Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 18014 times:
If you've been flying a high-wing aircraft you might want to try a low-winged one or vice versa, just for some variety . As far a positives and negatives go - each airplane will have it's share, but it doesn't really matter. Personally, I've always felt that the Cherokee was a bit more "substancial" and the Skyhawk a bit more "kite like", but then that's just a personal opinion.
Night_Flight From United States of America, joined May 1999, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 17982 times:
Ah yes, the mighty Katana! I earned my PPL in the A-1 Katana and have quite a few hours in the C-1 Katana. I then transitioned to the Piper aircraft and still instruct in Piper Warriors, Arrows and Seminoles. I also have time in Cessna's.
From the Katana, either plane will give you a very easy transistion. I don't think that you will notice much difference until you have a bunch of hours in either Piper or Cessna. If I had to choose, I'd choose Piper but that's just my own opinion.
Remember when sex was safe and flying was dangerous?
Illini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 17976 times:
As with everything in aviation, there are tradeoffs. Neither one is better or worse than the other, and they both fly pretty much the same. The Cherokee is a little lighter than the 172 in pitch, thats really about it when it comes to flying her.
Now, other minor differances- the Skyhawk will give up about 5-7 knots to a comperable Cherokee in cruise, (no fair comparing a 172L to a Dakota 235, or even a Cherokee 180) but make up for it on the low end with about a 5-7 knot lower stall speed, and shorter takeoff and landing distances. Gross weights will be roughly the same, differances being the year; older 'hawks had a gross of 2300, when the flaps were restricted to 30 degrees the weight was increased to 2400, and another 50 lbs was added for the new R models. The only hard weights I have are for the -28 series are a Warrior 151 at 2325 and an Archer III (181) at 2500.
The flaps on a Cessna are like giant barn doors, especially older ones with 40 degrees of flap travel. Cherokees, OTOH, are much smaller. Inside, there is a little more elbow room in a Skyhawk than in the Cherokee, and the back seat is cavernous in the Skyhawk compared to a Cherokee. Entrance and exit are also easier in the Cessna, with two large doors on either side. Given that, however, passengers seem more comfortable in the low-winged airplane for some reason.
The Cherokee's also generally have longer range, due to having about 8 gallons more usable fuel, depending on the year.
In all, I liken the PA28-140/151/161 series to a small sedan, comfortable and gets the job done. The 172 is more like the SUV- it's slow, roomy, and in a pinch can get in and out of spots the Cherokee can't. The PA28-181, however is the luxury sedan. Goes fast and can carry a decent load.
Hope this helps,
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
ThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1651 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 17957 times:
This depends on where you intend to go in the future regarding type/model upgrades. If the apple of your eye is to move up to a C182 or C210, stick with the Cessna airplanes. If you are going to get your multi, go with the Piper as Cessna doesn't make light twins anymore. Don't worry about any silly high wing vs. low wing nonsense; for my money, the fact that the C172 has 2 big doors would seal the deal. I found it awkward to work with only one little door and the two big openable windows in the C172 are nice in hot climates.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 17958 times:
Got my Commercial,Instrument and CFI ratings in Cherokee's,and liked the plane very much.One negative point to mention while speaking of the PA-28 series,is the lack of a second door.The one and only door (on the 4-seaters,that is!) needs 2 locks.Not good!Flaps are manually operated.That means they can still be used if you get an electrical failure.Good!Because the Cessna 150/172/177RG's that I instructed on later,"always" developed electrical problems.
Snags were much more prevalent on the Cessna's I flew,also twins and turboprops,while the Piper's have all been very good performers in this field.Cessna workmanship always seemed very lousy to me.I'll go for a Piper anytime if I've got the choice.
Just like I'll always go for a Douglas jet before a Boeing one.
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 17929 times:
I too fly both the Katana and the Cessna 172. They are both great and fun airplanes, and both are very different. You'll find the 172 (or Piper, for that matter) to be a lot slower and a lot easier to get down on the ground. This means that your first few approaches might be a bit low. Also, I flare the Cessna much lower than I do the Katana, which seems to work. If you do the same, expect some rough arrivals the first few times until you get used to it and anticipate it. I don't know too much about the Piper, never flown one, so I won't even try to comment on it. Have fun.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 17901 times:
Let's be highly technical here... with all my years of experience...
A C-172 high wing aircraft is most convenient in case of rain...
With a PA-28, you need to carry an umbrella as per your MEL...
... and a little humour does not hurt or kills anyone...
XFSUgimpLB41x From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4200 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 17892 times:
I teach in both the Cessna and the Archer (II and III)... I personally prefer the Archers, landings are consistently smoother, and its a more stable airplane. Also the load carry capabilities are better and the climb performance is quite better with the 180 hp engine in the Archer as compared to the 150 hp in teh 172. As far as stuffing stuff in the airplane.... the Cessna makes it easier with two doors and its defintely cooler on hot days, although there is a nice pilot side window scoop mod for the Archers that really cools off the cockpit. Regardless in a light airplane, you WILL bake on a hot day. The Archer III's come with a great air conditioning system and Garmin 430's with the STEC 55 autopilot, which is great- and also if you are going a long ways they typically will true out upwards of 115-120 knots with the wheel pants at 2500-2550 RPM. Really, though, its preference. I fly the Archers more and know them inside and out, upside and down.... so ive defintiely got some bias. Also if you ever get a chance to fly one of the new Saratoga II TC's.... they are a magic carpet ride. It takes a bit of finesse to get the landings down nice and smooth in the 'toga, but when you get it down, it is nothing but grease jobs. Plus 170 knots at 10,000 feet is nice.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17864 times:
I learned in the 172, just got checked out in the Archer. I agree that the Piper seems more substantial, I like that it seems more comfortable and is definitely quieter. The landing experience is the big change since a proper flare in thr Archer removes the runway from your sight... disconcerting, but once you learn the technique and trust it, the landings are smoother.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...