Gammagirl From Australia, joined May 2006, 33 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
Hi - I am an aviation enthusiast who, up til now, has always been the armchair kind in the back of a commercial airliner or reading a.net. However, I have just been given the opportunity of a 1.5 hr trial training flight much to my delight, and have the choice of flying either a Cessna 152 or 'upgrading' to a Piper Warrior. I know Cessna/Piper preference has been discussed before (please don't flame me - I'm kind of new here!) but my question relates to my definitely not statuesque height of 5' 3". It's been said the 152 is 'cosy' for large people - is one or the other better for small people?
CruzinAltitude From United States of America, joined May 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3591 times:
I've been told that the C 172 is "cozy" for larger people, and the C 152 is down right tight.
I would go with the Piper. I did a discovery flight (hour long) in a Piper Archer, and it was very nice.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3589 times:
Quoting CruzinAltitude (Reply 1): I've been told that the C 172 is "cozy" for larger people, and the C 152 is down right tight.
Very true, the C172 is a nice size, but the C152 is a tight squeeze. I personally like the C172/152 over the Pipers, simply because the visibility is much better due to the high-wing configuration. But thats just me.
Flinhion757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3560 times:
Considering I have flown them both in flight lessons I would definitely recomend the Cessna 152... easy to takeoff and smooth ride
Gammagirl From Australia, joined May 2006, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3550 times:
OK thanks guys - ZKSUJ, as mentioned above, spaciousness is less of an issue for me, being a small-ish woman, its more about visibility and easy reach of the controls. Hoping to fly over Sydney Harbour and the area where I live, so good visibility is high on the wishlist, but not if it means a much bumpier ride -
AirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3547 times:
The 172 is even smaller inside than those 1960s VW Bettles. Think of the 152. Most of the time when people take a look at the 152 with their own eyes, they usually say no.
Burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7411 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3542 times:
Piper its more like flying a 'real' airplane, instead of that over easy overwing crap.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3541 times:
Quoting Gammagirl (Reply 5): spaciousness is less of an issue for me, being a small-ish woman, its more about visibility and easy reach of the controls. Hoping to fly over Sydney Harbour and the area where I live, so good visibility is high on the wishlist, but not if it means a much bumpier ride -
Then the C152/C172 is the plane for you, no question. Very easy to fly, great visibility and a smooth ride (usually). Have fun!
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19714 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3531 times:
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 7): Piper its more like flying a 'real' airplane, instead of that over easy overwing crap.
High wing is easier than low wing? My experiences wouldn't agree with that. The 172s I've flown have all been finnicky little things (which helps you stay on top of things, but gets a bit tiresome after a while).
If you're out for a sightseeing flight, there is only one choice - the 152. Much better to just have a strut blocking your vision than a whole wing.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
JLDWC From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3501 times:
I hateeeee pipers with a passion, cessnas all the way...however in this case, and C152 is just too darn small for mee so if i had no other choices i would have to fly the warrior
Q330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
Quoting Gammagirl (Reply 5): Hoping to fly over Sydney Harbour and the area where I live, so good visibility is high on the wishlist
Typically, you'd be heading to the training area on a trial instructional flight, not over the Harbour. I've only flown warriors so I can't really compare with the 152 but if you actually are going over the Harbour, go for the high wing.
Gammagirl From Australia, joined May 2006, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
So- final decision made and flight booked for 3 weeks time yay! Mixed advice above, but I chose the Cessna 152 in the end, even though it may be a bit of a squeeze, to make the most of the sightseeing aspect of this particular flight.
ADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
I've flown both pipers and Cessna's...
For initial training I think The Cessna 152 is a very forgiving aircraft. More so then the Pipers.... But being new to flying the piper does look and feel more like a "real" airplane with the low wings and the throttle.
If you think that you may go the distance and actually work on getting a license then I would look at the schools in your area and availability of aircraft.
If the school you choose has 4 Cessna 152's and only 1 piper go for the Cessna as scheduling will be easier. or VV
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined May 2006, 33 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 415 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 6937 posts, 
woman, its more about visibility and easy reach of the controls. Hoping to fly over Sydney Harbour and the area where I live, so good visibility is high on the wishlist, but not if it means a much bumpier ride - 
Printer friendly format 
