Piper vs. Cessna

subpilot said:
Are they from a Nigerian businessman who is in great disperate need to sell aircraft? Oh wait, that guy is on craigslist.

My vote is on Cessna if you desire having two doors, easy loading, and built-in cover from the sun/rain. On the other hand, I think the Piper is an easier plane to preflight (no getting out the ladder) and seems to be more stable overall.
Click to expand...

If you need two doors, and want something that's easy to get in and out of, the Cessna 177 has to be the winner. Real easy to get in and out of, with no strut in the way. I've never flown one, but I've heard the typical "stay away from the 150 HP Cardinal" story's thousands of times.
 
Cardinals have a bad rap. The only one I ever flew ended up in the Pacific Ocean north of Molakai back in 2006. Neer recovered, thus no NTSB.
 
Yeah, I think it has to do with the structural integrety. I don't know all the details and I actually thought it was nice when I flew it.
 
ILSstud said:
What kind of bad rap? Is it because of structural concerns (no strut) or just generally?
Click to expand...

Most of the Cardinal bad rap I've ever heard, is from the early model's, which had a lacking 150 horsepower. Couple that, with what some would call a somewhat goofy panel design (making it more like a car), and they've taken some heat over time. I've never heard anything bad about the lack of struts (look at the 210), but I'm sure people think its less safe without them. Heck, the airplanes that have a "bad rap" often are cheaper to buy, because people buy into the whole "it's not a safe airplane" hype.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Most of the Cardinal bad rap I've ever heard, is from the early model's, which had a lacking 150 horsepower. Couple that, with what some would call a somewhat goofy panel design (making it more like a car), and they've taken some heat over time. I've never heard anything bad about the lack of struts (look at the 210), but I'm sure people think its less safe without them. Heck, the airplanes that have a "bad rap" often are cheaper to buy, because people buy into the whole "it's not a safe airplane" hype.
Click to expand...

There is a Cardinal in one of the local flying clubs here. I've talked to a guy who has flown it a bunch and he loves it. Some cursory research seems to say that the older ones (177Bs, I think) are underpowered.

I haven't seen one in his price range, though, so that may put it out of the running.
 
killbilly said:
There is a Cardinal in one of the local flying clubs here. I've talked to a guy who has flown it a bunch and he loves it. Some cursory research seems to say that the older ones (177Bs, I think) are underpowered.

I haven't seen one in his price range, though, so that may put it out of the running.
Click to expand...

The underpowered model is the Cessna 177 (150 HP). They figured it out, and fixed it in the 177A (180 HP). The 177B added a constant speed prop to the mix. Then you've got the 177RG, which I've heard is a real pleasure to fly. Very true about the price range though. Likely the only ones that low are going to be the 150 HP model.

Another option in the Cessna line would be the 175, if you can deal with a geared engine. They are way down in price, partially due to the engine.
 
Heyas,

Only the first 177s are 150HP. All of the 177A and Bs, which are essentially 1969 and newer have 180HP, and the 177Bs got a CS prop and a different wing. For the 177s and 177As, you can get the larger engine/prop STCed. They have quite the following. There are no structural issues that I am aware of, but the center carry through spar requires a good inspection on a pre-purchase to check for corrosion.

Their "bad rap" mostly comes from pilots who were trained to drive an airplane onto the ground rather than aviate. The 177 has a stabilator, and the earlier one's had a high performance wing coupled to a low HP engine, the combination of which gave you something that was most un-Cessna like.

They are great airplanes, and the RG version is the best looking single ever made, IMHO. Like all airplanes, they have their quirks, and you'd best do your research before making the plunge.

If you are considering a two seater, you can't go wrong with a 150. There are a lot of 152 out there, but considering the comparatively short production time and the fact that there really weren't any two seaters produced for a long time afterwards, most 152 have been beat to death.

Back in the day, most schools would get a few new 150s a year, run them a bit, and then sell them off when they got "high time" of 1,500 hours or so. By the time the 152s came on the scene, things were getting too expensive to do that, and as a result, most places hung on to their 152s. When production effectively ended in 1983 (yes, I know there are later models, that's why I said effectively) there wasn't anything to replace them with, so the same 152 just flew and flew and flew.

As a result, you can get a seriously nice, relatively low time (~3-4,000 hours) 1976 or 77 150. Most 152s, OTOH, are getting close to 10k if not more, and have been tortured nearly all their life.

PA-28-140s are a good bet, too. Remember, they are really two place airplanes with a bench in the back to put yer stuff.

Cessna vs Piper? It's the same as Ford vs. Chevy. Depends on what you like. Once you figure out what you like, join a type club, like the Cessna Pilots Association. You'll get more advice then you will ever use.

Richman
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The underpowered model is the Cessna 177 (150 HP). They figured it out, and fixed it in the 177A (180 HP). The 177B added a constant speed prop to the mix. Then you've got the 177RG, which I've heard is a real pleasure to fly. Very true about the price range though. Likely the only ones that low are going to be the 150 HP model.
Click to expand...

Richman said:
Heyas,

Only the first 177s are 150HP. All of the 177A and Bs, which are essentially 1969 and newer have 180HP, and the 177Bs got a CS prop and a different wing. For the 177s and 177As, you can get the larger engine/prop STCed. They have quite the following. There are no structural issues that I am aware of, but the center carry through spar requires a good inspection on a pre-purchase to check for corrosion.

