In 44 years of piloting, I think I flew 1 hour in a C172 as a passenger in 1980 while in college. On the other hand, I learned in the Piper Cherokee, Arrow, and Aztec. After corp and airline flying for a decade I gave up the wings to run my businesses. The first plane I bought was a Piper Arrow, then came two Navajos, then a Cheyenne ll. Trainers were sold to get people hooked on the manufacturer in addition to training and it worked in my case.
I think a spicy part 2 would be to compare the newer Piper Archer vs a similar year 172S. Piper fixed a lot of the odd features and has a really nice competitor now that a lot of the big schools are now choosing over the 172.
@@FreePilotTraining I'm a short hop away from you over in Bentonville. You should stop by on a cross country! I'd love to chat and would even be interested in doing some flight test videos with you in one of our 172s.
I’ve got many hours back in the day in both. The 172 makes more practical sense in many ways over the 140. When the Warrior came it was Pipers game changer to the early Skyhawks. But in truth, I really love the fake airliner feel of the Cherokee , looking up & out in turns. By biggest gripe in the 140 was its poor flare authority holding the nose off with two in the front, full fuel and full flaps.
One of the flight schools I worked for had both. When a prospective student asked me which one they should use, I said "It depends on what you want to see. If you want to see the ground, fly a high wing. I you want to see the sky, stand on the ground, look up and save yourself a ton of money."
This comment made me start on a Cessna and had no fun flying. Once I went to a Piper flying became amazing. I tell everyone to try both early and pick what feels best.
I ended up owning a Cherokee180. For me the over head wing was an issue in patter flying. The wing blocks your view when making pattern turns. For me I prefer my ground reference AND the ability to scan for traffic in the pattern
The high wing really doesn't block your view into the turn nearly as much as you think it does. The pilot sits right under the wing. It blocks your view directly to the side - you have to turn your head a full 90 degrees to be looking at the blind spot. But that's not where you're turning. The plane doesn't stop in mid-air, pivot 90 degrees, and then start moving in the new direction. It continues moving forward as you are initiating the turn. So, you can always see the point where your plane will be when it completes the turn. It won't be 90 degrees from where you started the turn - in the blind spot. It will be about 45 degrees to the left or right - definitely not in the blind spot. So, for left traffic, turn your head 45 degrees to the left and you can see the area where your plane will be at the completion of the turn - that location is not blocked by the wing at all.
Agreeing to what @ldmax said I will also add that you should clear your turn before you start it... so the wing isn't really blocking your view except for possible aircraft that are high and at your 4-5 oclock descending into your turn. That said I still prefer cherokee for the ground cushion.
I prefer neither of the 2 Choices.. A Beech Musketeer series beats both... Where it has low wing, the pilot can still look straight down as he is forward of the wing, Not over the wing! I am training in a Sierra for my private... I have no issues looking down or up for traffic.
I prefer a Warrior II over the 172. The throttle and mixture make more sense to me. I guess I'm more comfortable sitting on the wings instead of hanging from em, too. But, a door on each side would be handy. Probably gonna solo in a couple days!😁
I flew 172 first part of PPL training. Finished in Grumman Cheetah. I prefer the Cheetah. Fun plane and the retractable canopy helps in Alabama summers!
Well, After flying and owning both high wing Cessna's, low wing Bonanzas along with a ton of rental time in low wing Cherokee's plus logged time in DC-3 and C-47's along with a Citation and MU-2, my all time favorite is the ONE I am flying at that particular time. They all have their pluses and minuses, but loved flying all of them!
Great summary of some of the main differences. Other things to consider: - Carburetor heat - Ventilation and windows - One door vs. two doors - Fuel pump vs. gravity fed - Low wing vs. high wing visibility - Cowling doors / accessibility - Rear seat legroom - Cargo door and cargo area - Landing gear strut differences - Nose wheel steering differences - Cessna flaps are Fowler flaps - Ability to see fuel caps from Piper cockpit - High wing advantages for seaplane and bush flying - Cherokee 180 is the same price as 150-160 hp Cessna 172’s but provides major performance advantages, especially with climb rate and useful load
At my last ripoff 141 school, I was flying C172 Ss, now at my wonderful part 61 school, I am mostly flying Piper PA-28-161 Warrior IIIs. I fell in love with them immediately, and I really prefer how they fly. I was really worried about their stability, but I seem to have a much easier time maintaining my heading and altitude in the Pipers. Also, I really prefer the mechanical flaps over the stupid electric flaps in the 172. Just my 2 cents.
@@xrey83 Not necessarily. Most people consider Cessnas to be very stable. It could just be my personal preference and I am probably biased because I was rather unhappy with my previous instruction experiences where I flew Cessnas. The purpose of my comment was more to reassure people moving to low wing planes that they are comfortable and safe to fly.
@@FreePilotTraining I’ve heard a fellow student say it was easier to land and perform maneuvers (staying on altitude and heading) with a Cherokee. Plus the comment above led me to believe that it was easier to control and therefore operate the Cherokee.
I love the ground effect of the Cherokee - made for some very nice landings. All the Cherokees that I flew (140, 160, 180) all had a trim-wheel on the floor next to the flaps. I do like the Cessna's 2 doors and the ability to open the window in flight, especially during summer.
I'm a student learning in a Warrior and while it might seem like something minor after having just a couple flights in a 172 I have to say I really prefer the throttle and mixture controls in the Warrior. Might just be because thats what I've learned on but it feels more intuitive for me. Also the carb heat gets way less action in the Warrior compared to the 172.
@@matthewlilly7668 Flown both and plus and minus to each. Throttle and yolk nicer on the warrior plus a bit more cruise speed which is nice. You just can't beat the climb rate though on some of the older Cherokees. Mine did an honest 900fpm with just me in it and fuel to tabs. No warrior ever comes close to that. Sure made it nice taking off and getting to cruise altitude quickly on short flights. I miss my ole cherokee. Was a great little plane.
@@MilitaryTalkGuy plenty of warriors can climb 900fpm or better with just a pilot on board. Our 76 warrior 151 is based around 750msl here. It can regularly show 800fpm and it has a cruise prop. Toss in the extra 10hp and smaller diameter prop of the warrior 2 and I don't know how you couldn't hit 1000fpm
Depends where you fly. I'm in Florida. High-wing is absolutely UNsexy, but extremely practical in Florida. The high-wing gives you shade from sun & rain. Two doors is nice. Being able to open those large windows in Florida is absolutely brilliant, both on the ground and in the air. I also like the more upright stance of the cabin in the 172 for longer trips. The cabin is narrow, but the height makes it feel more roomy. Roomy back seat as well. I've never flown the PA28, but trained in a DA40, 172S, and Citabria. Flown a PA32-RT (Lance II) and PA46 (Malibu). After experiencing the Diamond's absolutely crisp controls, the Cessna feels completely sloppy. In training I struggled with the 172 compared to the DA40...so being a masochist, I kept flying the 172 until I learned how to wrestle the sloppy beast and make it do what I wanted. The PA32-RT is a flying brick with a sink rate of a cinder block. The PA46 is heavy but fantastic. That extra weight helps smooth out the ride compared to a 172. Physics-wise, I certainly see how people would think a high-wing is worse for cross-winds, but I disagree from experience. I've flown both the 172 and Citabria in some pretty wicked, gusty crosswinds and didn't find the high wing to be an impairment. If anything, I was quite happy to have more distance from the wingtip to the wing-eating-asphalt below. Even playing between the spiral bands of a hurricane, the high-winged 172 was very manageable. As an aside, I highly recommend flying in the gap between the spiral bands of a tropical system. Yes, you need to have your wits about you, do plenty of planning, understand tropical systems, along with ADS-B radar or SiriusXM radar data on-board, but it was still the most challenging yet most rewarding flying I've ever done. Far more than my first solo. Maintaining VFR cloud clearances and keeping ahead of advancing storm lines was tough, but fun. Definitely something to do with an experienced CFI or experienced ATP on-board.
Low wings are typically more docile in upsets and stalls, especially due to the larger dihedral angles. Having flown many Cessna and piper variants I definitely prefer low wings 👍.
I'm a ppl with an instrument rating current and proficient. I initially trained in a 152 and then a 172. I fly my Cessna 182P frequently. I had friends involved in an accident in a Cherokee some years ago with a forced landing on a mountain road. They were able to just get out but could not get the back seat passengers out before fire engulfed the plane. They could simply not pull them up and out. I'm currently 67 years old and my wife is 68. We are in good health but we find it much easier to get in and out of our 182 than our friend's Cherokee and I like the double doors. I feel like I'm sitting inside a bedroom slipper in the Cherokee. I think the Cessna feels more like an SUV where the Cherokee feels like sitting in a Honda Civic. The Cherokee seems to drop like a rock on final whereas ours will float if we have a bit of energy and it seems to come down more slowly with full flaps than the Cherokee. I prefer the ability to float a bit if I want to. I think at this advanced age we will stick with our 182 rather than a low wing. You may find it a bit more difficult to get in and out of those things as you get older. I love our other friend's Bonanza A-36 but I still prefer the seating arrangement of the 182. The low wing is however much better in the pattern when you can see the runway in the base turn. I don't believe for a second that the Cherokee would glide better than the Cessna 172. There are also the infrequent but definite instances of wing separation in the Pipers. There is an AD out as you know and these inspections should prevent this but I don't believe there has ever been a recorded wing separation in a Cessna 172 or a Cessna 182 unless there was an underlying cause such as exceeding the limits of the airplane or flying into severe turbulence such as a thunderstorm. Thank you for your excellent channel.
The Cherokee 140 was built to compete with the Cessna 150/152, no the 172. The Warrior would be a better comparison. That said, only the really old models had that coffee grinder trim crank on the ceiling. Visibility is SOO much better in a low wing and you can see when banking. In a high wing, that wing blinds you in turns, especially in the pattern. Fuel management is also easier in a Piper and filling the tanks and checking them is much easier. Not ladder required. The landing gear is farther apart on a Cherokee and landing it is easier and more forgiving. Annuals are much less labor for the Cherokee. You have to remove about 100 tiny screws just to take the floor pan off the Cessna and you have to remove the headliner to properly inspect all the pulleys and the strut fairing.
For me personally, I prefer flying a low wing and more windy conditions. But I will admit, I did all my flight training in a 172, and I appreciated the fact that me and my Cfi had our own doors. I will say that pattern work is much easier in a low wing, especially on that based a final term. Regarding flight training, you can’t go wrong with either airplane.
I have flown both, and I prefer the Cherokee series. I just love the low wing handling and landing characteristics. Crosswind landings are so much easier in the Cherokees.
@@FreePilotTraining I also like the wider stance of the landing gear. The Cherokees just feel more stable on touchdown. I do love the visibility in the Cessnas though!
I forgot about crosswind ability. The cherokee can handle around 25mph depending on model and no cessna would dare try that. I remember one landing I made in west texas with my cherokee in near max limit cross winds, even the airport operator came out to tell me he was impressed with the way my little cherokee cut thru the crosswind as I tied it down. Not fun but can be done in a cherokee, with a 172, it would be divert to different airport with different runway heading or cancel trip.
I’ve only flown 172s and 152s but there’s something about the small 152 that you can just throw around with such ease that makes it tons of fun, the 172s with the heavy o-360 is definitely more stable in the air but nowhere near as fun to fly.
