Rough Cessna 172 vs. clean Piper Cherokee

Which airplane should I buy?

  • The Cessna 172

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • The Piper Cherokee

    Votes: 28 87.5%

  • Neither!

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Total voters
    32
M

machkhatib

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
118
Display Name
Display name:
Mach
Hello folks. I'm under contract for two planes and I have the contractual flexibility to back out on one or both of them if I wish. Both are of 1965 vintage: A C-172F and a PA-28-140 with the 160 hp conversion. I'd like your opinion on what is the better buy.

Cessna 172F
Piper Cherokee
I plan on doing pre-buy inspections, of course. Right now my gut feeling is that the Cherokee is the better way to go, especially since this will be my first plane and the Cessna appears to need at least some (perhaps a lot) of work.

I welcome your advice!
 
On nothing more, the Cherokee would appear to have been better cared for.
 
Go for the extra useful load with the Piper.
 
The Cherokee is 1546 SMOH and 750 hours since the 160 hp conversion in 2007. Is the 160 hp conversion sort of like an overhaul? Or should I still think of it like 1546 SMOH?
 
machkhatib said:
The Cherokee is 1546 SMOH and 750 hours since the 160 hp conversion in 2007. Is the 160 hp conversion sort of like an overhaul? Or should I still think of it like 1546 SMOH?
Click to expand...
If I were buying I'd know the answer!
 
I myself would do the Cherokee. I'd never buy a ratty airplane, if it's ratty when it's for sale how well was it treated when it wasn't. The Cherokee is roughly the same airplane, a little faster. Then again, I have lots of Cherokee time so I down how easy they are to fly and land.
 
spoiler: they are both old and will need work, but the Cherokee might need less.

machkhatib said:
The Cherokee is 1546 SMOH and 750 hours since the 160 hp conversion in 2007. Is the 160 hp conversion sort of like an overhaul? Or should I still think of it like 1546 SMOH?
Click to expand...
It means the engine already had 796 hours on it when they swapped it on to that plane.
 
machkhatib said:
my gut feeling is that the Cherokee is the better way to go
Click to expand...

After a quick perusal of the numbers and the pics on both of these aeroplanes... my (ever-growing) gut tells me the same. You mention the cezzna was sitting on the ramp... any idea how much these have been flying over the past year? Five years? Current annual? Missing logs would be an issue for me. Actually, there is no way I'd buy the 172 unless I was going into it thinking it was a project and I'd have to potentially replace a lot of stuffs.... like an engine.... right away.
 
Go for the Cherokee. The transition from a C-172 is a non-event. I personally like Cessna better mostly because of two doors and not having to climb up on the wing and over the seats. If you have a significant other, might want to get their opinion. The 172 is pretty ragged out.
 
GeorgeC said:
It means the engine already had 796 hours on it when they swapped it on to that plane.
Click to expand...

The seller sent me the STC and 337 form for the 160 hp conversion. Essentially it mostly involved replacing the 150 hp pistons with high-compression 160 hp pistons. That turned the engine from an O-320-E2A into an O-320-D2A.
 
machkhatib said:
The seller sent me the STC and 337 form for the 160 hp conversion. Essentially it mostly involved replacing the 150 hp pistons with high-compression 160 hp pistons. That turned the engine from an O-320-E2A into an O-320-D2A.
Click to expand...
My friend had a pa28 w/the 160 hp conversion but otherwise stock, when I had a pa28-140 with a powerflow and lots of mods. His pa28 would out-climb mine by about 25%. Mine and his were dead even on cruise. The downside for the 160 hp conversion? No auto-fuel.
 
Figure you’re going to waste some money for prebuy on the 172 and either walk away or cut the price hugely. Unless the Piper has a major unknown issue that will come up in pre-buy, or after purchase, it’ll give you the least grief, and you can test fly it, and fly it the day of possession.

Unless you like projects and maybe expect to catch a smoking’ deal, I’d forget about the Cessna.

-From a distance, some idiot on the internet...
 
I learned in a 172. I eventually purchased a '74 Cherokee 140 (and later upgraded to a 160hp engine via Penn Yan).

Would the 172 have a higher useful load?

I would go with the 140 because it may be in better shape.
 
If you're worried about not having any hours in a Cherokee, do not let that sway you to the 172 (which looks like the worse deal of the two). The transition is a nothing-burger. I did it at 10 hours as a student and I actually felt more in control of the plane when I was flying the Cherokee (I flew an Archer, so just a 'step up' from the basic Cherokee, but same basic flying feel) than I did flying the 172.
 
GeorgeC said:
spoiler: they are both old and will need work, but the Cherokee might need less.
Click to expand...

This is the important part. Any aircraft that is purchased is a project to some degree. How much of a project an aircraft is depends partially on what sort of condition an owner is satisfied with and having a little luck.

Neither of the proposed aircraft are top shelf but the cherokee looks like less of a project than the Cessna.
 
I owned a 160HP Cherokee 140 for 14 years. It is a great airplane! I bought mine after I had soloed in a 172 and finished all my training in it. If you buy it you will be happy with it. This one looks in good shape. It already has ADSB so that is a big plus.
 
