Disagree about what Alexis? The only advantage the 172 has over the PA28 is two doors, so I think we both agree.
The Piper is a better flyer than the 172, also in my opinion, it’s just not a very good office in common with the 172.
Who would accept to sit with his or her shoulders rubbing against his workmate for hours on end? Yet, as a flight instructor that is precisely what we have to do.
If you add the fact that most of “us” are slightly larger today than we were before the Golden Arches spread like wildfire across the globe, a Piper or Cessna cabin is a bit snug.
@Jan
Yes, I know that is a fact as well, and it used to be the same here, but not anymore sadly. I suppose the question is what level of efficiency gain one can make in a 100hp diesel vs the Rotax iS, for example, and whether all the other associated costs are within reason. I do agree that there is a very real benefit in the higher power ranges as well as an advantage in fuel availability. However, an engine that can run on mogas really doesn’t have an issue with fuel, I think.
If you look at the auto industry (and everyone is going to say you can’t compare, and that cars run at 30% power etc etc etc…) the latest developments point towards smaller, turbocharged and supercharged engines producing lots of torque and hp. Volvo to name one, has dropped the 5, 6 and 8 cylinder in favor of all 4-cylinder engines. VW build small and highly supercharged TSI engines etc. I read somewhere that while the diesel is considered to be at the edge of its efficiency, the otto has a lot more potential to be explored..
So, in my view, there is probably a lot more to do in aero engines than will ever be realized, just because the market is more or less dead.
Ha, I can see the first 1000+ post thread on EUROGA coming – C172 vs P28! The epic battle of the giants!
Woooo Hoooo – take it away, guys!
The internet needs more PA-28 vs C172 threads….
Yes, except I’m right, of course… 
There are many questions that will never be answered, nay can never be answered:
1. C172 vs PA-28
2. Cirrus – are they safe?
3. Singles vs twins
4. Glass vs analog
5. Why does EASA exist?
Had no intention to ask, or answer any of them, but in my view;
1. has no answer, both are the same more or less.
2. yes, about as safe as the next pilot.
3. yes, both.
4. yes, both.
5. EASA who?
Had no intention to ask, or answer any of them, but in my view;
Me neither, but since the game has started, why not
Being rather a “either black or white” kind of person, I have a clear view on each topic:
1. C172 anytime
2. Safe
3. Twins
4. Glass
5. It exists to increse safety in European aviation and to standardise rules and procedures across the continent. Whether they succeed we will know in ten years or so, and it very much depends if they will be able to recruit sensible people.
Ha, this should give the thread a kick!
He, he, he…. here we go!
1) well, given my handle here, obviously – C172!! Any day of the week, although I prefer the C182.
2) yes
3) depends – don’t think there’s a hard and fast answer (opening door to more debate….)
4) glass, no doubt
5) easy – to keep some buEUrocrats in the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to; on our tax money, of course
Yes, except I’m right, of course…
Noooooo ;-)
Interesting 1000 post topic, but perhaps better to do in a different thread, entitled: “I’m right, you’re wrong”
Continuing on the “more suitable” trainer thought, the Flight Design CT comes to mind. Plenty of space, although a bit flimsy in the UL version. As a normal category trainer it could be beefed up a little and still provide plenty of performance. Rotax iS would be marvelous, or that elusive 100hp diesel.
