front, at least), easy-to-fly, economical airplane. But in some respects its performance suffers in comparison to a C-172. Those stubby little wings just won't do as well at lower speeds with the marginal power from an O-320.

Almost 500 hours of my Cherokee 140 time was as a CFI giving dual. I think the Cherokee 140 was too easy to fly to be an effective trainer. It could cover a multitude of student sins. Thus Piper dropped it as a trainer in favor of the PA-38 Tomahawk, which was designed to have "edgier" handling.
 
Gary said:
-Love the overhead crank for trim.
-Always has got me home from a trip.
Click to expand...

The overhead crank means a clear footwell across the aircraft.
Also, when making a large trim change, it's one continuous spin of the crank, vs multiple swipes on the trim wheel that only moves a quarter on a rev at a time.
 
Henning said:
:confused: Landing flat? Why on Earth would you land a Cherokee flatter than a 172? As for the carb heat, use it the same way as you would in a Cessna, won't hurt a thing to pull it on on final if you want, just remember to turn it off on a go around, same as a Cessna.

The one thing you left off your list was the electric fuel pump. The biggest difference between a Cessna and Piper is that gravity will feed the Cessna fuel, the Piper needs a pump, that's why we turn on the boost pump for T/O and landing, redundancy, and why we turn the boost pump off for taxi and the run up, to make sure the mechanical pump is working.
Click to expand...

Carb heat isn't needed on the Piper because of where they put the carburetor compared to the Cessna, tends to stay warm. IIRC, adding carb heat tends to richer the mixture further, increasing lead fouling. Cessna 172s with fuel injected engines also have both the mechanical and boost pumps. I didn't see which sort of C172 he was flying. I seem to land the Cherokee a bit flatter too. When that wing gets slow, but not stalled, it loses lift quickly, so I tend to flare much closer to the ground than a Cessna. However one wants to describe the landing, they do take somewhat different techniques to make a smooth landing.

Jesse or one of the other CFIs can explain it he carb ice thing better then I.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Carb heat isn't needed on the Piper because of where they put the carburetor compared to the Cessna, tends to stay warm. IIRC, adding carb heat tends to richer the mixture further, increasing lead fouling. Cessna 172s with fuel injected engines also have both the mechanical and boost pumps. I didn't see which sort of C172 he was flying. I seem to land the Cherokee a bit flatter too. When that wing gets slow, but not stalled, it loses lift quickly, so I tend to flare much closer to the ground than a Cessna. However one wants to describe the landing, they do take somewhat different techniques to make a smooth landing.

Jesse or one of the other CFIs can explain it he carb ice thing better then I.
Click to expand...

:confused: Where does Cessna move the carburetor on their O-320 Lycoming compared to the O-320 Lycoming on a Piper?
 
Henning said:
As for the carb heat, use it the same way as you would in a Cessna, won't hurt a thing to pull it on on final if you want, just remember to turn it off on a go around, same as a Cessna.
Click to expand...

I'd turn that carb heat off on short final if I were you.
 
Henning said:
I never use it on any Lycoming unless the conditions warrant it.
Click to expand...


They do.

I want all avalible power on short final as, chit happens.

Add to that carb heat is UNFILTERED air, get in the habit of landing with carb heat on, it's not a healthy practice for when you one day go to a dirt strip, also not great if you need to go around, like..NOW!

Its one less thing to do when something happens and you need to get the heck out of there.

There is really VERY LITLE, if any, chance you're going to get ice in the last <500ish feet, much to gain, little to loose.

Short final -> turn the carb heat off.
 
John221us said:
-The Cherokee has a slightl bett glide ratio than a 172.
-The Cherokee 140 has the same power plant as the equivalent 172's. Many Cherokees and 172's have bigger engines. It depends on the model.
-The trim crank doesn't take long to get used to and only the older models have it.
-There are plenty of vents, if you know where they are, but all planes without air conditioning get hot in the summer.
-I admit, two doors is nicer, but not the only deciding factor for buying or choosing an airplane.
-Why do you say soft field performance is bad? The specs on both the 140 and the 172 are pretty darn close.
-I learned to fly in a Cherokee and found it easy and quite docile. Why do you think it is a terrible plane to learn in?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know where the vents are-they kept my feet nice and cool. Have you tried holding the nosewheel off in a cherokee with full flaps? It's darn near impossible to do so with two people up front unless you carry a bunch of power. For checkride purposes, I taught them with no flaps in that airplane, which resulted in a faster than ideal touchdown. The reason you cited the cherokee as a good plane to learn in is why I think it's a terrible plane to learn in. Imo, they are too forgiving to poor technique when it comes to landings and too docile in stalls (not attacking your skils as a pilot. I know plenty of good sticks who learned in Cherokees). A 172 is forgiving too, but not quite as much as a cherokee (neither are the ideal trainer. In my observation, the LSA I do most of my primary instructing in turns out some darn good pilots due to being lessforgiving than your typical spam can). I guess there is one thing they teach better than a cessna and that thing is fuel management, but other than that, a cessna wins every other catagory in my book.
 
Henning said:
:confused: Where does Cessna move the carburetor on their O-320 Lycoming compared to the O-320 Lycoming on a Piper?
Click to expand...

Don't know. Been told by several people that it's in a place where the carb is warmer and far less conducive to icing. On Cessnas, the POH has one turning carb heat on when the throttle is set below 1700 RPM.

That's why I suggested querying one of the Piper CFIs in the thread.

The point is still that one handles carb heat differently in the two planes, different from your earlier post in the thread.

Edit- I think that they route the exhaust in such a way that the carb stays warmer in a Piper. One could say the carburetor is mounted differently _relative_ to the exhaust.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think they just never updated the 172 procedure when the went from the Continental to the Lycoming. Since the relevant area for carb icing is downstream from the throttle plate which is bolted to the oil sump, I doubt the exhaust makes a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top