Those prices are asking prices, the only price that matters is actual selling price.
New interior, big deal. I've seen enough heavy equipment with nice new paint jobs that look great, doesn't mean that it was better taken care of, could be the opposite, that it was so bad they had to redo the interior. As far as the 172 being ratty, the plane looks pretty good to me other than the seats, spend a little on some upholstery and it will look better.
I am not a fan of cherokees of any horsepower, I hate climbing up on the wing and I really despise waiting for the person in the right seat to get out of my way.
 
machkhatib said:
Hello folks. I'm under contract for two planes and I have the contractual flexibility to back out on one or both of them if I wish. Both are of 1965 vintage: A C-172F and a PA-28-140 with the 160 hp conversion. I'd like your opinion on what is the better buy.

Cessna 172F
Piper Cherokee
I plan on doing pre-buy inspections, of course. Right now my gut feeling is that the Cherokee is the better way to go, especially since this will be my first plane and the Cessna appears to need at least some (perhaps a lot) of work.

I welcome your advice!
Click to expand...

a ratty airplane with incomplete logs that has flown only sparingly and has no adsb.

a clean adsb, IFR equipped airplane with complete (?) logs that is flown regularly (?) .

I’ve got 28 years of flying the Cherokee 140/160 to Cherokee sixes. Over 40 years flying Cessnas from 150 to 210. You’ll like the Cherokee if you buy it, unless you have an unholy aversion to all things low wing.

just one man’s opinion, but whatever you think you’d need to put into that ratty airplane, I’d triple it.

good luck. Fly safe.
 
machkhatib said:
  • Some visible rust in a few spots on the exterior
  • $41,000
Click to expand...
I'd avoid that one. Rust? On an aluminum airplane? You must mean corrosion. If it's visible on the outside, what's hiding inside? It could be a total wreck like the Cherokee someone had bought a few months ago and whose mechanic found really serious corrosion inside it. It looked like it had spent a few weeks in seawater.

And the compressions in the low/mid 60s? SIgns that valve work is needed. Those engines seldom get much past mid-time without some of that.

That airplane will also have the flat-leaf main gear that has a tendency to develop rust pitting, especially on the underside and really especially under the entry step attachment. If those pits are deep enough you are looking for serviceable gear legs for an airplane series that was last built in about 1970. Round rod gear after that. Good luck with that.

A hole to pour money into. You need that?
 
Dan Thomas said:
I'd avoid that one. Rust? On an aluminum airplane? You must mean corrosion. If it's visible on the outside, what's hiding inside? It could be a total wreck like the Cherokee someone had bought a few months ago and whose mechanic found really serious corrosion inside it. It looked like it had spent a few weeks in seawater.
Click to expand...

The landing gear legs seem to have rust - refer to the photos.

And the compressions in the low/mid 60s? SIgns that valve work is needed. Those engines seldom get much past mid-time without some of that.

That airplane will also have the flat-leaf main gear that has a tendency to develop rust pitting, especially on the underside and really especially under the entry step attachment. If those pits are deep enough you are looking for serviceable gear legs for an airplane series that was last built in about 1970. Round rod gear after that. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You are right about the gear legs.

A hole to pour money into. You need that?
Click to expand...

Definitely not! Thanks for the advice!

I’ll exit the contract for the Cessna due to the condition. I’ll continue with the Piper and go ahead with the pre-buy inspection.
 
I said Piper, but the real answer is the Mooney.
 
Any concerns with the firewall patch on the Piper Cherokee? There is a log entry but no 337 form.
 
How is this even a question? The 160 Cherokee is a good little performer.
 
machkhatib said:
Any concerns with the firewall patch on the Piper Cherokee? There is a log entry but no 337 form.
Click to expand...
That's a question for the IA who will be signing off your annuals. Even if someone decides on the future that there should have been one, another a&p can inspect the work and file the paperwork, it need not necessarily be done by the guy who originally did it. My understanding is that the bar for a major repair is pretty high, so it's very likely there was no reason to file a 337. Make it a special emphasis on the prebuy; if the work was done correctly, don't sweat it.

Cherokees>172's
 
I am a high wing guy and I given the choice would go with the Piper. That Cessna isn't worth 41K. Looks like birds have been living in that engine. It is rough around the edges and would need a bunch of money put it.
 
Jim K said:
Cherokees>172's
Click to expand...

That, too. When it comes to purchasing an aero-plane for anything other than flight school training --- Anything > 172
 
Deelee said:
That, too. When it comes to purchasing an aero-plane for anything other than flight school training --- Anything > 172
Click to expand...
Well, unless purchasing it for resale in mind! Though I did use mine for business travel, but it was solo with a bunch of computer equipment (usually ~150 lbs.) so it sufficed.
 
These airplanes are both pigs. The Cherokee has better lipstick.
 
Based on the information you provided, the Cherokee is definitely the better choice. I’m afraid that Cessna would be a maintenance nightmare. Those engine compressions don’t sound good at all in the Cessna. In addition, you can spend a lot on avionics if the radios are old and with one inop. Unless you are particularly looking for a fixer-upper, I would not touch that plane…especially for what they are asking. Even if I was wanting a fixer upper, he would have to come off that price a lot to interest me.

I currently own a Cherokee but owned a Cessna prior to the Cherokee. I got really tired of fueling the high wing plane. Fueling the Cherokee is more like pumping gas in your car as opposed to climbing a ladder or wing strut to drag the heavy fuel hose up to the high wing tanks. The Cessna did have better downward visibility for sightseeing, but the low wing is not as bad as some people try to make out.

Best of luck with your airplane search and potential purchase.
 
I would recommend the 172. And let me know when you drop the option on the cherokee so I can buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top