Piper Archer or Cessna 172?

[armageddon]

I'm very early in my pilot training, and my instructor has given me the option of using the Cessna 172 or the Piper Archer. I've flown both, but between the excitement of flying and only have a bit of experience in each, I really don't have a preference.

Does anyone have any thoughts, opinions, or things I should be thinking about when choosing?

Thanks!

[1739T]

You ask a question that will start a "heated discussion" in just about any FBO in the world.

Low wing vs. High Wing.

Even with little time in each you already know that there are advantages and disadvantages to either. What ever list I would come up with some would be able to add to so I'll just state a couple obvious ones:

172/high wing
* Advantage - Two doors (big one depending on pilot and passenger size / flexibility (Try to get a 73 year old lady up on a wing and crawl into a piper without leaning on the door and remember you have to get in first)
* Advantage - A place to stand out of the rain (under the wing)

Archer/low wing advantage
* easier in crosswind landings (just plain easier to alnd if ya ask me)
* easier to get to the full tanks
* wing doesn't block runnway view on base to final

You won't get an answer for this, it just like asking if chocolate is better than vanilla. It just depends on what you like better.

Or which one is cheaper to rent?

Good luck, just fly them all.

[Denny of Oakland]

If I may explain someting about the two aircraft in question cessna vs piper. If I were to start flignt training I would use the Cessna as it makes you land it (learing to fly better). The Piper on the other hand gets some of its lift from the fuselage due to the low wing and will float on landing making them seem simple.

Pilots who go from Piper training to Cessna's will have several very hard landing as they will be expecting the aircraft to float on landing, but it won't. Other than that both are great training aircraft.

Denny of Oaland

[Ditch]

My response to that age old query, high or low wing, has nothing to do with rental cost or handling. If you had your choice of sitting on 50 gallons of gas OR......... draping 50 gallons of gas around your neck ? Anybody ever see a high wing Citation. hmmmm?? Go with the Piper, they finally put the wing on the right side. good luck and thanks for reigniting the feud. Ditch

[Denny of Oakland]

It doesn't matter where the fuel tanks are located. Cessna built the high wing to allow pilots/passenger a better view (selling point). I have seen high wing cargo aircraft (stronger landing gear/less weight). Again either is a good aircraft, which one do you perfer?

Denny of Oakland

[keepemlocked]

I like the piper myself. But then again I'm a lineman at a FBO so I hate highwings!

[pipersioux]

piper man,
gotta go piper. on a strong crosswind day in a 172 you're gonna wish you were in the low wing. plus as a student pilot it helps a lot to be able to see the runway as you turn from base to final. its a long argument, low vs. high and it will never end. you gots to make your own decision, hopefully the right one!(piper)

[dz302]

My personal advice to you would be that it doesn't matter! Either aircraft will provide you with great flight qualities. Both have minor advantages and disadvantages that when fully weighed out don't really amount to a hill of beans.

Just take your pick and then "stick with" the aircraft you choose throughout your primary training. After the ink is dry on your ticket, then experiment and have some fun.

Just don't get so anxious in the decision of which plane to fly that you miss out on the joy of flying!

Now go for it!

Jim

[npasque]

both have their pros and cons, but i would basically go with the more roomy one.
Personally i prefer the cessna, i like the high wing The low wing represents a blocked view if you ask me. (Not that a pilot should be admiring the view on final )

[planebuild]

I would choose the hardest plane to fly. or put their names on 50 bits of paper each and put them in a hat , shake the hat and pick one out.

[Parker Woodruff]

You'll learn how to land in a crosswind better if you choose a Cessna 172. I've got about 20 or 25 hours out of my 84 hours in a Piper Archer. I loved it, but it's much easier to land. I recommend at least a couple flights in a 172 to learn crosswind landings better (also great for ground reference maneuvers). Another thing, if you want to learn how to feel what a good flare feels like to a perfect landing, fly the 172.

[mertesb]

I did all of my private pilot training in either a Cessna 152 or 172, and now I am transitioning to a Piper Archer III. I love the Archer's handling and low-wing configuration. The main problem I am trying to overcome is that the Piper will float considerably on landing, which has caused me to flare wayy too much. The cessna taught me to flare a good deal with the nose up on landing. Try this in a Piper and you will float for days. I cannot choose for you, but either will provide a quality experience just each has its own quirks. Good luck

[dc7730]

Great question, put your boxing gloves on ! Low wings Rule, ever see a fighter jet with high wings? personally as the owner of an arrow, now for sale and purchasing a beech a-36, I would fly ANY low wing over a highwinger if I had a chance. Either way go fly ! I'm ouuta here heading to the hanger before some highwinger beats me up

[BravoRomeo]

High wing fighter? Eeer... did you ever heard of the Harrier? the Jaguar? the Tornado, the... in fact, now that I´m thinking... did you ever heard of any low-wing fighter? Most are high or mid-wing, hihihi. (Before any flak comes: yes, I know, the Bf-109, Spitfire, Phantom, A-4... )

Now, trainers... Not much difference. Some tricks to go from one to another, some harder boarding in the Pipers... but that´s it.

[5381Z]

I've owned both a 172 and a Cherokee 180. I did my primary instruction in 150's and Aeronca Champs (yeah, I started a few years ago). The Cessnas are better trainers, because they teach you to land, especially in a crosswind. The Cherokee/Warrior/Archer is easy to fly, too easy, in my opinion, to be a good trainer.

If your goal is to move up the aviation ladder, and, some day, fly higher-performance aircraft, the Archer is probably a good choice, because you won't need to use your feet later in your career, so you won't miss not learning to use them. If you view flying as more of a recreational pursuit, and will be a weekend flyer, you might as well make the most of the experience and get as much exposure to different types as you can, and then make up your mind.

I am a lifelong pasture pilot, flying mostly from unpaved airstrips in a rural area. I much prefer the visibility offered by a high wing design. For low and slow, head-out-of-the-airplane flying, the high wing is the clear choice. I currently own a Piper Colt, which has no flaps, not much horsepower, and the glide angle of a sack of sand. I think it would make a good trainer because it forces the pilot to focus on flying, not on managing systems. It's also a rudder airplane. If you don't use your feet, you're not going to have a good day.

I believe that a simple, stick and rudder taildragger is the best trainer, because there are no distractions from the business of flying. Once a student has learned basic airmanship in a simple airplane, there are many different paths to follow in aviation. The basic skills learned in this manner will serve any pilot well, no matter which direction he or she decides to go after basic training. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Mark