I owned a 1977 172N that I upgraded with a 180 HP engine. With full fuel I had a useful load of 800 lbs. Very useful for family trips. As far as slips with full flaps the prohibition of slipping with full flaps has been changed to "avoid". You may get a bobble when slipping with full flaps, but it's not going to fall out of the sky. One time I was doing some Young Eagles flights and everyone had Cherokees and I was the only one with a 172. It was an old military airfield set up in a triangle with one of the runways crossing the other two such that there was a short section that I could land on. Made it convenient that I could land and turn off quickly to pick up my next set of YEs. I did this so consistently that the Piper pilots started to rib me about cheating. Only one could duplicate my short field landings and he flat spotted his tires doing so. Afterwards we headed out to get a $100 hamburger and it turned out I was also faster than the Pipers (including a Cherokee 180) 😄 So, given the better short field performance, better cruising speed, two doors, better useful load, and improved visibility I would keep the 172 over the Cherokee. Just my $0.02
Nice video - flew PA-28s and C-172s for years, and enjoyed both. The Pipers have great visibility in a turn, but if you have to get in or out of an aircraft in the rain, the Cessna wing makes a great umbrella.
I recently completed my private pilot training and all 80 hours that I have right now are in Cherokees. However, all of them have had a floor-mounted, between the seats, trim wheel. I've never even seen one with a ceiling-mounted handle.
Great video. I did all my fixed-wing training in a 172, then jumped to the Cherokee for my first CFI job. I have to admit I fell in love with the Cherokee!
When I was a newbie pilot I did a go around with 40 degrees of flaps deployed with 3 seats occupied. It was climbing at a pitiful climb rate took me longer than it should to figure it out. This was the only Cessna 172 that went beyond the 30 degrees in the rental fleet. Learned a lesson I will never forget.
Some important facts that need to be mentioned-1.stall characteristics- Cherokee may be hard to stall, but when it does, the break is pronounced because it has a different airfoil design. So when it lets go, it really lets go, and drops hard. The Cessna will let go of laminar flow slowly and not all at once. 2. Wing spar AD. Wings have fallen off Cherokees in flight. 172 has never had a structural failure in 70 years. 3. Slow-flight aileron command. The Cherokee has poor aileron command at low speeds. When in a crosswind, one needs to get the wing down early, otherwise you can't get it down- not enough aileron control. A Cherokee with droop wingtips is the exception here. 4. Stabilator- any time you see a stabilator on a small airplane, it is because they could not get enough nose up pitch without it. Stabilators are fine in flight, but it is a fix to a flawed airframe design. Same is true of the Cessna Cardinal. The horizontal stabilizer/elevator is much stronger. Which leads to 5. No Utility category in a Cherokee. The 172 airframe is much stronger by a lot. Now, I fly both and teach in both, and Cherokees are alright. But you have to stay on top of maintenance and you can't be aggressive with it. If not, you can face the possibility of the wing coming off. 6. Cherokees make pilots lazy on rudder control.It does too much for you and Cherokee pilots have a harder time transitioning to other aircraft- especially tailwheel. Fly the Cherokee? Yes, but you have to be more careful with it and alert of its weaknesses. I would put my money on a 172.
My dad used to rent Piper Cherokees from Delaware Aviation at KPNE. They were my favorite times of my life going up in Cherokee 140s. The only airplane I ever had the controls of when I was a young boy. He quit flying in the early 80's unfortunately because he said it just got too expensive and I guess the novelty wore off.
After getting my ppl this year, I decided to buy an aircraft. I flew the archer, 140 (160hp), 172, 182, and the Dakota. The Dakota blew them all out of the park. I pick up the Dakota next week. I couldn’t be more happy with the choice. Great video!
Later Cherokees had a conventional trim wheel. While not quite framed as such in the video, I’m also always amused when people gripe about having large enough fuel fuel tanks that you can’t fill the seats and the tanks. Don’t ever move up to turbine air, because that is the norm. It’s called versatility. Lower payload? Fill the tanks and increase your range. Need to haul more payload? No problem, carry less fuel and make a stop if it’s a longer flight. If you can fill the tanks and the seats, you’ve actually given up some capability that could otherwise be obtained.
I’m 172 all the way baby!!! Put four people in a Cherokee and you might not get out of ground effect the 172 will climb out. I watched a really nice 235 with two guys long range tanks at Harvey young end up in the trees about 10 years ago
I made one video about 2 weeks ago. I’m working on a few videos now and trying to build a house at the same time. Our plane has been down for a bit, but she’s back up and running as of yesterday. I hope to start pumping out a few more videos after the holidays. In the meantime, have you made it over to my Adventure Channel yet? I’ve got a handful of new flying videos over there. Here’s one of them: ua-cam.com/video/0pOAEeArLxE/v-deo.htmlsi=Cg36nBB-VmLHgkf0
The GA industry has to be the most antiquated industry ever. It seems to evolve at a snail's pace. It amazes me how in 2023, airplane manufacturers are still putting out the same old, tired designs (and engines) from 70+ years ago and people are still eating them up. This is only creating opportunities for companies like Cirrus and Diamond to come out with new, fresh product. Can you imagine if we all still drove the Ford Edsel around and bragged about them?
You did an excellent job with the comparison of the two popular airplanes. At 200' on pipelines I have had to use full flaps in 172s and rudder to the floor forward slip to make a suitable landing zone in the very near hemisphere after engine failure. Yes, the nose pitches up and down a bit but the airspeed does not change. Flaps make the 172 able to land in the distance required to take off. The short wing Cherokee requires a much slower airspeed than what the POH calls for to get the same sink rate that allows the throttle to become the safe active and dynamic glide angle and rate of descent control all the way down of the 172. They are both good solid trainers. You mentioned price. That was why I owned Tri-Pacers and Colts. Good evaluation.
I can tell you for sure, the 172 is about the most docile machine you can ever fly! Like a "flying sedan car" which is what Cessna were aiming at providing when they designed it.
First lesson I ever had was in a 172, and it wasn't a fun experience and then switched to the Warrior II PA-28-161 (same plane as a Cherokee but with a tapered wing) and the Tomahawk and I liked those better until switching flight schools where I completed my training in the 172R and grew to love it. The Tomahawk was probably Piper's closest competitor to the 150/152 and as someone who has flow both, the Tomahawk has the better cockpit for 2 person flying. I know some people hate it due to the T-Tail Configuration making spins harder (impossible?) to recover from vs the Cessna. Haven't seen a Tomahawk at a flight school in ages though.
I have flown both. I also owned a Cessna 150 for 10 years, and when ready to move to 4 seats, I picked a Cherokee 180. I love it, and like it far better than a 172. It's more stable, more fun to fly, and has better performance. Visibility in the pattern is vastly superior than any of the Cessna singles except the Cardinal. Of great importance is the ride for passengers. My wife didn't care much for the Cessna's as the ride in turbulence tends to be a lot of wing rocking but it sort of holds a heading. In the Cherokee, you get less wing rock, but more heading wander. It's a different ride and one most my passengers prefer.
I flew about 12 hours in Cessnas including a few in the 172. I learned to fly in a Cherokee and liked them so much that I bought one as my personal plane. The low wing of the Cherokee was just so much more natural for those that wanted to move on to faster planes which are usually low wing planes. Nothing against the Cessna and I know many love them but I prefer a Cherokee over a Cessna flying wise every time. Better handling in rough weather and better looking too. Edited to add: that trim handle in the roof of the Cherokee is actually super easy to use and much faster than repeatedly spinning the little wheel on a Cessna. Trimming on a Cherokee can be done in a matter of a couple seconds and becomes second nature once used to it. I preferred the handle on the cherokee to any other manual trim adjustment.
Take a skyhawk any day ... Cherokee s are cool flown them all...however for bush flying...cessna hawks 8 days week...cessna the weight lifter with stol kit
CFI with 30 + years of of flying. I’ve flown numerous high and low wing aircraft and the 172 has three advantages. First, I prefer two doors not only for comfort, but safety. Second, the preflight is easier on a high wing airplane. Last, you can store your lawn tractor and snowblower under the high wing of the 172. Otherwise, there is little difference of consequence between the two designs and I’m happy to fly either.
I did all my training in 172's and 182's but bought a Cherokee 235 at the beginning of summer. Couldn't be happier with it, just as capable as a 182 but half the cost!
I would definitely be interested in the glide ratio comparison video… I’m gonna be starting flying & was trying to figure which plane to use for my flight training… I loved this video, it will really help me make my ultimate decision…
You are asking for the glide ratio, which is the same as Lift to drag ratio, here is the very simple equation GR = max L/D = ½ span √(π e / CdA) e oswald eff factor 0.875 Cd parasite drag coefficient A wing area CdA is also called flat plate Area typically 6.1 square feet span wing span 36 ft For a 172 the result is 12.0 don't forget π = 3.1416 The Cherokee has 32+ ft span In summary the wing SPAN is the thing!
I learned to fly in a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172, over 40 years ago. My first plane was a 152, and I now have a 1974 172M. I like high wing planes. I have flown a couple of low wing planes, including a 1947 V35 Bonanza, with the owner/pilot in the right seat. I just don't like the feel and outside view from low wing planes. I like being able to look out the side window and see everything below me, not just the top of the wing. The Cessnas are also extremely stable and nearly stall proof.
Thanks! Apparently, Cherokee parts are STILL more readily available because almost all their models have interchangeable parts. A&Ps love them because of that
I DO NOT BELIEVE MY EYES!!! I almost choked when I saw the red and white C150 shown because I once owned the plane!! Dang!!! I really miss that little darling and hated to sell her.
The Cherokee Stabilator has a "Big Tab" at end. That prevents too much up or down elevator. The trim also is from that tab. See how high that big tab goes when up elevator. That is why it gets very hard to pull up too much elevator and stall it.. Unless you full back trim or have a very rear CG. It has another name but i preferred to explain to students as the big rear stabilator tab that makes the elevator heavier as you put too much. Former CFi on all 6 kinds of Cherokees.
@@FreePilotTraining Most pilots dont,- even CFI's get confused by that function of that big tab. It is called "An Anti Servo Tab", which is quite confusing name because it acts contrary to what the pilot wants to do (But only when too much). Some others tabs are called "Servo Tab" or Service Tab because they help the pilot move the control easier, but the Anti Servo Tab does the contrary, it prevents you from moving the control TOO MUCH up and stall it, or too much down and break the airplane with negative G's.
