C172 vs Archer II (PA-28-181) Pilot Seating

J

Jason608

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
174
Location
Arizona
Display Name
Display name:
Jason608
How does the PAII compare in pilot seating to the C172? I have flown C172s for a year now and have the opportunity to join a club with a PAII but I heard they are even smaller than C172s. I plan to check the plane out but it may just be a waste of time. Thoughts? Similar to a 150?
 
I've always preferred them, especially for cross countries, only draw back is the single door, size wise I don't recall that much of a difference.

172s, well you cant really complain about them, but they are just so dang blah.

Go fly the Piper, see what you think, I'd wager you'll like it.
 
Jason608 said:
How does the PAII compare in pilot seating to the C172? I have flown C172s for a year now and have the opportunity to join a club with a PAII but I heard they are even smaller than C172s. I plan to check the plane out but it may just be a waste of time. Thoughts? Similar to a 150?
Click to expand...
''

Have some time in a Cherokee 180 and 235. A little narrower than the 172 but do able. Biggest difference is in back seat room for an adult in the 180 & 235. That's supposed to be better in the Archer II I think. I know in the 235 series when it went Dakota, and a few years before that issue was addressed.

Pipers typically carry more weight than the equivalent Cessna. It's certainly worth looking at it.
 
The club also has a C182 I am very interested in when carrying passengers but is has less availability. Archer II for short runs and IFR training and C182 for XC maybe.
 
retailguy said:
Have some time in a Cherokee 180 and 235. A little narrower than the 172 but do able.
Click to expand...
All PA-28s, from the humble -140 to Turbo Arrow, have the same cabin dimensions in the front seat area. They are a couple of inches wider at the elbow than is the C-172. But as with most low-wing aircraft, the rounded upper cabin cross-section begins tapering inward above the lower window line, so the upper corners seem closer to the pilot's head. C-172 cabin sides, on the other hand, are nearly vertical all the way up to the ceiling -- which is higher than the PA-28's. Seating posture is more upright, more SUV-like, than the sedan-like PA-28.

Of course, a downside to the 172 is that the bottom of the wing root is just about a tall pilot's eye level.

Biggest difference is in back seat room for an adult in the 180 & 235. That's supposed to be better in the Archer II I think. I know in the 235 series when it went Dakota, and a few years before that issue was addressed.
Click to expand...
All PA-28s before 1972 had the same fuselage dimensions aft of the firewall, with cozy rear-seat room. The trainer-model -140 was even worse than the others since it was originally intended to be only a two-seater.

The Arrow got a seven-inch fuselage stretch with improved rear seat room, along with longer wings and stabilator, for the 1972 model year ("Cherokee Arrow II").

For 1973, the same changes were applied to the Cherokee 180 and 235. In 1973 only they were dubbed "Cherokee Challenger" and "Cherokee Charger" respectively. After Chrysler Corp. squawked over Piper's use of the muscle-car names, the airplanes were renamed "Cherokee Archer" and "Cherokee Pathfinder" beginning with the 1974 model year. The taper-wing "Cherokee Archer II" came along in 1976 and the Dakota in 1979. Nevertheless, cabin dimensions in the PA-28 line never changed after 1973.

Pipers typically carry more weight than the equivalent Cessna. It's certainly worth looking at it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Depends on the individual model, year and equipment.
 
Last edited:
Have plenty of time in both,the pipers usually have better avionics,the Cessna has two doors and much easier entry,and more comfort since the seat is raised. Since I'm older now I'd go for the 172. To fly IFR I like the Archer.
 
Pilawt said:
Not necessarily. Depends on the individual model, year and equipment.
Click to expand...

Of course it depended on the equipment installed.

I looked at every single year of 182 vs 235 when I was looking at the 235. I came very close to buying one at one point before settling on a Travel Air. I can't recall one year where the "typical" 182 had better useful load, all things equal.

I'm sure you'll find one that will prove your point, but that won't change what I said.
 
I'm 6'7" and fairly broad-shouldered and I prefer the 172 over the PA28-180/181.

1. I like having two entry doors instead of having to crawl over the pax seat with my long legs.
2. I think the 'square' cabin of the 172 helps make it feel more roomy even if it isn't.
3. There is NO way anybody is able to sit behind me in the PA28, while I could sometimes squeeze someone behind me in the 172.

I will warn you, though, once you get into a 182 you won't want to ride in either the 172/PA28 again - especially if you normally travel with pax.
 
CJones said:
I'm 6'7" and fairly broad-shouldered and I prefer the 172 over the PA28-180/181.

