Is the Cessna 172 BETTER than the Piper Cherokee? (The Shocking Truth) 

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."

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.

And officially he started the airplane civil war single handedly! 😂😂

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

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 been looking forward to this video since you announced it. And you did not disappoint! Great job!

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.

Thanks for putting the time into this video! It was super helpful for me as a total beginner.

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.

Thank you for the time you invest in all your videos. They are very clear, informative and valuable to pilots of all levels!

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.

That's a great point about losing wind over the tail in a slip... thanks for these videos!

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!

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 !!!

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!

Love your videos Josh, you were a huge help in getting my PPL. Keep the content up!

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

Thanks a lot 🙏 learned quite a bit there

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.

Excellent stuff bro

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.

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.

Awesome vid!

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 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.

Your video is very good. Thank you!

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.

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.

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.

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 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…

Thanks man!

hope to heare from youre expertise more about wing-designes for as well more stol capacity plus still a high crue speed

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.

Excellent video Josh! Even better getting to see N13127 as a primary example for the 172. I really enjoy flying that plane, and it is my favorite of the planes my school has. I never got a chance the fly the Cherokee 140 my school had. They sold it a few months ago. I wish I had gotten a chance to compare the two. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friend 🇺🇸🛩️

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!

Great video! Would be interesting to see how differently they behave to minor power changes at straight and level. I believe the c172 drops nose just using carb heat, piper drops less etc?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

Great comparison. I like both airplanes 👍

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 👍.

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.

On the 172, would you know why the color markings on the A/S indicator do not reflect the airspeed numbers in the POH?

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.

Thanks!

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.

In the pattern when Turning Down wind to base and Base to Final the Low wing obstructs your view of other aircraft doing a stright in in lue of a full patter. i.e. the Corpoart Jock or te Instrument trainer.

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.

Very interesting comparison video , I never flew a Piper before but after seen this video I still prefer the Cessna .. Tks for sharing

Where I live high wing tail draggers are predominant. I bought and learned in a 7ECA Champion about 40 years ago. There are also a half dozen private airstrips within a few miles and it’s uncommon to see a low wing aircraft coming and going from these.

Great comparison! Which another point is the Cessna is a Cessna so you'll have tons more of aftermarket, matenice support.

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. :)

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.

I'm going to be learning to fly in N48J!!

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 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!

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 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.

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 favored the 172 over the Piper PA-28-140, however after release in the 1970s I much preferred the Piper Warrior (flew the Warrior III), even though it was slow. In 1978 I flew my commercial cross country in a Piper Arrow with my brother aboard, I flew it a 10,000 feet for a total of 6 hours without refueling and was still comfortable at the end of the flight although we did take a lunch break at one of the airports. I got all of my spin training in a 1946 Aeronca Chief, another very easy to fly aircraft, of course landing was much different than in a tricycle gear airplane.

So I have have a VERY specific question regarding the location of the rudder pedals on the Cherokee. Are they closer to or further from the seat than the 172? I ask because I have short legs and I STRUGGLED with the Skyhawk's rudder pedal position as I could only really use my toes to control the rudder and it frustrated and exhausted me after every flight course

Did most of my training in a Warrior and now flying a 172. Definitely think the Warrior is more stable in stalls and glides at least as well if not better

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 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.

I have flown both the pipers gou have int ge video. I really like 123jc. I have only been in the cesna once. Feels like rhe cess a is a little more hands on. I never thought i would like the pipers like i do. I love the low seats and flap lever. I am partial to miatas and that is what it feels like. A little sports car. The trim up top feela natural. The flaps feel good. I still fly the 150/172 in my sim, but I finally purchased dlc for a piper and use it to match what I fly. . great video and really hope to meet you at one of the airports one day. Kwep a grey hat on you... Will buy on the spot.

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.

Don't recall ever reading the POH slip limitation. Done many slips in Cessnas to bleed some speed with flaps, but never experienced a nose drop even close to memorable.

I havn't flown either of those yet i fly a Tecnam and TBH from the specs the old 172 and 182 are getting a run for their money. I love my p92 I am really happy i chose to start my licence in 1 of those instead of a 172 for a lot of reasons.

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

I did my ppl in a 172R and I teach in the C172S(P) and occaisional N model, but did my IR, CPL, and CFI in PA-28 family, specifically the 181 Archer III models, and I hands down prefer the archers over the nicest C172

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 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’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.

Best breakdown ever

Full visibility of the ground for the beginner, is the 172s hallmark. Also, any off airport emergency landing going inverted, with fuel soaking into the ground & easier to get out of.

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

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.

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.

Merry Christmas to You and Yours and keep the blue side up

I've mastered spins, front flips, and inverted rolls in the cherokee.

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!

Ill take a grumman AA-5 series. Im learning in a 172M right now. Dad has a Traveller which i hope to fly one day.

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 deliberately chose a flying club with Pipers to train on because I liked the low wing design and physical flap handle. I was a little disappointed by the Tomahawk, but the Cherokee 140 felt solid and responsive and was a joy to fly. I definitely would recommend it to anyone looking for a reasonable and enjoyable entry-level airplane.

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.

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?

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.

Bravo.thenks

I would recommend comparing them at the same weight of useful load, and not total weight. That way you get a comparison of how good the aircraft is to the pilot in practice. As if the 172 is 300 lbs heavier empty, it should keep those 300 extra pounds because you cannot get rid of them. (And depending on models, it is 300 lbs heaver)

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).

In regards to 140 Brakes... Some only have a Handle to pull for breaks and no Toe Breaks. A buddy of mine had that version!

Have flown both, Pipers trim is goofy to me (always turn it the wrong way), low wings tend to handle x-winds better than high wings, The 2 doors and seating position is a plus on the Cessna an I like the added comfort knowing/thinking that the high wing kinda protects the doors should you end up on your back .... Both are just slow enough to tick you off

From 1982 to 1996, I grew up with a Cessna 150J (N51305). When you google N51305, the grey military paint scheme was ours. The grey paint was a Radar Absorbent Paint bought from Rockwell International during a government auction in Tulsa, Ok. The RG on the vertical stabilizer stands for Rogers County in Oklahoma. While in Oklahoma our airplane was used for Civil Defense and Civil Air Patrol. Notice the stickers on the vertical stabilizer. With the radar absorbent paint, when we were at Edwards Air Force Base. NASA DRYDEN at Edwards worked with our airplane. We have VHS tapes. Our airplane N51305 is the only civilian aircraft granted access to land at Groom Lake aka Area 51.

Yes

I will start by saying i have flown a piper archer once on a discovery flight, i loved it, i love the look and feel of the low wing design, and your right, it feels very intuitive to fly Im still not going to be biased though, i think both aircraft have their advantages, as you stated, the Cessna's hifh wing design makes it perfect for ariel observation of the ground, so if your flying in search and rescue type missions, or ariel photography, get a cessna If your wanting an aircraft just for personal use, for pleasure flying, id say get a piper Its pretty much that simple to decide between the two