I’ve owned a cherokee 140B and have got hundreds of hours in 172’s and 150’s. These are my pro’s and con’s for both. Cherokee Pros: Easy to fuel at self serves for quick cheap gas. Manual flaps for touch and goes(don’t have to wait on a motor) You can open both sides of the hood without having to remove the cowling aka oil changes are quick and easy for owners I could easily do mine in 20-30 minutes on the ramp in that Phoenix heat. Easy to check the tops of the wings in preflight and you don’t have to worry about hitting your head on them although I do have a scar from accidentally running into the prop on day lol The instrument layout is superior in the 6 packs! Cherokee cons: you have to maintain 2 fuel pumps, mechanical and electric. I had my mechanical quit on climb out one day but luckily I was taught to keep the electric on until you reach cruise so you can easily see the gauge and not be in a climb or at full power if it does drop to zero. You have to maintain 3 oleo struts instead of just 1 on the 172. Wing spar AD - (not applicable on the 140’s however I would definitely do it and thankfully it was done on mine right before I purchased it. Cleaning the underside of the plane. Better invest in an auto mechanics creeper to lay on! 1 door! 1 tiny window! Especially these two in the Phoenix heat and if you had an emergency like a fire it would be a pain in the butt for two people to have to crawl out quickly. The sun burn on 1 arm depending on which side you sit on when doing XC’s. Definitely invest in sun shades! Alright the 172’s PROs! Gravity fed fuel so no fuel pump to maintain and you can put the fuel selector on both so you don’t have to change it all the time!!! Only 1 oleo strut to keep good! High wing is great for blocking the sun and rain! Especially when you’re on the ground! They climb a little better even with the same engine and they definitely do float further in an emergency. Piper lied about that one. No wing spar AD! Cessna has more parts availability because they built more! You sit up higher like if your riding in a truck! (Piper is like your in a car.) Cessna Cons: Harder to fuel because you have to get a ladder and move it to each side. Can’t slip safely with full flaps. Have to climb up each time to check the full quantity. Harder the older you get! They cost more out of the gate but maintenance is a little cheaper because you don’t have to maintain 3 oleo’s and two fuel pumps! You do have to maintain electric flaps though so there’s that! But if you need to change the fuel meters it’s way easier in a Cessna because you don’t have to pull the full tank to do it!
I did all my original training in a few 150's. (early 90's) They were a pig. LOL But they were a good cheap trainer. In recent years, I've been flying Warriors, and an Archer. I really like the way they fly, and land. Like you said... you can slip them hard, and you can use the "Drop the flap" trick to nail a landing. In the last month... I went to a local school to get my tail wheel endorsement, (in a Stinson 108-1)and they have a bunch of 172's. SO... since I haven't flown a Cessna in years... I took one up. I was actually amazed how well behaved it is. It landed easy, and it was super predictable... even with a crosswind. I didn't have to slip it since it was an 8000' x 150' runway, so I can't comment on that. BUT... overall... I just like the way the Piper flys and handles over the Cessna. AND.... as far as landing goes.... it's hard to know for sure. I think the Warrior will drop when the power first comes off... but set glide for 73kts, and they stay up for a long time. I've been doing power off 180's.... and it's super predictable, and I just use flaps to set up the glide once I'm close to the runway. But it would be an interesting vid for next time. Thanks for the vid
doing my training in a warrior II, would absolutely love to fly a 172 and see how different they really are from my own perspective, but i will say the warrior is amazing.
@@FreePilotTraining warrior is definitely better. Baggage door, overhead ventilation, trim wheel between the seats, 5" fuselage stretch, tapered wings, 2325lb gross weight. We love ours
The reason NOT to slip with full flaps (in either airplane regardless of POH statements) is because the downwash of the flaps results in an increased AOA for the horizontal and elevator/stabilator which can result in a stall on the “off” side horizontal/stabilator…and a sudden pitch-down. That pitch-down often results in a spin because of the applied rudder in the slip. Since flaps and slips are usually close to the ground in a landing approach…there is no time or room for error or correction. It can be DEADLY.. STOP doing that. The reason Cessna reduced flap deployment in a 172 from 40 to 30 degrees is because they wanted to increase the certificated gross weight of the airplane. However, increased weight with full flaps places higher stresses on the rear doorposts and increasing the strength of the rear doorposts was too difficult in an established design…. so coupled with the advantage of removing the limitation of slipping with full flaps, keeping the same airframe/doorpost design, and enabling a higher gross weight…. in light of the especially more-effective (larger) flaps a Cessna has over a Piper…. made this reduction to 30-degrees a no-brainer. As for easier refueling a low-wing vs a high-wing…. it should be noted that draining the sumps for pre-flight is considerably easier in a high wing Cessna rather than laying on your back and crawling on your knees to drain the sumps in a Cherokee. Lastly, the high wing design makes it easier for passengers to board and deplane …AND it is COOLER to enter a shaded cockpit on a sunny day instead of that GreenHouse-effect of a hot low wing. Lastly, the center of gravity (mass) of a high wing is inherently more stabil as it is BELOW the Center of Lift…as opposed to being above the low wing COL. Further, the continuous lifting surface span-wise of a high wing provides more lift and better aspect-ratio as opposed to the interrupted lifting surface a fuselage sitting on top of the wing plan-form of a low wing. Some people may ask “Why then are large airplanes more commonly low-wing designs? Answer: Because it places the landing gear farther out (under the wing) making a more laterally-stabil landing gear arrangement. THAT is about the only advantage a low wing has over a high wing, IMO…. but I’ll ask the question: Where does an operating airplane spend most of its time…on the ground..? or in the air..? (But have you ever noticed where the wings are on heavy-lift aircraft such as the C5-Galaxy, C141-Starlifter, or C130-Hercules..?? (hint-hint) ;>)
Addendum to my comment above: I failed to note that in the certification requirements of a desired higher gross weight for the 172…. regs required a “balked landing climb requirement” which the huge flaps of the 172 prevented…. So Cessna had to reduce the flaps to 30-degrees to meet that requirement in order to allow the increased G.W. Hope that helps clarify. (former prod. test pilot)
As a sometimes instructor, I prefer the Cessna. Why? One door, never a good idea IMO, the fuel selector on the students side wall, nice spot if you want to reach over someone to change tanks and no “both” option, the nightmare trim location and operation, I literally have to look at it to determine which way to turn it. Not the least bit intuitive IMO. The Hershey bar wing makes it difficult to make smooth landing without power. Yeah, not my first choice for instruction. But they ARE cheap.😊 16:28
I've flown both, and my best assessment is that my favorite is the one I happen to be flying! The low wing of the Cherokee, though is a major plus, since it allows for a far better traffic scan, especially in turns. The two doors and shade/shelter of the Cessna's high wing is nice though. The gravity fuel feed of the Cessna also balances the ultra-reliable 'Armstrong' flap system of the Piper.
I've been flying for decades... Learned to fly in warrior, Archer, and Arrow... First time I checked out a cessna I was surprised at how easy it was to get in and out of compared to a PA-28. But as a matter of taste, I prefer the Piper
I learned in the Piper and loved them, my first purchase was a Cessna 152, and then moved up to the 172. It's a 1979, but I fly the heck out of it and can still get parts for it.
Learning on a piper archer II here; haven’t flown anything else yet but I have zero complaints. It’s a great plane and does everything you could ask of it.
I did my PPL and IR in the PA-28-161 Warrior III, and it's a complete joy to fly! I also have a few hours in a 172 from years ago, but I don't remember how that plane handled. There's just something about having the wings in the "correct" spot (below you) that make low-wings feel like "proper" airplanes.
I’m glad that you showed 123JC, that is my current training plane also 48J. Hope see you at KORK some day, learning a lot from your videos !!!! Thanks !!!
I was watching your video (have watched several), and was very surprised when my Cessna 150 popped up at 1:56. Had no idea that you have been to 4A5. Thanks for the awesome content!
Thank you for that balanced and well presented comparison. I haven't seen many such pieces done so fairly, with attention to variables and and an effort to make the data relatable and objective. Subscribed.
The reason the later model 172's have a maximum of 30° instead of 40° of flap is to satisfy the go-around requirements due to the higher gross weight. Same with the 152's compared to the 150's. Plus it makes them easier to flare. I rarely used 40° in a 172 or in my 150. The stall speed in my 1960 150 is only 1 MPH less at 40° than it is at 20°. I also prefer the "Johnson Bar" flap handle on the older 150's and 172's. You can put the flaps anywhere you want immediately. A friend had to perform a full flap (40°) go-around in his 150 with electric flaps, when the flap fuse blew. Luckily his was the only one on board, fuel was low, and it was a cold day. He flew the pattern at full throttle just to maintain altitude.
Flaps stuck when full flap low go around? Full power, try an “100 feet agl MCA 180 Turnback”, due too slow high drag and low MCA, you fail to complete the turnback, (Impossible Turnback Attempted). Now you have to land tailwind on a corn field next to the runway... and flip over. Ask Dan Gryder if that was good. He says "My impossible turnback" was good (No, it was An Impossible Turnback). He doesnt know turnbacks and tried an impossible Turnback and crashed on the 180 section. Two years later after he crashed by mistakes on too low and slow turnback, he still says "You should not practice Turnbacks. ( Which are good to know, so you know when to and when not to do them). He doesnt know Turnback 3 kinds of maneuvers. And tells you not to know either when and how you can do them. Equals: For Dan Gryder, Ignorance is the answer. Ignorance is the solution to the many turning stalls crashes by FAA Certificated 'Experience Pilot".
@@FreePilotTraining A Mild Maneuvering CFI putting down all that practice Hard maneuvers like Emergency Low Maneuvers (ELM). I post to him often about practicing ELM ..But he cant do any ELM at all.
I have flown both. One of the joys of flying is the view and that big paddle wing on the bottom of Piper 140 spoils much of your view, which would be the deciding factor for me. The last time I looked at fatal accident statistics the 172 had a distinct advantage, even though the low wing of the Piper gives you better vision (of other planes) in a turn.
Great video, appreciate your work on it. One thought: with regard to the “apples to apples” idea, I’d recommend looking at how the planes perform at equivalent useful load rather than gross weight. Because really, who cares how much the plane weighs? What we care about is: how well does it perform at equivalent useful load, with however much people and fuel on board? Regarding the fuel tanks, understand the concern about letting new pilots load more fuel, but if you’re evaluating the capabilities of the airframe, I think there’s no way that more capacity is worse (though i am admittedly biased as an Archer II owner 😉).
Personal preference - the Cherokee 140 every day - the 172 flies like a heavy truck drives. The 140 is agile and nimble Which I suppose translates to "less stable". Also, the 140 is rated for intentional spins, and they are great fun, if you like that sort of thing.
I learned to fly in 1965. I started in a Cessna 120 then went to a Cherokee 140, soloing with 6.5 total hours. Remember this was 1965. I have since flown an assortment of airplanes. For me, I'll take a high wing everytime. The two doors on a Cessna make ingress and egress much more comfortable. Plus the fact, for me, The Cessna teaches you more about controlling the aircraft.
Having flown both (learnt in low wings including the PA 28), I agree the Cessna being more forgiving, I find I can concentrate more on navigating on a C172 than on a PA 28 ... Alas, C172 are not only 50% more expensive, they are also super hard to find (in Canada at least), as flight schools buy them all these days 🫤
Nice comparison between the 2 most popular airplanes out there. Having flown both, I’d be happy with either one. For me, the Cherokee is trickier to land whereas the C172 is easier to grease the landing once you’re use to it. Having said all this I’m the proud owner of a Grumman Cheetah which also has a 150hp O-320 engine. Purchase price was much less than a Piper or Cessna. TAS at 4,500 ft @ 75% power is 142 mph. 52 gallon fuel tanks & 820 lb useful load. Love the sliding canopy (especially on hot days). The control yoke is sportier with stops at 45-50 degrees whereas the Piper/Cessna stops around 90 degrees. Not as many Grummans out there but if you ever get a chance they’re definitely worth a look. Cheers!
I much prefer having multiple doors, firewall mounted engine controls, electronic flaps (vs the parking brake style), easily seeing the landing gear for inspection, and the really nice views afforded by having the wing on top. I have flown both aircraft for similar amounts of time. Cons of the Cessga would be the climb on top of the wing for anything related to fueling.
