Flyer59 wrote:
Any PA-28 really almost lands by itself. The “ground effect” really only plays a role when you’re MUCH too fast.
I was about to write the same. I have seen many more C172s with buckled firewalls that Piper Indians due to balked landings and always loved the landing characteristics of all the PA28s.
Aviathor wrote:
I was about to write the same. I have seen many more C172s with buckled firewalls that Piper Indians due to balked landings and always loved the landing characteristics of all the PA28s.
I regularly fly C172’s and PA28’s out of a reasonably short (630 m) grass field. To me the noticeable differences in take-off and landing behaviour are few.
The C172 is “eager” to get in the air and lifts off by itself if you wait too long with the rotation. If you rotate slightly too early in a PA28, you are likely to get stall warning when the wing gets out of ground effect. And of course the C172 landing flaps are much more effective.
The normal 172 is more like the Warrior with 150-160 hp not like the Archer. Also I would question if it has a better short field performance (or rough). I would consider the 172 is even more a “fly-o-matic” plane (remember the “land o matic” gear?) than the Piper. The Archer or even better the older Cherokee 180 is quite well known for the capability to take a lot of weight out of short strips, but it does require flying by the numbers to do that. I remember that the Pipers require quite a positive rotation once the speed is there, but not before, otherwise it will drag on the runway. The Cessnas I remember eventually will simply lift off by themselfs. But the 172 definitly does not ring a bell as being especcially short in the ground roll.
I personally like low wings better for landings, but again, they need to be flown to the numbers, Cessnas may be more forgiving in that regard but they do end up damaged at times when people don’t exercise speed control. Mind, the Cessna barndoors/flaps do make it easy to slow down if you need to. I would not want to fly 6° glides with a Piper, with the Cessnas (especcially those which still have the 40° flaps) it is easy.
I can imagine that the C172 of today sells better because the G1000 fit, the cabin looks bigger (it is higher than the Cherokees and has a baggage volume which invites overloading), it has two doors and it is the good old bird almost everyone came across at some stage. I also think Cessna is more active on the sales front, no idea what Piper is doing in that.
The 180 hp 172 has a better performance than the Warrior, believe me (I have a Warrior and my club has a G1000/172). The Archer is a little faster than the later 172s with 180 hp, but both are available with G1000.
The reason is probably the extra door and the extreme loyalty of 172 pilots all over the world. It’s not a coincedence that our club just bought a 172 again, it’s simply the plane with the largest pilot base …
Ok, yes, the 180 hp one will outdo the Warrior. But again, the comparison is wrong. The 180hp one shold be compared to the Archer, the 160 hp versions to the Warrior.
I agree, the 172 is simply “the” private puddle jumper for most of the PPL crowd. Many do look at the Pipers as something they “upgrade” to after a Cessna, heaven knows why.
I think Piper is working through a few fleet orders for the Archer TX with G500. I expect the Warrior is available as said above, also for fleet orders. Not sure what was peak production for the PA28, but in its heyday between 500 and 1000 a year?
Never understood why they didn’t fit the Seminole emergency window exit to them, or why there isn’t an STC for that as a retrofit.
I was comparing the 172S (180 hp) with the Archer. Of course the 172R has 160 hp, like the Warrior, but the 172S has a derated 360 engine and that feels stronger than the 320 engine with 160 hp. Actually the 160 hp versions have very similar perfomance. I always thought the Cessna is the better short field airplane.
Flyer59 wrote:
Of course the 172R has 160 hp, like the Warrior, but the 172S has a derated 360 engine and that feels stronger than the 320 engine with 160 hp.The 172R and 172S have identical engines (IO-360-L2A). The 172R is derated to 160 hp.
Coolhand wrote:
Do you mean that all, or the majority, of the non-EASA certified airplanes are by definition unsafe?
No, but it is far from true that all non-certified would be safe. I have seen much sh§t among them, but quite a lot very nice aircraft from very capable designers, too. But to say “propably all of them meet all important requirements” is far from true, anyway. Experimental aircraft demand greater attention in design, maintenance and pilotage and some of the items not checked might develop into seriously unhealthy situations.
Obiously, that doesn’t go for the good tested designs of Vans, Zenithair, Frati, Sonnex and the like. At least on the aircraft design level. But then again, execution of the task to build an aircraft is a complete different pair of shoes.
Coolhand wrote:
In third place, a lot of microlights have their own EASA certified ‘version’, which usually is identical to the non-EASA ‘version’ e.g. Tecnam
Again, it is a potentially dangerous assumption that this is the case in all microlights that are offered as LSA and Microlight. There are a few, but there are a few with substantial changes. The C42/AC4 springs to mind, or the Breezer.
Coolhand wrote:
This would have been impossible to do in a EASA type (or at least sooo expensive and time consuming to forget about it).
Not quite true, but I think there will always be efforts to “demonize” certification and a lot of folks buy it. Let’s face it, the level of technical knowledge and skill necessary to design, build and maintain experimental aircraft is not an inherent property of a pilot and not everybodys cup of tea. This is, why certified aircraft will continue to sell. Propably not in the volumes of the 70s and 80s, but still. And there will be experimental aircraft, self designed planes, amateur built flyers and flivvers and hot rods and that’s okay. (As long as you don’t assume everything is safe, just because it has two wings).
Coolhand wrote:
And we could talk also about EASA continued airworthiness system
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Many do look at the Pipers as something they “upgrade” to after a Cessna, heaven knows why.
You think? I find they are anticipated quite similar and the choice of a PA28 over a (similar performing) C172 is mainly a matter of taste and opportunity, rather than a step up. Of course, if you add the 172RG, 177RG and Arrows in the equation, it would differ a bit. A Turbo Arrow is quite different from the PA28-140 “puddle jumper”.
In early models, I’d prefer the 172 over the 28. The first are a bit more crisp than the hershey bar 140 and ergonomics and space is much better. I always felt the 28 to be a bit more “sluggish”, especially in elevator control. Plus, the 40° barn doors of the cessna is a very powerful tool for very short landings. But that are details, not needed much, to be honest. Todays 172 (actually all 172s with the bigger leading edge radius, the “camber lift wing”) lost a bit of the handling qualities and Piper gained it with the tapered wing. I’d say
What would make me prefer the 172 as a club is the very sturdy main gear and the easier entrance, especially for scenic flights. The pilot can strap in his guests and then enter the aircraft. I have seen more trouble with the dampers on the PA28 MLG than on the 172. (Note: Just more than on the 172. That doesn’t mean that there is much trouble with the gear of the PA28.)
