Piper PA28-181 Archer vs Cessna 172?

[Dan CFI/CFII]

Seriously, whatever is cheaper.

At high density altitudes, though, the 172SP is a bit better than the Archer. Get your ticket, then sart shopping around and fly a bit of everything. You'll start to realize this simple fact: airplanes all fly ABOUT the same, and any of them can bore you eventually, and all of them can thrill you at the same time.

Dan

 

[bigD]

Holy sheeeeeeeeeeeeit FlyChicaga! Is that chick in your avatar one of your latest conquests???

 

[FlyChicaga]

Holy sheeeeeeeeeeeeit FlyChicaga! Is that chick in your avatar one of your latest conquests???

Nah. I stay away from the rampers.

 

[Vik]

I personally have found the 152's and 172's to be better training aircraft. They force you to fly well and to use the rudder.

The Pipers are more stable and you can get away with being sloppy with the rudder, etc.

The high wing of the Cessna allows for easier student xc's.

I think initial training in Cessnas, get checked out in a Piper after your checkride and then fly Pipers after that.

 

[DGdaPilot]

Everyone's gonna have different opinions...just like with cars. Personally, I hate Pipers. I've got nearly all of my time in Cessna singles and twins. I just like how they fly and how they're laid out on the inside. It's what I'm used to. I do fly a taper-wing Archer II a bit, but I just don't like her compared to a 172R or 152. But that's just me.

 

[Flight_Line]

Either airplane is good. I prefer the two doors of the 172 (which you can lock open if you need to) to the Archer's single door. Not to mention I find the 172 easier to get into and out of. Just step up into and step down out of. One bad thing I have noticed about the 172s with the fuel injected engines is that they seem more difficult then they should be to hot start. I have no experence with them but I see people grinding their starters down on a daily basis.

 

[dmspilot00]

Everyone's gonna have different opinions...just like with cars. Personally, I hate Pipers. I've got nearly all of my time in Cessna singles and twins. I just like how they fly and how they're laid out on the inside. It's what I'm used to. I do fly a taper-wing Archer II a bit, but I just don't like her compared to a 172R or 152. But that's just me.

I am not crazy about Pipers either, but wouldn't say I hate them (who hates any airplane?). I have about equal time in Pipers and Cessnas. The primary thing is that I just think the controls in a Piper are way too heavy for a light single-engine airplane, and the yoke always sticks and binds on every PA28 I've ever flown at every FBO. That makes for some screwy takeoffs and landings. However, the heavy controls do become useful on long cross-countries in smooth air.

Do not worry about the doors. The doors in a C152 don't even lock. I can't imagine what would be wrong with the doors in a 172R or S. I'd rather have two, but that's just me.

I also prefer the Cessna nosewheel steering. First, it allows you to move the rudder on preflight; second it's like having power steering instead of manual.

The instrument panel in the newer Pipers blocks half of the windsheild. I like to see where I'm going. Visibility (out the front) is wonderful in a 172.

There are two things I don't like about the 172. First the seating position. Compared to a 152 or a Piper, it feels like sitting on a kitchen chair, or driving a bus or something. I like feeling like I'm sitting in a small sports car, not on a barstool. Second, the wing blocks too much visibility out the side windows. Although you may think this is an inherent characteristic of high-wings, it is not nearly as bad in the 152.

 

[DGdaPilot]

I am not crazy about Pipers either, but wouldn't say I hate them (who hates any airplane?).

Yeah, that's true. I don't HATE them.....you know what I mean!

 

[DenverDude2002]

Looks like my intro flight will be in a 2001 PA28-181, since the one I will be training in primarily, a 1972 model, is getting its 100hr annual/upgrades done to it and it will be out until next week. My CFI said there isnt much difference as far as how they'll fly, some switches are in a different location and thats about it. Anyone have any suggestions on what I should start reviewing before the intro? I had 8 hours in the cessna/with the cessna pilot program, I plan on reviewing the first 4 labs.

 

[slide33]

Anyone have any suggestions on what I should start reviewing before the intro?

your checkbook

 

[Timebuilder]

I'd try a web search for an online POH for the airplane in PDF format.

I know of a least one instructor who has a warrior POH on line, so it stands to reason that others have done this also.

Google the aircraft type and the letters POH.

 

[bigD]

...since the one I will be training in primarily, a 1972 model, is getting its 100hr annual/upgrades done to it and it will be out until next week.

Was the Archer being built as early as 1972? I ask because a lot of people call a Cherokee 180 an Archer, which is close, but it *does* handle differently because of the different wing.

 

[Timebuilder]

The earlier Archer, the 180 (as opposed to the 181) has a "hershey bar" wing, which is shorter and has very little float on landing. Some call it the "rectangular" wing, compared to the "tapered" wing of the later 181 model.

 

[bigD]

But at what point did Piper start calling the Cherokee 180 the Archer? I thought it was when they put the new wing on it. I forget when that happened, but I thought it was sometime after '72.

I mention this because DenverDude made the comment that he figures the 2001 Archer will fly the same as the '72 model, but if it has the Hershey bar wing - that won't be the case.

Not that it's WAY different, but it certainly is noticable - especially on landing.

 

[DenverDude2002]

No this is indeed a Piper PA28-181. Its tail # is N4632F. It also has the tapered wing as well. The wing is identical to that of the 2001 Iwill be intro'ing in on Friday.

 

[bigD]

Ah, well then never mind! The tail number you mentioned is listed as a 1976 model, which makes more sense. I don't think the Archer was being built in 1972.

Regardless - you're right, it'll fly basically the same as a 2001.