I've found the C 172 to be a good trainer but for a cross country plane you can do much better. The Grumman AA5-B Tiger is my favorite 182 speed for 172 operating costs.
I learned to fly in the Cessna 150, a real sweetheart, then got my commercial license in a 172. I loved forward slips and never had a problem. After that it was almost all Piper. To me it was apples vs. oranges -- although I'll always have a fondness for Cessnas.
I have a lot of time in both, I prefer Cherokee because you can see things in the direction of a turn, manual flaps, easier landings because more time in ground effect. I have found also that it is harder to get in and out of a 172 than a Cherokee.
One of each, please! The 172 to hang a set of Edo floats on and swap the O-320 for a 180 HP O-360. The Cherokee (preferable a Warrior) for weekend getaways. And the trusty RV-4 for some light aerobatic fun. :)
Loving the American Flyers' "Piper Pilot!!" That's my flight school lol I also have about 300hrs right now and have about half in Piper Archers/Warriors and half in Cessna 172s. Your findings are exactly what I've found going from the Pipers to the Cessnas!
Back in the early 70s, I learned in both. Learned a little about ground effect in the Cherokee, and it was hotter in the cockpit in the Deep South where I lived. The Cessna was less stable in high crosswind landings and when you taxi, and the shade was appreciated in the heat. P.S. Over hot pavement you can suddenly learn something about density altitude when all the sudden that ground effect isn't there.😂
Definitely a well documented presentation. But for me as a pilot since the late 80s, I still much prefer the Cherokee. For one, I mostly flew Warriors and Archers along with 180 hp 172s. The strange ceiling trim was fixed with a standard trim wheel, aling with rudder trim which the 172s I flew did not have. I also preferred the handling of the Cherokees and especially the throttle/mixture controls as i really do not like the knobs of the Cessna. As well, I like the slip handling that you pointed out too. What did like better about the 172 is the fact you can get more realistic stalls than the Cherokee, but then I found the Tomahawk that I originally learned in delivered even more in this aspect.
First time flying in Alaska in 1984. The outfit I worked for did not use any single engine Pipers. There were a couple fly-by-night outfits that use them, the Cherokee six. In the wintertime with snow berms along the runways the single engine Pipers were dangerous. Went back in 1999. And nobody was using single engine Pipers for FAR135 work in the Bethel Alaska area.
Yeah, snow berms are definitely an important consideration. I’m in Palmer right now, and we have record breaking snow levels this year ua-cam.com/video/LC9-PgdDFmo/v-deo.htmlsi=-p_NsAAfP2i_53ez
As a onetime CFI years ago and have flown both aircraft but were enjoyable to fly. The one area you did not talk about was payload with full tanks. The C172s I flew had a full tank payload of 630 to 650 lbs while the PA140 was 100 lbs less at 530 lbs at best. But again, both were fun to fly.
You didn't mention the "laminar flow" wings on the Cherokee. I love flying my 180. Also, it can handle cross winds exceptionally well do to the dihedral.
Growing up flying, I spent most of my time looking out the side window and towards the ground. We used to land at Pixleys farm in Rogers county. One day it was raining hard. I always like to watch the wheels touch the ground. On this day while looking down at the wheels. A cross wind hit the plane and slamed my face into the window. When we started to land. We actually hydroplaned for a bit. When we finally touched ground. All this mud was slung all over the plane. The next day sucked. We had to go out and clean the whole plane....lol
I instruct in both PA-28-140 and C-172 N/M/S and I completely agree with you’re video. I don’t know which one I really like better, I like the flying characteristics of the Cherokee better, but 172 has better performance and often has better avionics. I like the manual flaps better and the low wing visibility, but then I’d rather take passengers sightseeing in the high wing with much easier access.
Nice and interesting comparison. Looking at the last 2 minutes, that's exactly why our flying club has the Piper 28 (OK, a Warrior, to be exact). I'd love to fly Cessnas, too. But there isn't a single C172 left at my local airfield, let alone in my club.
I have flown both I have a preference but both planes do a good job. I think the high wing has better visibility toward the ground and the low wings gives better toward the sky. Depends upon whether you’re flying level, climbing, or descending.
Very nice comparison. I think you were extremely fair in your analysis and gave some really good pro/con points. I agree it would be very interesting to see the actual glide distance for each model (comparably configured).
It's amazing how much better they glide with the propeller stopped, 20 percent according to Cessna's flight test engineer Bill Thompson, and propeller in vertical position is the lowest drag position. @@FreePilotTraining
I just finished my first solo yesterday in my schools Pipers PA-28-161 Warrior 2. Thing can take a beating and hard landings haha, and is super responsive to my inputs.
The first time I flew in a Cherokee, I hated it. We flew into an airshow. But along the way, I had this wing blocking my view of the ground. Flying most of my life in a high wing gave me appreciation at looking at the ground. One of my biggest reasons for the love of flying. When I was a teenager and I thought I had problems. I'd go out to the Mojave Airport and go flying. While flying, I'd look down at all those small cars and all those small people and it would help me put things into perspective.
Full flap speed Vfe is higher on the Cherokee. Cessna allows flaps 10 at 110 knots then no more unless below 85 kts. Cherokee allows full flaps at 102 kts and then can be “dumped” much easier to lose altitude because they are manually controlled. However, most Piper’s prohibit intentional spins. One more thing, love the access of the engine on the Cherokee. You can definitely look for leaks and broke parts, including the jugs and mounts.
The Cessna is superior in every way. Gravity fuel feed, better performance, maintenance free landing gear.. the only categories that the Piper has over the Cessna is more fuel capacity and cheaper price.
I have flown both. They are both great planes. Some pros for the 172 are 2 doors, and view to the ground, (although I think overall visibility is better in the cherokee). Some pros for the cherokee are the handling, manual flaps, and fuel tabs for less than full fuel in the tank. The biggest cons for the 172 are the outrageous price, having to climb up a latter to fill with fuel, and crosswinds can get under the wings really easy on the ground. Some cons for the cherokee are the one door and having to get on the ground to sump the fuel. Ultimately, I prefer the cherokees. You can get a cherokee 150/160/180 for less than the price of a 172 and get a plane with more speed and load. But I would be absolutely happy owning either plane.
Great video, I appreciate your no nonsense approach. Couldn't help but notice your shirt. I was in the Marine Corps with Ken Poindexter way back when. Just wondering if you knew him as well? Again, enjoyed your video, thank you for the information.
The low-wing Warrior/Archer will float a lot more in ground effect than the high-wing 172 if airspeed isn't carefully controlled before entering the landing flare. Also, soft-field take-offs in the Warrior/Archer are interesting when retracting the manual flaps vs. electric in the 172.
I had the bulk of my training in my brothers' first plane, a 1965 Cherokee 180. But I bought a 1969 C172K and still have it today. The Cherokee 180 was a little faster than my 150 /HP 172, but I love the ease of entry and doors on both sides. I do have some mobility issues so getting out of low wings is a bit of a controlled crash onto the wing, lol. The Cherokee 180 had a sweet spot between the 172 and 182 that it could carry more weigh than my 172, just a little slower than a 182, had bigger tanks than the 172. I also like the more car like (old car, lol) that adjust nicely and the large panel has lots of room. The particular Cherokee I flew was a maintenance nightmare, it had issues, spent the 1st 15 yrs of its life in Puerto Rico... If it would have been in better condition, I may have stuck with it. But I've had my 172 for 13 yrs now, the only thing I want different is a little taildragger, but nothing I like in my price range has come along yet. I'm pretty picky! :) They are both great airplanes in their own right, oddly, a lot of it comes down to whether one likes high wings or low wings more. low wings are also nice to self-fuel! No ladders! lol.
In 44 years of piloting, I think I flew 1 hour in a C172 as a passenger in 1980 while in college. On the other hand, I learned in the Piper Cherokee, Arrow, and Aztec. After corp and airline flying for a decade I gave up the wings to run my businesses. The first plane I bought was a Piper Arrow, then came two Navajos, then a Cheyenne ll. Trainers were sold to get people hooked on the manufacturer in addition to training and it worked in my case.
That’s very true! Thankfully I’ve got a taste of a few different models!
I think a spicy part 2 would be to compare the newer Piper Archer vs a similar year 172S. Piper fixed a lot of the odd features and has a really nice competitor now that a lot of the big schools are now choosing over the 172.
Ooh! You’re the second person to tell me that! That would be fun!
@@FreePilotTraining I'm a short hop away from you over in Bentonville. You should stop by on a cross country! I'd love to chat and would even be interested in doing some flight test videos with you in one of our 172s.
@@matthewpaxton2832 PM me on Facebook if you have one. I might have a little time in a couple weeks
Yes. A 180hp 172 and an Archer are much more evenly matched.
Or perhaps Compare the Skyhawk to a Warrior instead of an Archer since it has a 160 hp engine (like the Skyhawk) instead of the 180 in the Archer.
I’ve got many hours back in the day in both. The 172 makes more practical sense in many ways over the 140. When the Warrior came it was Pipers game changer to the early Skyhawks. But in truth, I really love the fake airliner feel of the Cherokee , looking up & out in turns. By biggest gripe in the 140 was its poor flare authority holding the nose off with two in the front, full fuel and full flaps.
I’ve heard the Warrior is an awesome plane. Need to compare the two
One of the flight schools I worked for had both. When a prospective student asked me which one they should use, I said "It depends on what you want to see. If you want to see the ground, fly a high wing. I you want to see the sky, stand on the ground, look up and save yourself a ton of money."
😂
....I practice the latter now all the time, yep SAVING MONEY.
😂😂😂
This comment made me start on a Cessna and had no fun flying. Once I went to a Piper flying became amazing. I tell everyone to try both early and pick what feels best.
I ended up owning a Cherokee180. For me the over head wing was an issue in patter flying. The wing blocks your view when making pattern turns. For me I prefer my ground reference AND the ability to scan for traffic in the pattern
That is 100% fact. It’s nice to be able to see the runway when you’re turning base
The high wing really doesn't block your view into the turn nearly as much as you think it does. The pilot sits right under the wing. It blocks your view directly to the side - you have to turn your head a full 90 degrees to be looking at the blind spot. But that's not where you're turning. The plane doesn't stop in mid-air, pivot 90 degrees, and then start moving in the new direction. It continues moving forward as you are initiating the turn. So, you can always see the point where your plane will be when it completes the turn. It won't be 90 degrees from where you started the turn - in the blind spot. It will be about 45 degrees to the left or right - definitely not in the blind spot. So, for left traffic, turn your head 45 degrees to the left and you can see the area where your plane will be at the completion of the turn - that location is not blocked by the wing at all.
Agreeing to what @ldmax said I will also add that you should clear your turn before you start it... so the wing isn't really blocking your view except for possible aircraft that are high and at your 4-5 oclock descending into your turn. That said I still prefer cherokee for the ground cushion.
I prefer neither of the 2 Choices.. A Beech Musketeer series beats both... Where it has low wing, the pilot can still look straight down as he is forward of the wing, Not over the wing! I am training in a Sierra for my private... I have no issues looking down or up for traffic.
I prefer a Warrior II over the 172. The throttle and mixture make more sense to me. I guess I'm more comfortable sitting on the wings instead of hanging from em, too. But, a door on each side would be handy. Probably gonna solo in a couple days!😁
I’ve never flown a warrior, but there’s a bunch of warrior fans on here
Getcha some!