Their "bad rap" mostly comes from pilots who were trained to drive an airplane onto the ground rather than aviate. The 177 has a stabilator, and the earlier one's had a high performance wing coupled to a low HP engine, the combination of which gave you something that was most un-Cessna like.

They are great airplanes, and the RG version is the best looking single ever made, IMHO. Like all airplanes, they have their quirks, and you'd best do your research before making the plunge.
Click to expand...

Ahh...thank you for correcting me on the Cardinal-lore. I, too, think they're absolutely beautiful airplanes. I love the lines. Much as I'd like an RG someday, the costs associated with it might not be worth the aesthetic appeal and speed gains, I dunno. Never flown one, but would love to. It costs nine grand to pony up into the flying club I know about here. Don't have that kind of cash laying around for play-purposes.
 
Excellent advice from Richman re: 177. I'd just add that even the straight '68 177 with 150hp and the learjet wing is totally within the abilities of the average private pilot, IMHO, so long as he/she remembers that they're not flying a 172. A scorching field performer it is not, particularly on takeoff (watch those W&B numbers and take them seriously), and it can be a bit dodgy on landing (as I understand it it's usually stabilator stalls, nose wheel hits, porpoise), but once you're used to it, it's not that challenging. I did most of my IR in a '68, and I'd happily take one over any vintage of (pre-90s) 172. Flew a 177B on a 15 hour cross country trip once and that is a whole different category of travelling machine from a 172...great plane.
 
I like how this thread went from affordable sub $30,000 airplanes to talking about $70,000+ aircraft.

Best bet would be a warrior or C-172 depending on your preference of high wing/low wing, or just flight characteristics. In my experience Cherokee-140's tend to be underpowered, especially when you add density altitude as a factor. The extra 10 HP in the warrior along with a different wing helps a bit.
 
Maurus said:
I like how this thread went from affordable sub $30,000 airplanes to talking about $70,000+ aircraft.

Best bet would be a warrior or C-172 depending on your preference of high wing/low wing, or just flight characteristics. In my experience Cherokee-140's tend to be underpowered, especially when you add density altitude as a factor. The extra 10 HP in the warrior along with a different wing helps a bit.
Click to expand...

Agree, no way you would get an Archer or Cardinal for $30,000. Even a Warrior would be difficult. Most likely looking at an old Cherokee or 1960s Cessna 172 (if you want four seats).

Most Cherokee 140s have 150hp, the same as a Warrior sans roman numeral, and you can get them with 160hp or 180hp conversions. The original Cherokee has a very cramped rear seat though, and some of them don't even have a baggage compartment.

To answer the question in the subject line, I like Cessnas for local flights and PA28s for flights of longer distance. The Cessna controls feel lighter and more maneuverable, most are approved for spins, the high wing keeps the cabin cooler during summer at low altitudes, there's better visibility for sightseeing, etc. The reason I like PA28s for cross countries is they seem more stable and ride turbulence better, and the wing doesn't block as much of your vision when trying to scan for traffic.
 
killbilly said:
Lowest price I saw on a 177 - since we're talking about them...was $37K for an older model.

There is a 180hp version here for $43K - I know it's out of his stated price range but...whatever...airplane shopping is fun, right? http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/834259
Click to expand...

Its a tough market out there for planes. Just because they're listed that high, doesn't mean they sell that high. If you find the right buyer, who wants to sell, they will come down in price.
 
Certainly love the >30k recommendations, but 30k max is already a tough pill for the wife to swallow. Gotta keep it sensible, and cost effective.

Who knows when we'll pull the trigger, just trying to find the best solution. A sub 30k four place, that wont cost us an arm and leg to maintain year over year.
 
surreal1221 said:
Certainly love the >30k recommendations, but 30k max is already a tough pill for the wife to swallow. Gotta keep it sensible, and cost effective.

Who knows when we'll pull the trigger, just trying to find the best solution. A sub 30k four place, that wont cost us an arm and leg to maintain year over year.
Click to expand...

Just be sure to set aside some money for that first annual. It could be very advantageous to just get an annual done with a good maint shop right after getting the aircraft. We had someone do a pre-buy for my dad's Arrow and he missed a ton of stuff. The last guy that did the maint had some key items missing. One of which would have caused us to lose our ability to control the stabilator.

We got a call a year later from the FAA asking about the guy that performed the maintenance before we bought the aircraft as he was under investigation for something related to his maint shop.
 
Your best bet is to buy into a 1/3-1/5 fractional ownership or join a flying club. You still get most of the benefits of ownership but get to share the cost of ownership.
 
Someone said something about the Cherokee 140 being underpowered. I agree with the stock engine. But alot of the 140's now have the 160hp STC upgrade mostly because its cheaper than keeping it at 150hp when it comes time for overhaul. We have the 160hp upgrade on our Cherokee 140 and we have a repitched prop and it will fly just fine with two adults and two kids in the back. There are models that only have two seats in them and the back is used for storage which isnt a bad option if its only you and your wife. But there are seats them go in the back if you want them. It will carry four adults but the back is so small no adult over like 5'5 can sit back there comfortably. We carry three adults in ours alot though. The person in the back ends up just laying across both seats in the back to make up for the lack of leg room. I reccomended the cherokee 140 because for the price it is a steal. Buy one now for under 25k. Fly the crap out of it. Then in a few years when things get better sell the thing for 25k and you bascially just paid for the fuel and hangar.

I still say go experimental though. Best bang for the buck. We have a two seat KR-2 and it gets more use than the cherokee now because it is dirt cheap to fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top