Piper or Cessna???

[Guest Pioneer200]

Hi, Our local airfield has just celebrated 50 years of the pa 28 range of piper aircraft

 

We had approx 25-30 on the field today doing circuits etc.

 

This got me thinking ,for all you GA pilots out there, Do you prefer Piper or Cessna aircraft??

 

Why??

 

Lets us a comparision of the Cessna 172 and the Piper 28 140.

 

If they were both available to hire and you were rated on both which one would you fly????

 

 

[dazza 38]

HI mate, i havent flown, GA for a long time. I like the piper, more room(i owned a archer once). But having said that, when you compare a piper to a cessna, IMO i think it just comes down to personal preference.Cheers

 

 

[Mazda]

Well that's an interesting question.

 

I tend to like low wings due to better visibility in the circuit.

 

The Cherokee 140 is not the greatest climber in the world, but once going it gets along OK. They have short stubby wings which I quite like. The Cherokee 140 standard seats are pretty awful, especially in the back. There's more to think about with a fuel pump and fuel tank selection, but that does make people fuel aware. I don't like the one door access. I think they are easier in a crosswind than the 172.

 

The 172 is a pretty robust thing, probably a better outback aircraft (with shade under the wing, more ground clearance etc. Lighter controls than the Cherokee. 2 doors for access. Terrible visibility in the circuit. Not much better visibility out of the circuit either, long wings that seem to block the view. They glide pretty well. The older models (like the M) have that last stage of flap which is like a barn door. That gets you down in a hurry, but I think if people were not aware it might catch people out (especially go around). The newer ones don't have that last stage of flap, so they don't catch people out, but they don't want to come down either (unless very slow).

 

I'm not a huge fan of either, but in saying that they are both OK, just a bit different. The Cherokee 140 is at the bottom end of the Cherokee range, so if I wanted to fly a few people I'd go for the 172 (or use a bigger engine version of the Cherokee, the 235s and 236s have some power!)

 

Otherwise, I would probably go for the one that had the best equipment, or the one that looked in better condition. (Such as a brand new leather seat airbag equipped IFR 172 over an old Cherokee 140).

 

If they were both of the same vintage and with similar equipment, if solo I'd probably choose the cheapest!

 

 

[kaz3g]

The PA28 series is generally recognised as the more forgiving training aircraft to fly and those in the front seats will probably find it more comfortable on a long trip. Probably easier in cross-winds but, it's close to the ground and therefore is not popular on rough strips or in remote areas. It also has the fuel quirks mentioned in another post. The 161 and Archer obviously perform a lot better with the added horses than does the earlier 140.

 

The C172 with 40 degree flaps does require some thought when a go-around is called for but those same flaps and the robust undercart are pretty handy for short-field landings and rough strips where a slower stall can save a few rivets. Almost all station aircraft are high wing because of the added clearance from scrub. And when used for mustering you can see what is underneath you in straight and level flight. The later series obviously also have 160-180hp engines and perform all the better for that.

 

I think they're both a great choice and it's purely a matter of preference taking into account the sort of use the aircraft will be put to.

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Cessnas ride turbulence a little softer...Pipers can be pretty jarring at times................

 

 

[dazza 38]

HI Mazda, i totaly agree, i never flew the lower powered cherokees, only the 180 hp archer.The egress in a accident, i also thought about with only one door on the passenger side . Cheers

 

 

[skybum]

Easy to see why Cessnas more than Pipers as station aircraft...hard to taxi a Piper through a farm gate...

 

 

[Yenn]

I started in Pipers and finished my training in Cessnas. The Cessna has better rough ground capabilities, better climb and steeper landings better downward view and shade for those so common hot days, but I still prefer the low wing Piper. Not that I drive either nowadays, but I stick with the low wing type.

 

 

[Guest mike_perth]

I have only ever flown Piper and just for small fact have the option to fly the first ever Piper PA28 that was imported into Australia - VH-PMW it even has a Piper plaque on it stating its history it was 2 years old when it arrived in Australia and has been a training plane ever since - still passes its 100 hourlys with a very strict LAME has no corrosion and a nice engine certainly a nice bird to fly!

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

The old holden verses ford thingy of the air. It really comes down to driver preference (high wing or low wing) Performance and load are about the same. Interesting how the piper will handle rough strips about the same as the cessna. Shade is a little easier to enjoy with the high wings, but my choice is the piper...they just fly better...:thumb_up:

 

 

[facthunter]

Comparo Cherokee 140 Cessna 172.

 

I'd go along with Mazda's assessment but would emphasise the Cessna's ability to lift loads when you ask it to do the little extra. Having a door on ONE side only could be grim from a safety viewpoint on the Piper. Neither aircraft is a GENUINE 4-seater, They are both a bit underpowered. A lot of Cherokees have corrosion near the rear wing spar as they were never done as well as the Commanche series as far as corrosion protection is concerned. The Commanche's were exceptionally well done. Later models Cherokees got better. (after a certain date) A lot of Cessna's (except the seaplane designated ones ), suffer from corrosion too. Having said that they are both pretty rugged little aircraft that don't exhibit a lot of vices, flying wise..... Nev

 

 

[Tomo]

Cessnas ride turbulence a little softer...Pipers can be pretty jarring at times................

I wonder if the high, low wing design has anything to do with that?

 

You know, on a high wing the weight is underneath... hanging. Whereas the low wing, the weight is sitting on top, giving it a different feel? As someone has said somewhere... Pendulum affect vs riding on top.

 

I've always had the thought, that Cessna's look like work horses, while Pipers are a more touring type...

 

 

[skydog]

Both are good planes.

 

I have about equal hours in both type and the piper is more forgiving on landing and XW. Cessna fuel tanks system is more fail safe but I suppose switching tanks is just another part of your 'CLEAROF' checks..

 

Easier to get out of a crashed Cessna if you are still in one piece I guess.

 

More shade whilst flying in hot weather too.

 

Easier to fuel up the piper.

 

best to fly a few and get your own preference.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

" Easier to get out of a crashed Cessna if you are still in one piece I guess."

 

I don't know about that one Skydog, I have seen cessnas that have gone down and the occupants have not been able to get out because the two doors have been jammed because the airframe has been distorted, i_dunno

 

 

[Mazda]

It's best to unlatch the door(s) in anything before a forced landing, if time permits.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The old 172 used to be regarded as having the best safety record in the world for accidents in all areas (or lack thereof). They both spawned models that also became classics. 172 to 182 to 206. Cherokee to Cherokee 6 to Arrow. I can't really compare them crashwise...I've only crashed in a Cessna once..................................................................................