The Warrior is almost like flying a completely different aircraft compared to the Hershey bar wing Cherokees. I was amazed at the difference.
@@donadams8345 I need to fly one!
I flew 172 first part of PPL training. Finished in Grumman Cheetah. I prefer the Cheetah. Fun plane and the retractable canopy helps in Alabama summers!
Well, After flying and owning both high wing Cessna's, low wing Bonanzas along with a ton of rental time in low wing Cherokee's plus logged time in DC-3 and C-47's along with a Citation and MU-2, my all time favorite is the ONE I am flying at that particular time. They all have their pluses and minuses, but loved flying all of them!
Thanks for the comment! Yes they do!
Great summary of some of the main differences. Other things to consider:
- Carburetor heat
- Ventilation and windows
- One door vs. two doors
- Fuel pump vs. gravity fed
- Low wing vs. high wing visibility
- Cowling doors / accessibility
- Rear seat legroom
- Cargo door and cargo area
- Landing gear strut differences
- Nose wheel steering differences
- Cessna flaps are Fowler flaps
- Ability to see fuel caps from Piper cockpit
- High wing advantages for seaplane and bush flying
- Cherokee 180 is the same price as 150-160 hp Cessna 172’s but provides major performance advantages, especially with climb rate and useful load
Thank you! Very good points!
At my last ripoff 141 school, I was flying C172 Ss, now at my wonderful part 61 school, I am mostly flying Piper PA-28-161 Warrior IIIs. I fell in love with them immediately, and I really prefer how they fly. I was really worried about their stability, but I seem to have a much easier time maintaining my heading and altitude in the Pipers. Also, I really prefer the mechanical flaps over the stupid electric flaps in the 172. Just my 2 cents.
😆 cracks me up. 141 schools definitely know how to rip people off. Great points. Thank you so much!
So would you say that people who fly Cessnas then would have trained on a much more difficult plane?
@@xrey83 Not necessarily. Most people consider Cessnas to be very stable. It could just be my personal preference and I am probably biased because I was rather unhappy with my previous instruction experiences where I flew Cessnas. The purpose of my comment was more to reassure people moving to low wing planes that they are comfortable and safe to fly.
@@xrey83 I’d say it’s easier to fly a 172
@@FreePilotTraining I’ve heard a fellow student say it was easier to land and perform maneuvers (staying on altitude and heading) with a Cherokee. Plus the comment above led me to believe that it was easier to control and therefore operate the Cherokee.
I love the ground effect of the Cherokee - made for some very nice landings. All the Cherokees that I flew (140, 160, 180) all had a trim-wheel on the floor next to the flaps. I do like the Cessna's 2 doors and the ability to open the window in flight, especially during summer.
Yeah, I guess the newer models have the trim wheel on the floor
I'm a student learning in a Warrior and while it might seem like something minor after having just a couple flights in a 172 I have to say I really prefer the throttle and mixture controls in the Warrior. Might just be because thats what I've learned on but it feels more intuitive for me. Also the carb heat gets way less action in the Warrior compared to the 172.
Warrior is so much better than Cherokee. The extra wing span makes the diff
I’ve heard that! I love the Arrow a LOT!
I’m hearing amazing things about the Warrior! I’ve flown 180s, but never a warrior. I know the airframe was a completely new design for Piper
@@matthewlilly7668 Flown both and plus and minus to each. Throttle and yolk nicer on the warrior plus a bit more cruise speed which is nice. You just can't beat the climb rate though on some of the older Cherokees. Mine did an honest 900fpm with just me in it and fuel to tabs. No warrior ever comes close to that. Sure made it nice taking off and getting to cruise altitude quickly on short flights. I miss my ole cherokee. Was a great little plane.
@@MilitaryTalkGuy plenty of warriors can climb 900fpm or better with just a pilot on board. Our 76 warrior 151 is based around 750msl here. It can regularly show 800fpm and it has a cruise prop. Toss in the extra 10hp and smaller diameter prop of the warrior 2 and I don't know how you couldn't hit 1000fpm
Depends where you fly. I'm in Florida. High-wing is absolutely UNsexy, but extremely practical in Florida. The high-wing gives you shade from sun & rain. Two doors is nice. Being able to open those large windows in Florida is absolutely brilliant, both on the ground and in the air. I also like the more upright stance of the cabin in the 172 for longer trips. The cabin is narrow, but the height makes it feel more roomy. Roomy back seat as well.
I've never flown the PA28, but trained in a DA40, 172S, and Citabria. Flown a PA32-RT (Lance II) and PA46 (Malibu). After experiencing the Diamond's absolutely crisp controls, the Cessna feels completely sloppy. In training I struggled with the 172 compared to the DA40...so being a masochist, I kept flying the 172 until I learned how to wrestle the sloppy beast and make it do what I wanted. The PA32-RT is a flying brick with a sink rate of a cinder block. The PA46 is heavy but fantastic. That extra weight helps smooth out the ride compared to a 172.
Physics-wise, I certainly see how people would think a high-wing is worse for cross-winds, but I disagree from experience. I've flown both the 172 and Citabria in some pretty wicked, gusty crosswinds and didn't find the high wing to be an impairment. If anything, I was quite happy to have more distance from the wingtip to the wing-eating-asphalt below. Even playing between the spiral bands of a hurricane, the high-winged 172 was very manageable.
As an aside, I highly recommend flying in the gap between the spiral bands of a tropical system. Yes, you need to have your wits about you, do plenty of planning, understand tropical systems, along with ADS-B radar or SiriusXM radar data on-board, but it was still the most challenging yet most rewarding flying I've ever done. Far more than my first solo. Maintaining VFR cloud clearances and keeping ahead of advancing storm lines was tough, but fun. Definitely something to do with an experienced CFI or experienced ATP on-board.
Great points! Thank you!
Low wings are typically more docile in upsets and stalls, especially due to the larger dihedral angles. Having flown many Cessna and piper variants I definitely prefer low wings 👍.
Great point! Thanks!
I'm a ppl with an instrument rating current and proficient. I initially trained in a 152 and then a 172. I fly my Cessna 182P frequently. I had friends involved in an accident in a Cherokee some years ago with a forced landing on a mountain road. They were able to just get out but could not get the back seat passengers out before fire engulfed the plane. They could simply not pull them up and out. I'm currently 67 years old and my wife is 68. We are in good health but we find it much easier to get in and out of our 182 than our friend's Cherokee and I like the double doors. I feel like I'm sitting inside a bedroom slipper in the Cherokee. I think the Cessna feels more like an SUV where the Cherokee feels like sitting in a Honda Civic. The Cherokee seems to drop like a rock on final whereas ours will float if we have a bit of energy and it seems to come down more slowly with full flaps than the Cherokee. I prefer the ability to float a bit if I want to. I think at this advanced age we will stick with our 182 rather than a low wing. You may find it a bit more difficult to get in and out of those things as you get older. I love our other friend's Bonanza A-36 but I still prefer the seating arrangement of the 182. The low wing is however much better in the pattern when you can see the runway in the base turn. I don't believe for a second that the Cherokee would glide better than the Cessna 172. There are also the infrequent but definite instances of wing separation in the Pipers. There is an AD out as you know and these inspections should prevent this but I don't believe there has ever been a recorded wing separation in a Cessna 172 or a Cessna 182 unless there was an underlying cause such as exceeding the limits of the airplane or flying into severe turbulence such as a thunderstorm. Thank you for your excellent channel.
You’re welcome! Excellent input. That’s a crazy story. Great food for thought
The Cherokee 140 was built to compete with the Cessna 150/152, no the 172. The Warrior would be a better comparison. That said, only the really old models had that coffee grinder trim crank on the ceiling. Visibility is SOO much better in a low wing and you can see when banking. In a high wing, that wing blinds you in turns, especially in the pattern. Fuel management is also easier in a Piper and filling the tanks and checking them is much easier. Not ladder required. The landing gear is farther apart on a Cherokee and landing it is easier and more forgiving. Annuals are much less labor for the Cherokee. You have to remove about 100 tiny screws just to take the floor pan off the Cessna and you have to remove the headliner to properly inspect all the pulleys and the strut fairing.
I've owned both. Flown many others. I'll take the 172 (really the 182 for me) over the Piper every time.
I’ve never flown a 182, but it seems like lots of fun
For me personally, I prefer flying a low wing and more windy conditions. But I will admit, I did all my flight training in a 172, and I appreciated the fact that me and my Cfi had our own doors. I will say that pattern work is much easier in a low wing, especially on that based a final term. Regarding flight training, you can’t go wrong with either airplane.
Absolutely! Thank you for the comment!
Yep, the runway tends to disappear with the highwing during pattern work
@@davidhames319 lol
I have flown both, and I prefer the Cherokee series. I just love the low wing handling and landing characteristics. Crosswind landings are so much easier in the Cherokees.
They do handle very well
@@FreePilotTraining
I also like the wider stance of the landing gear. The Cherokees just feel more stable on touchdown. I do love the visibility in the Cessnas though!
I forgot about crosswind ability. The cherokee can handle around 25mph depending on model and no cessna would dare try that. I remember one landing I made in west texas with my cherokee in near max limit cross winds, even the airport operator came out to tell me he was impressed with the way my little cherokee cut thru the crosswind as I tied it down. Not fun but can be done in a cherokee, with a 172, it would be divert to different airport with different runway heading or cancel trip.
I’ve only flown 172s and 152s but there’s something about the small 152 that you can just throw around with such ease that makes it tons of fun, the 172s with the heavy o-360 is definitely more stable in the air but nowhere near as fun to fly.
I’ve never flown a 152, but I’ve heard they’re fun
Especially, the Aerobat! Most fun you will have with your clothes on!
Excellent analysis. Can anyone really watch this entire vlog and come down on the side of the Piper?
Thanks! You’d be surprised on how many people favor the Piper
I owned a 1977 172N that I upgraded with a 180 HP engine. With full fuel I had a useful load of 800 lbs. Very useful for family trips. As far as slips with full flaps the prohibition of slipping with full flaps has been changed to "avoid". You may get a bobble when slipping with full flaps, but it's not going to fall out of the sky.
One time I was doing some Young Eagles flights and everyone had Cherokees and I was the only one with a 172. It was an old military airfield set up in a triangle with one of the runways crossing the other two such that there was a short section that I could land on. Made it convenient that I could land and turn off quickly to pick up my next set of YEs. I did this so consistently that the Piper pilots started to rib me about cheating. Only one could duplicate my short field landings and he flat spotted his tires doing so. Afterwards we headed out to get a $100 hamburger and it turned out I was also faster than the Pipers (including a Cherokee 180) 😄
So, given the better short field performance, better cruising speed, two doors, better useful load, and improved visibility I would keep the 172 over the Cherokee. Just my $0.02
Great points, and I believe the N is slightly wider than it’s predecessors. Thanks for the comment!
Nice video - flew PA-28s and C-172s for years, and enjoyed both. The Pipers have great visibility in a turn, but if you have to get in or out of an aircraft in the rain, the Cessna wing makes a great umbrella.
Yes they do! I like being able to see above me on the base turn!
Those umbrellas are a lot less great when you are 6'8". 😅
@@misfittoytower I could see that
I recently completed my private pilot training and all 80 hours that I have right now are in Cherokees. However, all of them have had a floor-mounted, between the seats, trim wheel. I've never even seen one with a ceiling-mounted handle.
