Piper PA28-181 Archer vs Cessna 172?

[DenverDude2002]

After a 2 year hiatus from flying, I finally have the time/devotion needed to finishing my pvt and start working towards my goal of working for an airline someday,I plan on flying at least 2-3 times a week until I am up to my CFII. When I trained 2 years ago I trained a a Cessna 172SP and didnt care for it. I located a newer flight school at BJC that has 2 Piper Archers, and on a recommendation from a ASA pilot who had the same experience I did, am going to train in one. I sat in the Archer today and was impressed with how it felt, hope it flys as nice as it looks. I'm going up for my first flight next week. Can anyone tell me what to expect from the Piper as far as major differences from the 172? Anything I should be aware of as far as problems with the Archer?Anything I should be reviewing before my first flight with the cfi? Also I was using the Cessna program, and this flight school uses the Jeppesen. Any major differences there? Any good links to info on the Archer? Any comments?

Thanks,
Andy

 

[TDTURBO]

Archers are almost impossible to land bad, 172's are not. Archers are more docile in stalls and spins, they also "feel" better in quality....No cheap Cessna plastic. I have a R182, but comparing entry level aircraft, I have to agree with you and go with the Archer.

One more little know fact, an Archer out-glides a 172, look it up.

 

[JimNtexas]

The big difference between the Archer and the C172 is that the average Archer has a bit more performance than the average C172, and to me at least the Archer feels like a "tighter" flying airplane.

I think Piper installs better instruments and radios than does Cessna.

The big advantage of the 172 over the Archer is that the Archer is smaller inside, especially in the rear seats. Plan on rubbing shoulders with your CFI in the literal sense if you use the Archer.

As far as learning to fly there is no difference in results.

 

[Timebuilder]

The Archer 181 tapered wing is a joy to fly. You can see more sky, a little less ground, and will be a little warmer in the summer.

Don't come in too fast, because that awesome wing WILL float a looooong time. Slow it down and enjoy the "greaser" landings.

I think the Archer is a bit more confortable, too. It's not as cramped as a 140, and the trim us right under your hand in the center, next to the big flap handle, or as I called it the "parking brake."

Just remember to manage fuel. There is no "both" on the fuel valve.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Thanks for all the great responses. Up front it felt like the Archer has more room, but maybe its because I'm a smaller guy. As far as feeling tighter, just from sitting in it I could tell that it is. The door felt like it wasnt soda can thin unlike the 172's. The more I hear about the Archer the more I'm liking it, why does it have to be getting its 100hr annual all week, I wanna go fly it sooner, grrrrrr.

 

[DenverDude2002]

And I forgot to add this thing has electric elevator trim, fan with those car looking vents on the ceiling, loran (whatever the he!! that is), and digital radios. Also how does this thing steer? Is the nose gear connected to the rudder pedals or is it free castering?

 

[bigD]

The nosewheel is connected, but it doesn't use bungees like the Cessna does, so the steering feels a little more solid.

 

[slide33]

how can anyone "hate" a 172? it flies don't it?

 

[DenverDude2002]

For clarification, I didnt just have 1 flight in a C172. I had 8 hours in 2 172SPs, and 1 172R.

 

[kevdog]

For clarification, I didnt just have 1 flight in a C172. I had 8 hours in 2 172SPs, and 1 172R.

wow, a whole 8 hours and you don't like an airplane? i've enjoyed every airplane i've ever flown. If you were smart, you would fly as many types of trainers as you can, it might make you a better pilot for your upcoming airline job.

 

[slide33]

thank you for the clarification.

which did you hate more, the SP's or the R ?

that right there will tell you a lot.

just my opinion, but if you hate a 172 - i don't think you're going to love an archer. they're more similar than different.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Ok maybe I should narrow this down even more so. Things I didnt like about the 172: High wing, the doors felt flimsy. The 172R I dont remember well because that was with an instrcutor who had an ego issue and spent most of his time yelling the whole flt. I dont remember much about the SP except i didnt trust the doors on it and I like being able to see more sky than ground. I remember the SP did climb well, even on hot days.There was a lot of things happening back in 02 when I started flying, so I'm sure if I flew a 172 now I wouldnt hate it at all. My friend is doing his training in a 172 and I plan on getting a check ride in one, probably the day I get my pvt in fact. I want to fly as many ac as possible, but for training, I think I'd enjoy the Archer more. I'd also like to get check rides in a 152 and a DA-40, which is one this flight school has. It looks like a real interesting ac.

 

[kevdog]

denverdude, try opening the cessna door in flight when you are going 105 kts, then try landing a low wing into a short, narrow strip with high trees around it and on approach. don't worry too much about different trainers at your level, just learn the books and have fun with your training. if your instructor is yelling at you, get a new one. good luck with everything!

 

[Dubya]

Test pilot?

quote:
"Archers are more docile in stalls and spins, "

TDTURBO...are you a test pilot spinning archers...or just an ignorant instructor spinning archers?


W

 

[DenverDude2002]

Thanks Kevdog. I only had 1 flight with that cfi, the next day I went to a different FBO with a cfi who was a lot cooler. I'd go with him again but hes at GL now on the E120. This new outfit has great potental, theyre a competitor for the place I had the experience with the bad CFI, and apparently quite a few people have had bad experiences with the place i started at back in 02, so they know what not to do there. The nice thing about Colorado is as far as trees go, there are none out here on the plains, unless you head into the mountains. The airport I'm going to be based at is KBJC, but theres other good airports like 2V2 and 48V with 4500/4800 ft paved strips so I wont be totaly used to the nice forgiving 7500 footer at BJC.

 

[puddlejumper]

The Archer's O-360 is equipped with a carburetor whereas the Cessna's have fuel injection. Mostly that just means a different starting procedure since the Piper's never really had a problem with carb ice. Mixture control will be important too, in both airplanes, especially at high density altitudes. In the cessna, you set the mixture with the fuel flow and EGT. There is no fuel flow indicator in the Archer. I flew a '98 Archer 3 for quite a while and was surprised how much I'd have to lean to get any indication on EGT. Without leaning, the Archer would barely turn 2250 rpm. (I think redline was 2700)

My students would always have a harder time trimming the Archer. For some reason, that stabilator is very sensitive to speed changes and it took some practice to get it to fly hands off.

Have fun!

-PJ

 

[kevdog]

only the newer cessnas have io engines.

 

[bigD]

only the newer cessnas have io engines.

True, but in this case, DenverDude has only flown the R and SP models, so injected 172's are all he's flown.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Ya, the only ones I've flown have been FI. Now in 2000 I did get to fly a friends 182 and a older 152, dont remember them at all though.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Whatever is cheaper!