Piper or Cessna

I prefer mid-wing Lockheeds!

I did my training in Pipers, but did all of my instructing in Cessnas. I don't think that one is clearly superior to another. I have noticed that many people like the "look" of a low wing, as a high wing Cessna screams trainer.

Flying single engine over the rocks, I'll take a high wing. It will land anywhere a low wing will, but the same can not be said the other way around. Plus, I'm constantly looking for places to put down for when (if) the engine coughs or sputters, and the high wing facillitates that as your best spot for landing may be abeam or even behind you.

Just my $.02

Stonefly
 
Stonefly said:
I have noticed that many people like the "look" of a low wing, as a high wing Cessna screams trainer.
Click to expand...

Like the idiots that choose DA-20s because they "look cool".

Silly people . . . :)
 
mtsu_av8er said:
Like the idiots that choose DA-20s because they "look cool".

Silly people . . . :)
Click to expand...

I saw a DA-20 the other day and I was not to impressed. It doesnt look to stable to me. There are some wicked updrafts from the ridges here in Vegas.
 
Cessna:
Smooth
easier for Slushie to get in and out of
better for pictures.
Hard to fuel if they dont have a step.
bungee nosewheel steering

Piper:
Crappy panel layouts
Ugly little lines on the rudder
"Alright, [insert girl's name here], I have to get in first",
Hard to sump under the wings.
fuel pumps.
need to wear a hat in Vegas summers.
I still can't land the Arrow.
 
Originally Posted by CRJ700:
My opinion is that Piper's are easier to land...
Click to expand...

I agree... I could never land the Cessna worth a crap...unless it's a low wing Cessna ;)
 
SeanD said:
I saw a DA-20 the other day and I was not to impressed. It doesnt look to stable to me. There are some wicked updrafts from the ridges here in Vegas.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not very stable at all - it's a total piece of crap. Turbulence makes it miserable, and you can always add 10 degrees celsius to the OAT and that's what you've got inside.

Miserable, I say again!

JDE said:
The REAL DA-20 is a pretty cool lookin bird! ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I love that thing - need to get in one!!:rawk:
 
Cessna is pretty good for student pilots they're a forgiving plane. But I perfer a Piper for insturment and cross country flying. Low winger's are a little more stable in turbulence and it's easy to transition to light twins since most are low winger's. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I am not interested in buying a Cessna but they're OK to rent. :argue:
 
I trained in older 172s. I'm now in a flight club that owns a Warrior. As previously mentioned, each has their own quirks that speak to each of us. Personally I prefer Piper aircraft ... although I still enjoy taking a 172 up every now and again, particularly a SP.

172:
- Easier to get in and out of
- Larger windows for airflow while taxiing
- Easier to drain sumps
- Blind spots when turning in pattern
- Better for sightseeing (particularly a backseat pax)

Warriors, etc:
- Pain in the butt to get in and out of
- Pain in the butt to tie down, drain sumps
- Better view for pattern when turning
- Easier to land for me

As far as older models go, I think you have a much better chance of having a third passenger (four in plane altogether) and getting off of the ground safely in a Cessna 172. Older Cherokees, Warriors tend to be extremely sluggish with more than pilot and one light pax.
 
This will sound kinda dumb. But here we go anyways.

I prefer the C-172K to the C-172M Those damn newer wings on the 1975 and newer 172's Make them float like crazy.

The Cherokee I flew around the pattern was a joke to land. It was smooth and was planted once it was down.

The C-172K is pretty steady once down as well. That damn C-172M is a handful in crosswinds, and wants to fly in anything about 35 kts or higher.

Thats all I can speak to from experience though.

I liked the responsive feel to the Cherokee and it was very easy to land. I still prefer the C-172K though when given a choice.
 
MikeD said:
Prefer Northrop.

:D

Am used to both actually. Really no preference over high or low wing, and both companies put out a good product IMO.

Like the Cessna 207/208 and O-2 series; as well as the Piper Cherokee 6/Lance series.
Click to expand...

Feeling you Mike. I flew a Caravan and a Meridian with friends. Both are superb airplanes.
 
I prefer Beechcraft. Going on the few times I've flown a 172 or 182, I do not like them. No thank you, I'll keep my low-wing C-23.
 
jknight8907 said:
I prefer Beechcraft. Going on the few times I've flown a 172 or 182, I do not like them. No thank you, I'll keep my low-wing C-23.
Click to expand...

Ditto. The Sundowner can be a PITA to land, but I'd much rather have that over a high-wing Cessna anyday.
 
I'd take Cessna over Beechcraft and Piper any day. Well, I'll take that back.

I am training a student in his Beechcraft Sport and it is the absolutely worst performing aircraft I've ever flown. It's like a flying brick with wings and it has very poor stall characteristics. There is also not very much performance data on the aircraft.i.e......no shortfield and softfield takeoff and landing data or procedure. It is also way way way underpowered.

On the other hand, I love flying the BE-35 Bonanza. It performs like a dream. I cant decide if I like a Turbo 210 or the Bonanza better. I've also really enjoyed flying the Cherookee Six but I hate flying the Cherokee- 140.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top