Yes, the newer models have the trim between the seats. Those are much nicer
Great video. I did all my fixed-wing training in a 172, then jumped to the Cherokee for my first CFI job. I have to admit I fell in love with the Cherokee!
When I was a newbie pilot I did a go around with 40 degrees of flaps deployed with 3 seats occupied. It was climbing at a pitiful climb rate took me longer than it should to figure it out. This was the only Cessna 172 that went beyond the 30 degrees in the rental fleet. Learned a lesson I will never forget.
Yes, I’d like to make a video about how important it is to get those up asap
You survived a lesson.
Some important facts that need to be mentioned-1.stall characteristics- Cherokee may be hard to stall, but when it does, the break is pronounced because it has a different airfoil design. So when it lets go, it really lets go, and drops hard. The Cessna will let go of laminar flow slowly and not all at once. 2. Wing spar AD. Wings have fallen off Cherokees in flight. 172 has never had a structural failure in 70 years. 3. Slow-flight aileron command. The Cherokee has poor aileron command at low speeds. When in a crosswind, one needs to get the wing down early, otherwise you can't get it down- not enough aileron control. A Cherokee with droop wingtips is the exception here. 4. Stabilator- any time you see a stabilator on a small airplane, it is because they could not get enough nose up pitch without it. Stabilators are fine in flight, but it is a fix to a flawed airframe design. Same is true of the Cessna Cardinal. The horizontal stabilizer/elevator is much stronger. Which leads to 5. No Utility category in a Cherokee. The 172 airframe is much stronger by a lot. Now, I fly both and teach in both, and Cherokees are alright. But you have to stay on top of maintenance and you can't be aggressive with it. If not, you can face the possibility of the wing coming off. 6. Cherokees make pilots lazy on rudder control.It does too much for you and Cherokee pilots have a harder time transitioning to other aircraft- especially tailwheel. Fly the Cherokee? Yes, but you have to be more careful with it and alert of its weaknesses. I would put my money on a 172.
Great points. Thanks for the input. The AD is a series consideration
My dad used to rent Piper Cherokees from Delaware Aviation at KPNE. They were my favorite times of my life going up in Cherokee 140s. The only airplane I ever had the controls of when I was a young boy. He quit flying in the early 80's unfortunately because he said it just got too expensive and I guess the novelty wore off.
After getting my ppl this year, I decided to buy an aircraft. I flew the archer, 140 (160hp), 172, 182, and the Dakota. The Dakota blew them all out of the park. I pick up the Dakota next week. I couldn’t be more happy with the choice. Great video!
Thank you! I’ve never flown a Dakota, but that makes me want to try one
And officially he started the airplane civil war single handedly! 😂😂
😆 I hope not!
Great balanced treatment. Thanks!
I trained on a PA-28/140 and have several hundred hours in a 172 as well as the Cherokee (180 and 235 as well) my answer is Yes! Love both!
Agreed! They’re both great aircraft
Later Cherokees had a conventional trim wheel.
While not quite framed as such in the video, I’m also always amused when people gripe about having large enough fuel fuel tanks that you can’t fill the seats and the tanks. Don’t ever move up to turbine air, because that is the norm. It’s called versatility. Lower payload? Fill the tanks and increase your range. Need to haul more payload? No problem, carry less fuel and make a stop if it’s a longer flight. If you can fill the tanks and the seats, you’ve actually given up some capability that could otherwise be obtained.
Great points. Thanks for the comment
I’m 172 all the way baby!!! Put four people in a Cherokee and you might not get out of ground effect the 172 will climb out. I watched a really nice 235 with two guys long range tanks at Harvey young end up in the trees about 10 years ago
That’s scary! I could definitely see that happening
Thanks for putting the time into this video! It was super helpful for me as a total beginner.
You’re welcome! Thanks for watching!
Deffo 172 hands down and where have you been its been months
I made one video about 2 weeks ago. I’m working on a few videos now and trying to build a house at the same time. Our plane has been down for a bit, but she’s back up and running as of yesterday. I hope to start pumping out a few more videos after the holidays. In the meantime, have you made it over to my Adventure Channel yet? I’ve got a handful of new flying videos over there. Here’s one of them: ua-cam.com/video/0pOAEeArLxE/v-deo.htmlsi=Cg36nBB-VmLHgkf0
@@FreePilotTraining I like the Adventure page and subscribed and Good Luck on building a house.
The GA industry has to be the most antiquated industry ever. It seems to evolve at a snail's pace. It amazes me how in 2023, airplane manufacturers are still putting out the same old, tired designs (and engines) from 70+ years ago and people are still eating them up. This is only creating opportunities for companies like Cirrus and Diamond to come out with new, fresh product. Can you imagine if we all still drove the Ford Edsel around and bragged about them?
Yeah, it’s probably because no one can afford them these days. The cost is ridiculous
You did an excellent job with the comparison of the two popular airplanes. At 200' on pipelines I have had to use full flaps in 172s and rudder to the floor forward slip to make a suitable landing zone in the very near hemisphere after engine failure. Yes, the nose pitches up and down a bit but the airspeed does not change. Flaps make the 172 able to land in the distance required to take off. The short wing Cherokee requires a much slower airspeed than what the POH calls for to get the same sink rate that allows the throttle to become the safe active and dynamic glide angle and rate of descent control all the way down of the 172. They are both good solid trainers. You mentioned price. That was why I owned Tri-Pacers and Colts. Good evaluation.
Thanks Jimmy! I appreciate the comment! Great input!
I can tell you for sure, the 172 is about the most docile machine you can ever fly! Like a "flying sedan car" which is what Cessna were aiming at providing when they designed it.
That is a fact
First lesson I ever had was in a 172, and it wasn't a fun experience and then switched to the Warrior II PA-28-161 (same plane as a Cherokee but with a tapered wing) and the Tomahawk and I liked those better until switching flight schools where I completed my training in the 172R and grew to love it. The Tomahawk was probably Piper's closest competitor to the 150/152 and as someone who has flow both, the Tomahawk has the better cockpit for 2 person flying. I know some people hate it due to the T-Tail Configuration making spins harder (impossible?) to recover from vs the Cessna. Haven't seen a Tomahawk at a flight school in ages though.
I have flown both. I also owned a Cessna 150 for 10 years, and when ready to move to 4 seats, I picked a Cherokee 180. I love it, and like it far better than a 172. It's more stable, more fun to fly, and has better performance. Visibility in the pattern is vastly superior than any of the Cessna singles except the Cardinal. Of great importance is the ride for passengers. My wife didn't care much for the Cessna's as the ride in turbulence tends to be a lot of wing rocking but it sort of holds a heading. In the Cherokee, you get less wing rock, but more heading wander. It's a different ride and one most my passengers prefer.
I flew about 12 hours in Cessnas including a few in the 172. I learned to fly in a Cherokee and liked them so much that I bought one as my personal plane. The low wing of the Cherokee was just so much more natural for those that wanted to move on to faster planes which are usually low wing planes. Nothing against the Cessna and I know many love them but I prefer a Cherokee over a Cessna flying wise every time. Better handling in rough weather and better looking too. Edited to add: that trim handle in the roof of the Cherokee is actually super easy to use and much faster than repeatedly spinning the little wheel on a Cessna. Trimming on a Cherokee can be done in a matter of a couple seconds and becomes second nature once used to it. I preferred the handle on the cherokee to any other manual trim adjustment.
Yeah, the Cherokee is awesome. I think it handles better too, but I will admit that the 172 is very smooth and easy to fly
Take a skyhawk any day ... Cherokee s are cool flown them all...however for bush flying...cessna hawks 8 days week...cessna the weight lifter with stol kit
I do love Cessnas
CFI with 30 + years of of flying. I’ve flown numerous high and low wing aircraft and the 172 has three advantages. First, I prefer two doors not only for comfort, but safety. Second, the preflight is easier on a high wing airplane. Last, you can store your lawn tractor and snowblower under the high wing of the 172. Otherwise, there is little difference of consequence between the two designs and I’m happy to fly either.
I did all my training in 172's and 182's but bought a Cherokee 235 at the beginning of summer. Couldn't be happier with it, just as capable as a 182 but half the cost!
That’s cool! I’d love to fly one
I would definitely be interested in the glide ratio comparison video… I’m gonna be starting flying & was trying to figure which plane to use for my flight training… I loved this video, it will really help me make my ultimate decision…
Awesome! I didn’t even think about it being helpful for that! Thanks!
I really hope o can do it soon! That’d be fun!
You are asking for the glide ratio, which is the same as Lift to drag ratio, here is the very simple equation
GR =
max L/D = ½ span √(π e / CdA)
e oswald eff factor 0.875
Cd parasite drag coefficient
A wing area
CdA is also called flat plate Area
typically 6.1 square feet
span wing span 36 ft
For a 172 the result is 12.0
don't forget π = 3.1416
The Cherokee has 32+ ft span
In summary the wing SPAN is the thing!
The taper wing will glide better than the Hershey bar.
@@ConvairDart106 agreed
I learned to fly in a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 172, over 40 years ago. My first plane was a 152, and I now have a 1974 172M. I like high wing planes. I have flown a couple of low wing planes, including a 1947 V35 Bonanza, with the owner/pilot in the right seat. I just don't like the feel and outside view from low wing planes. I like being able to look out the side window and see everything below me, not just the top of the wing. The Cessnas are also extremely stable and nearly stall proof.
Great comparison! Which another point is the Cessna is a Cessna so you'll have tons more of aftermarket, matenice support.
Thanks! Apparently, Cherokee parts are STILL more readily available because almost all their models have interchangeable parts. A&Ps love them because of that
I DO NOT BELIEVE MY EYES!!!
I almost choked when I saw the red and white C150 shown because I once owned the plane!! Dang!!!
I really miss that little darling and hated to sell her.
That’s crazy! Yeah, my friend sent me that picture! It’s a small world!
The Cherokee Stabilator has a "Big Tab" at end. That prevents too much up or down elevator. The trim also is from that tab. See how high that big tab goes when up elevator. That is why it gets very hard to pull up too much elevator and stall it.. Unless you full back trim or have a very rear CG. It has another name but i preferred to explain to students as the big rear stabilator tab that makes the elevator heavier as you put too much. Former CFi on all 6 kinds of Cherokees.
Thanks for the comment! I actually didn’t know about that
@@FreePilotTraining Most pilots dont,- even CFI's get confused by that function of that big tab. It is called "An Anti Servo Tab", which is quite confusing name because it acts contrary to what the pilot wants to do (But only when too much). Some others tabs are called "Servo Tab" or Service Tab because they help the pilot move the control easier, but the Anti Servo Tab does the contrary, it prevents you from moving the control TOO MUCH up and stall it, or too much down and break the airplane with negative G's.
I’ve owned a cherokee 140B and have got hundreds of hours in 172’s and 150’s. These are my pro’s and con’s for both.
Cherokee Pros:
Easy to fuel at self serves for quick cheap gas.
Manual flaps for touch and goes(don’t have to wait on a motor)
You can open both sides of the hood without having to remove the cowling aka oil changes are quick and easy for owners I could easily do mine in 20-30 minutes on the ramp in that Phoenix heat.
Easy to check the tops of the wings in preflight and you don’t have to worry about hitting your head on them although I do have a scar from accidentally running into the prop on day lol
The instrument layout is superior in the 6 packs!