1. I like having two entry doors instead of having to crawl over the pax seat with my long legs.
2. I think the 'square' cabin of the 172 helps make it feel more roomy even if it isn't.
3. There is NO way anybody is able to sit behind me in the PA28, while I could sometimes squeeze someone behind me in the 172.

I will warn you, though, once you get into a 182 you won't want to ride in either the 172/PA28 again - especially if you normally travel with pax.
Click to expand...

I fly all three of those.

They all have different purposes. The 182 is good for heavy loads, but is expensive. The Archer and Warrior are pilot friendly in several respects (for instance, you can see where you're going in a turn), but the 172, especially the older (lighter) models with 180 HP STCs, is better for sightseeing and passenger loads that aren't too big.

182s are NOT good for having a kid in the right seat. They often have trouble seeing over the panel.
 
My club has an Archer and a 172. I enjoy flying the Archer and it is a solid aircraft. However, I prefer the 172 due to the high wing, having the second door and just the way it flies. Also the Archer costs $17/hour more.
 
Pilawt said:
Not necessarily. Depends on the individual model, year and equipment.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but when it comes to 172 vs. the equivalent -161 Warrior, every Piper I've had experience with well out-hauled the Cessna.

It's not unusual for a Warrior to push 900 pounds useful load.
 
Jason608 said:
How does the PAII compare in pilot seating to the C172? I have flown C172s for a year now and have the opportunity to join a club with a PAII but I heard they are even smaller than C172s. I plan to check the plane out but it may just be a waste of time. Thoughts? Similar to a 150?
Click to expand...

No, very similar to a 172, you won't notice the difference unless you are a very odd shape/proportioned person. The difference is in getting in and out.
 
Fueling the 172 sucks.

Having two doors would be nice.


Slight over 1k useful means four non- overweight adults and full fuel is possible.


Otherwise, it comes down to high wing or low? I think low wings are more sexy.
 
The Archer is just a really good middle-ground airplane between a 172 and a 182.

I think you'll be very happy flying one. It's going to far outhaul the 172, go 10+ knots faster doing so, and do it all on 9-10 gallons an hour. Plus it's just cooler IMO.
 
I've got a decent amount of time in both, and I chose the Archer when I purchased.

Cabin room difference is negligible and really not a factor unless your proportions are out of "normal" specs. IMO the Archer is the better airplane for most missions.
 
If you compare apples to apples and look at a 180hp 172 upgrade, the planes are back on par. As far as being airplanes and flying goes, there is not that big of a difference between the brands at any HP/complexity level. Horsepower picks up load pretty much the same regardless the brand. In the end, they all respond to control inputs the same, and the more planes you are checked out on, the more options you have on a busy day.
 
Jason608 said:
How does the PAII compare in pilot seating to the C172? I have flown C172s for a year now and have the opportunity to join a club with a PAII but I heard they are even smaller than C172s. I plan to check the plane out but it may just be a waste of time. Thoughts? Similar to a 150?
Click to expand...

I don't recall any difference in pilot seating size. Seats are adjustable, I was comfortable in both. Between the two, I prefer the PA-28.
 
Well now, I find myself in good company.


172s for training....... Archers for ownership!!
 
Both great planes and both have pros and cons. Sit in and fly both and see what you like. 172 is easier on the lower back but Archer is better viz IMHO.
 
You guys convinced me, I'm scheduled for a demo ride in an Archer II next week.
 
You are more than welcome to come and take the Tour de Ark with me out of Conway. With appropriate verification of pilot status, you can fly mine out of Conway with me.
 
The PA-28-181 has the 5 inch fuselage stretch added to the Cherokee line which puts rear passenger leg room on par with the C-172. All PA-28 series Cherokees have the same cabin width which is an inch or two wider than the C-172. The additional width goes in between the seats to accommodate the Johnson bar flap lever. In the Cherokee, if you are broad shouldered like me you wont be rubbing shoulders like you would in the C-172, but you will tend to get pushed into the side wall.
 
That is true. I'm up against the bulkhead with an A gunner rolling shotgun.
 
my club has both as well. And I started in 152 and then to 172 and then the archer, i didn't find it to be much different. I dont like the 1 door on the archer though. id like to have my exit door as we'll just in case.
 
marcoseddi said:
I dont like the 1 door on the archer though. id like to have my exit door as we'll just in case.
Click to expand...
My dad, a pilot for 40 years, didn't have a choice. He suffered from claustrophobia, and simply could not be in a light airplane unless there was a door next to him. Not that he would ever use it in flight, of course; it just had to be there. In a Cessna 172, like the one he bought in 1988 and which I still own, he was fine.
 
to me, the archer feels like I'm flying a bigger plane than a 172. They both perform like a fixed pitch trainer that they are, but i just feel better in the Archer. Call it personal preference if you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top