Cherokee cons: you have to maintain 2 fuel pumps, mechanical and electric. I had my mechanical quit on climb out one day but luckily I was taught to keep the electric on until you reach cruise so you can easily see the gauge and not be in a climb or at full power if it does drop to zero.
You have to maintain 3 oleo struts instead of just 1 on the 172.
Wing spar AD - (not applicable on the 140’s however I would definitely do it and thankfully it was done on mine right before I purchased it.
Cleaning the underside of the plane. Better invest in an auto mechanics creeper to lay on!
1 door!
1 tiny window!
Especially these two in the Phoenix heat and if you had an emergency like a fire it would be a pain in the butt for two people to have to crawl out quickly.
The sun burn on 1 arm depending on which side you sit on when doing XC’s. Definitely invest in sun shades!
Alright the 172’s PROs!
Gravity fed fuel so no fuel pump to maintain and you can put the fuel selector on both so you don’t have to change it all the time!!!
Only 1 oleo strut to keep good!
High wing is great for blocking the sun and rain! Especially when you’re on the ground!
They climb a little better even with the same engine and they definitely do float further in an emergency. Piper lied about that one.
No wing spar AD!
Cessna has more parts availability because they built more!
You sit up higher like if your riding in a truck! (Piper is like your in a car.)
Cessna Cons:
Harder to fuel because you have to get a ladder and move it to each side.
Can’t slip safely with full flaps.
Have to climb up each time to check the full quantity. Harder the older you get!
They cost more out of the gate but maintenance is a little cheaper because you don’t have to maintain 3 oleo’s and two fuel pumps! You do have to maintain electric flaps though so there’s that! But if you need to change the fuel meters it’s way easier in a Cessna because you don’t have to pull the full tank to do it!
I did all my original training in a few 150's. (early 90's) They were a pig. LOL But they were a good cheap trainer. In recent years, I've been flying Warriors, and an Archer. I really like the way they fly, and land. Like you said... you can slip them hard, and you can use the "Drop the flap" trick to nail a landing. In the last month... I went to a local school to get my tail wheel endorsement, (in a Stinson 108-1)and they have a bunch of 172's. SO... since I haven't flown a Cessna in years... I took one up. I was actually amazed how well behaved it is. It landed easy, and it was super predictable... even with a crosswind. I didn't have to slip it since it was an 8000' x 150' runway, so I can't comment on that. BUT... overall... I just like the way the Piper flys and handles over the Cessna. AND.... as far as landing goes.... it's hard to know for sure. I think the Warrior will drop when the power first comes off... but set glide for 73kts, and they stay up for a long time. I've been doing power off 180's.... and it's super predictable, and I just use flaps to set up the glide once I'm close to the runway. But it would be an interesting vid for next time. Thanks for the vid
That’s cool. It really confirms my beliefs in this video. Thanks for watching!
doing my training in a warrior II, would absolutely love to fly a 172 and see how different they really are from my own perspective, but i will say the warrior is amazing.
A lot of people think the Warrior is better. A new video may be in order!
@@FreePilotTraining warrior is definitely better. Baggage door, overhead ventilation, trim wheel between the seats, 5" fuselage stretch, tapered wings, 2325lb gross weight. We love ours
The reason NOT to slip with full flaps (in either airplane regardless of POH statements) is because the downwash of the flaps results in an increased AOA for the horizontal and elevator/stabilator which can result in a stall on the “off” side horizontal/stabilator…and a sudden pitch-down. That pitch-down often results in a spin because of the applied rudder in the slip. Since flaps and slips are usually close to the ground in a landing approach…there is no time or room for error or correction. It can be DEADLY..
STOP doing that. The reason Cessna reduced flap deployment in a 172 from 40 to 30 degrees is because they wanted to increase the certificated gross weight of the airplane. However, increased weight with full flaps places higher stresses on the rear doorposts and increasing the strength of the rear doorposts was too difficult in an established design…. so coupled with the advantage of removing the limitation of slipping with full flaps, keeping the same airframe/doorpost design, and enabling a higher gross weight…. in light of the especially more-effective (larger) flaps a Cessna has over a Piper…. made this reduction to 30-degrees a no-brainer. As for easier refueling a low-wing vs a high-wing…. it should be noted that draining the sumps for pre-flight is considerably easier in a high wing Cessna rather than laying on your back and crawling on your knees to drain the sumps in a Cherokee. Lastly, the high wing design makes it easier for passengers to board and deplane …AND it is COOLER to enter a shaded cockpit on a sunny day instead of that GreenHouse-effect of a hot low wing. Lastly, the center of gravity (mass) of a high wing is inherently more stabil as it is BELOW the Center of Lift…as opposed to being above the low wing COL. Further, the continuous lifting surface span-wise of a high wing provides more lift and better aspect-ratio as opposed to the interrupted lifting surface a fuselage sitting on top of the wing plan-form of a low wing. Some people may ask “Why then are large airplanes more commonly low-wing designs? Answer: Because it places the landing gear farther out (under the wing) making a more laterally-stabil landing gear arrangement. THAT is about the only advantage a low wing has over a high wing, IMO…. but I’ll ask the question: Where does an operating airplane spend most of its time…on the ground..? or in the air..? (But have you ever noticed where the wings are on heavy-lift aircraft such as the C5-Galaxy, C141-Starlifter, or C130-Hercules..?? (hint-hint) ;>)
Addendum to my comment above: I failed to note that in the certification requirements of a desired higher gross weight for the 172…. regs required a “balked landing climb requirement” which the huge flaps of the 172 prevented…. So Cessna had to reduce the flaps to 30-degrees to meet that requirement in order to allow the increased G.W. Hope that helps clarify. (former prod. test pilot)
As a sometimes instructor, I prefer the Cessna. Why? One door, never a good idea IMO, the fuel selector on the students side wall, nice spot if you want to reach over someone to change tanks and no “both” option, the nightmare trim location and operation, I literally have to look at it to determine which way to turn it. Not the least bit intuitive IMO. The Hershey bar wing makes it difficult to make smooth landing without power. Yeah, not my first choice for instruction. But they ARE cheap.😊 16:28
Lol, these are all great points. Thanks for the comment!
I've flown both, and my best assessment is that my favorite is the one I happen to be flying! The low wing of the Cherokee, though is a major plus, since it allows for a far better traffic scan, especially in turns. The two doors and shade/shelter of the Cessna's high wing is nice though. The gravity fuel feed of the Cessna also balances the ultra-reliable 'Armstrong' flap system of the Piper.
I've been flying for decades... Learned to fly in warrior, Archer, and Arrow... First time I checked out a cessna I was surprised at how easy it was to get in and out of compared to a PA-28. But as a matter of taste, I prefer the Piper
I’d love to compare the warrior and the 172
I learned in the Piper and loved them, my first purchase was a Cessna 152, and then moved up to the 172. It's a 1979, but I fly the heck out of it and can still get parts for it.
They’re both great planes!
Learning on a piper archer II here; haven’t flown anything else yet but I have zero complaints. It’s a great plane and does everything you could ask of it.
Ah, the Archer! Never flown one, but I’ve heard they’re awesome
As an aircraft mechanic and pilot that has a lot of experience on a 172 and piper Cherokee, the 172 hands down takes the win for being better built
I appreciate the input. I’ve been hearing some great things about the maintenance on a Cherokee though.
From independent owners or flight schools? They don’t take the beating of flight schools well, and I’m talking the Pilot 100i’s
I did my PPL and IR in the PA-28-161 Warrior III, and it's a complete joy to fly! I also have a few hours in a 172 from years ago, but I don't remember how that plane handled. There's just something about having the wings in the "correct" spot (below you) that make low-wings feel like "proper" airplanes.
Everyone has been telling me how great the Warrior is, but I need to get in one and check it out for myself
I’m glad that you showed 123JC, that is my current training plane also 48J. Hope see you at KORK some day, learning a lot from your videos !!!! Thanks !!!
Super cool! Those are great planes! You never know!
I was watching your video (have watched several), and was very surprised when my Cessna 150 popped up at 1:56. Had no idea that you have been to 4A5. Thanks for the awesome content!
Actually a lot of the photos and videos came from my viewers. Maybe you have a secret admirer 😆
@@FreePilotTraining maybe so! Our airport manager is a retired Airforce MG. We get a lot of visitors that you may know from your C130 activities.
Thank you for that balanced and well presented comparison. I haven't seen many such pieces done so fairly, with attention to variables and and an effort to make the data relatable and objective. Subscribed.
Thanks Rick! Welcome to the channel!
The reason the later model 172's have a maximum of 30° instead of 40° of flap is to satisfy the go-around requirements due to the higher gross weight. Same with the 152's compared to the 150's. Plus it makes them easier to flare. I rarely used 40° in a 172 or in my 150. The stall speed in my 1960 150 is only 1 MPH less at 40° than it is at 20°. I also prefer the "Johnson Bar" flap handle on the older 150's and 172's. You can put the flaps anywhere you want immediately. A friend had to perform a full flap (40°) go-around in his 150 with electric flaps, when the flap fuse blew. Luckily his was the only one on board, fuel was low, and it was a cold day. He flew the pattern at full throttle just to maintain altitude.
I did not know that but it makes perfect sense! Thanks for the comment!
Flaps stuck when full flap low go around? Full power, try an “100 feet agl MCA 180 Turnback”, due too slow high drag and low MCA, you fail to complete the turnback, (Impossible Turnback Attempted). Now you have to land tailwind on a corn field next to the runway... and flip over. Ask Dan Gryder if that was good. He says "My impossible turnback" was good (No, it was An Impossible Turnback). He doesnt know turnbacks and tried an impossible Turnback and crashed on the 180 section.
Two years later after he crashed by mistakes on too low and slow turnback, he still says "You should not practice Turnbacks. ( Which are good to know, so you know when to and when not to do them). He doesnt know Turnback 3 kinds of maneuvers. And tells you not to know either when and how you can do them. Equals: For Dan Gryder, Ignorance is the answer. Ignorance is the solution to the many turning stalls crashes by FAA Certificated 'Experience Pilot".
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 yeah, he doesn’t seem like the smartest guy. There’s a reason no one likes him. Lol
@@FreePilotTraining A Mild Maneuvering CFI putting down all that practice Hard maneuvers like Emergency Low Maneuvers (ELM). I post to him often about practicing ELM ..But he cant do any ELM at all.
I have flown both. One of the joys of flying is the view and that big paddle wing on the bottom of Piper 140 spoils much of your view, which would be the deciding factor for me. The last time I looked at fatal accident statistics the 172 had a distinct advantage, even though the low wing of the Piper gives you better vision (of other planes) in a turn.
Great video, appreciate your work on it. One thought: with regard to the “apples to apples” idea, I’d recommend looking at how the planes perform at equivalent useful load rather than gross weight. Because really, who cares how much the plane weighs? What we care about is: how well does it perform at equivalent useful load, with however much people and fuel on board?
Regarding the fuel tanks, understand the concern about letting new pilots load more fuel, but if you’re evaluating the capabilities of the airframe, I think there’s no way that more capacity is worse (though i am admittedly biased as an Archer II owner 😉).
Excellent video, you really researched your material well. Love both aircraft, slight edge to the 172 for me, but owned an RV7, that was the bomb!
Thanks! I appreciate that! I’ve never flown an RV, but I’d like to build the 15 once they release it!
Personal preference - the Cherokee 140 every day - the 172 flies like a heavy truck drives. The 140 is agile and nimble Which I suppose translates to "less stable". Also, the 140 is rated for intentional spins, and they are great fun, if you like that sort of thing.
I learned to fly in 1965. I started in a Cessna 120 then went to a Cherokee 140, soloing with 6.5 total hours. Remember this was 1965. I have since flown an assortment of airplanes. For me, I'll take a high wing everytime. The two doors on a Cessna make ingress and egress much more comfortable. Plus the fact, for me, The Cessna teaches you more about controlling the aircraft.
Great points! Thanks for the comment!
Having flown both (learnt in low wings including the PA 28), I agree the Cessna being more forgiving, I find I can concentrate more on navigating on a C172 than on a PA 28 ... Alas, C172 are not only 50% more expensive, they are also super hard to find (in Canada at least), as flight schools buy them all these days 🫤
That's a great point about losing wind over the tail in a slip... thanks for these videos!
Thanks! I thought it was worth including in the video!
Nice comparison between the 2 most popular airplanes out there. Having flown both, I’d be happy with either one. For me, the Cherokee is trickier to land whereas the C172 is easier to grease the landing once you’re use to it.
Having said all this I’m the proud owner of a Grumman Cheetah which also has a 150hp O-320 engine. Purchase price was much less than a Piper or Cessna. TAS at 4,500 ft @ 75% power is 142 mph. 52 gallon fuel tanks & 820 lb useful load. Love the sliding canopy (especially on hot days). The control yoke is sportier with stops at 45-50 degrees whereas the Piper/Cessna stops around 90 degrees.
Not as many Grummans out there but if you ever get a chance they’re definitely worth a look. Cheers!
Thanks! Yeah, I’ve flown a Grumman tiger, and they’re awesome planes
I much prefer having multiple doors, firewall mounted engine controls, electronic flaps (vs the parking brake style), easily seeing the landing gear for inspection, and the really nice views afforded by having the wing on top. I have flown both aircraft for similar amounts of time.
Cons of the Cessga would be the climb on top of the wing for anything related to fueling.
I've found the C 172 to be a good trainer but for a cross country plane you can do much better. The Grumman AA5-B Tiger is my favorite 182 speed for 172 operating costs.
Grumman Tigers are awesome. Great planes
Thank you for the time you invest in all your videos. They are very clear, informative and valuable to pilots of all levels!
You’re welcome! Thank you so much for watching!
I've been looking forward to this video since you announced it. And you did not disappoint! Great job!
Thanks John! I appreciate that! Glad you enjoyed it!
I learned to fly in the Cessna 150, a real sweetheart, then got my commercial license in a 172. I loved forward slips and never had a problem. After that it was almost all Piper. To me it was apples vs. oranges -- although I'll always have a fondness for Cessnas.
I’ve never flown a 150. It be fun to try one at some point
I have a lot of time in both, I prefer Cherokee because you can see things in the direction of a turn, manual flaps, easier landings because more time in ground effect. I have found also that it is harder to get in and out of a 172 than a Cherokee.
One of each, please! The 172 to hang a set of Edo floats on and swap the O-320 for a 180 HP O-360. The Cherokee (preferable a Warrior) for weekend getaways.
And the trusty RV-4 for some light aerobatic fun. :)
Sounds like a great combo!
Loving the American Flyers' "Piper Pilot!!" That's my flight school lol I also have about 300hrs right now and have about half in Piper Archers/Warriors and half in Cessna 172s. Your findings are exactly what I've found going from the Pipers to the Cessnas!
Thanks! I need to get in a warrior! I’ve heard they’re awesome
Back in the early 70s, I learned in both. Learned a little about ground effect in the Cherokee, and it was hotter in the cockpit in the Deep South where I lived. The Cessna was less stable in high crosswind landings and when you taxi, and the shade was appreciated in the heat. P.S. Over hot pavement you can suddenly learn something about density altitude when all the sudden that ground effect isn't there.😂
Definitely a well documented presentation.
But for me as a pilot since the late 80s, I still much prefer the Cherokee.
For one, I mostly flew Warriors and Archers along with 180 hp 172s.
The strange ceiling trim was fixed with a standard trim wheel, aling with rudder trim which the 172s I flew did not have.
I also preferred the handling of the Cherokees and especially the throttle/mixture controls as i really do not like the knobs of the Cessna.
As well, I like the slip handling that you pointed out too.
What did like better about the 172 is the fact you can get more realistic stalls than the Cherokee, but then I found the Tomahawk that I originally learned in delivered even more in this aspect.
Thanks for the comment! The Cessna definitely makes stall training easier. It’s amazing how a positive thing can be a negative lol
First time flying in Alaska in 1984. The outfit I worked for did not use any single engine Pipers. There were a couple fly-by-night outfits that use them, the Cherokee six. In the wintertime with snow berms along the runways the single engine Pipers were dangerous. Went back in 1999. And nobody was using single engine Pipers for FAR135 work in the Bethel Alaska area.
Yeah, snow berms are definitely an important consideration. I’m in Palmer right now, and we have record breaking snow levels this year ua-cam.com/video/LC9-PgdDFmo/v-deo.htmlsi=-p_NsAAfP2i_53ez
As a onetime CFI years ago and have flown both aircraft but were enjoyable to fly. The one area you did not talk about was payload with full tanks. The C172s I flew had a full tank payload of 630 to 650 lbs while the PA140 was 100 lbs less at 530 lbs at best. But again, both were fun to fly.
Great point! Thanks for the comment
You didn't mention the "laminar flow" wings on the Cherokee. I love flying my 180. Also, it can handle cross winds exceptionally well do to the dihedral.
Growing up flying, I spent most of my time looking out the side window and towards the ground.
We used to land at Pixleys farm in Rogers county. One day it was raining hard. I always like to watch the wheels touch the ground. On this day while looking down at the wheels. A cross wind hit the plane and slamed my face into the window. When we started to land. We actually hydroplaned for a bit. When we finally touched ground. All this mud was slung all over the plane.
The next day sucked. We had to go out and clean the whole plane....lol
That’s super cool
Very interesting comparison video , I never flew a Piper before but after seen this video I still prefer the Cessna .. Tks for sharing
I instruct in both PA-28-140 and C-172 N/M/S and I completely agree with you’re video.
I don’t know which one I really like better, I like the flying characteristics of the Cherokee better, but 172 has better performance and often has better avionics. I like the manual flaps better and the low wing visibility, but then I’d rather take passengers sightseeing in the high wing with much easier access.
Thanks for the comment! Yeah, those are great points!
Nice and interesting comparison. Looking at the last 2 minutes, that's exactly why our flying club has the Piper 28 (OK, a Warrior, to be exact). I'd love to fly Cessnas, too. But there isn't a single C172 left at my local airfield, let alone in my club.
Need to compare the warrior. I’ve heard great things
I have flown both I have a preference but both planes do a good job. I think the high wing has better visibility toward the ground and the low wings gives better toward the sky. Depends upon whether you’re flying level, climbing, or descending.
Very nice comparison. I think you were extremely fair in your analysis and gave some really good pro/con points.
I agree it would be very interesting to see the actual glide distance for each model (comparably configured).
Thanks! It was a fun video to make! Hopefully I can compare the glide distances in a future video
It's amazing how much better they glide with the propeller stopped, 20 percent according to Cessna's flight test engineer Bill Thompson, and propeller in vertical position is the lowest drag position. @@FreePilotTraining
@@dwaynemcallister7231 I actually did not know they folded further with a stopped prop
I just finished my first solo yesterday in my schools Pipers PA-28-161 Warrior 2. Thing can take a beating and hard landings haha, and is super responsive to my inputs.
I’ve heard great things about the warrior
The first time I flew in a Cherokee, I hated it.
We flew into an airshow. But along the way, I had this wing blocking my view of the ground.
Flying most of my life in a high wing gave me appreciation at looking at the ground.
One of my biggest reasons for the love of flying. When I was a teenager and I thought I had problems. I'd go out to the Mojave Airport and go flying. While flying, I'd look down at all those small cars and all those small people and it would help me put things into perspective.
I could see that
Love your videos Josh, you were a huge help in getting my PPL. Keep the content up!
Thanks Robert! Will do!
Full flap speed Vfe is higher on the Cherokee. Cessna allows flaps 10 at 110 knots then no more unless below 85 kts. Cherokee allows full flaps at 102 kts and then can be “dumped” much easier to lose altitude because they are manually controlled. However, most Piper’s prohibit intentional spins. One more thing, love the access of the engine on the Cherokee. You can definitely look for leaks and broke parts, including the jugs and mounts.
These are also excellent points! Thanks for the comment!
But I live cesena 172 because it can see the ground
Great and informative video for myself as I am considering what to train on. Going to try 'em all and see what feels best!
Thanks! Not a bad plan!
The Cessna is superior in every way. Gravity fuel feed, better performance, maintenance free landing gear.. the only categories that the Piper has over the Cessna is more fuel capacity and cheaper price.
I have flown both. They are both great planes. Some pros for the 172 are 2 doors, and view to the ground, (although I think overall visibility is better in the cherokee). Some pros for the cherokee are the handling, manual flaps, and fuel tabs for less than full fuel in the tank. The biggest cons for the 172 are the outrageous price, having to climb up a latter to fill with fuel, and crosswinds can get under the wings really easy on the ground. Some cons for the cherokee are the one door and having to get on the ground to sump the fuel.
Ultimately, I prefer the cherokees. You can get a cherokee 150/160/180 for less than the price of a 172 and get a plane with more speed and load. But I would be absolutely happy owning either plane.
Thanks for the input! It means a lot! Good to have another Cherokee fan on here
Great video, I appreciate your no nonsense approach. Couldn't help but notice your shirt. I was in the Marine Corps with Ken Poindexter way back when. Just wondering if you knew him as well? Again, enjoyed your video, thank you for the information.
Thanks! I don’t know him, but he may have jumped out the back of my Herc. You never know. 🤷♂️
The low-wing Warrior/Archer will float a lot more in ground effect than the high-wing 172 if airspeed isn't carefully controlled before entering the landing flare. Also, soft-field take-offs in the Warrior/Archer are interesting when retracting the manual flaps vs. electric in the 172.
I had the bulk of my training in my brothers' first plane, a 1965 Cherokee 180. But I bought a 1969 C172K and still have it today. The Cherokee 180 was a little faster than my 150 /HP 172, but I love the ease of entry and doors on both sides. I do have some mobility issues so getting out of low wings is a bit of a controlled crash onto the wing, lol. The Cherokee 180 had a sweet spot between the 172 and 182 that it could carry more weigh than my 172, just a little slower than a 182, had bigger tanks than the 172. I also like the more car like (old car, lol) that adjust nicely and the large panel has lots of room. The particular Cherokee I flew was a maintenance nightmare, it had issues, spent the 1st 15 yrs of its life in Puerto Rico... If it would have been in better condition, I may have stuck with it. But I've had my 172 for 13 yrs now, the only thing I want different is a little taildragger, but nothing I like in my price range has come along yet. I'm pretty picky! :) They are both great airplanes in their own right, oddly, a lot of it comes down to whether one likes high wings or low wings more. low wings are also nice to self-fuel! No ladders! lol.
That’s cool! Thanks for the comment!