Enlighten my wife..........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Enlighten my wife..........
A question from the wife.........
"Why would you even consider buying a PA28 when the C172 appears far less frequently in the little GASIL book you get as an accident statistic? The Piper must be far more dangerous to own as there are normally three times the accidents published for PA28's each edition than the C172."
Can anyone give any concrete statistics? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
"Why would you even consider buying a PA28 when the C172 appears far less frequently in the little GASIL book you get as an accident statistic? The Piper must be far more dangerous to own as there are normally three times the accidents published for PA28's each edition than the C172."
Can anyone give any concrete statistics? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cos, the wings are in the right place on a piper, an the throttle isnt a fag lighter. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
On a serious note though, having flown non fliers in both varieties, they are always much happier with the sight on the pa28 to the 172. Psychologically it can make a difference.
Regards
LF
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">
On a serious note though, having flown non fliers in both varieties, they are always much happier with the sight on the pa28 to the 172. Psychologically it can make a difference.
Regards
LF
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA28 nosewheel assembly can suffer from poor landing technique, maybe this accounts for a lot of the statistics. However the low wing ground effect should actually make the Piper easier to land nicely.
Low wings are better for the pilot. High wings better if the passenger likes a direct view of the ground below.
Nice to have a wife who is so interested in flying.
Low wings are better for the pilot. High wings better if the passenger likes a direct view of the ground below.
Nice to have a wife who is so interested in flying.
(1) Virtually every single engined aeroplane Piper ever built was a PA-28-something
(2) Cessna give even slight variations a different model number.
(2b) Therefore far more PA-28s than C172s, therefore far more accidents, even if PA-28 safer.
(3) High wing Cessna is probably more likely to have a mid-air due poor visibility = fatality
(4) Low wing Piper floats forever so more likely to have a landing accident = walk away pissed off.
(4b) Therefore Piper safer.
G
(2) Cessna give even slight variations a different model number.
(2b) Therefore far more PA-28s than C172s, therefore far more accidents, even if PA-28 safer.
(3) High wing Cessna is probably more likely to have a mid-air due poor visibility = fatality
(4) Low wing Piper floats forever so more likely to have a landing accident = walk away pissed off.
(4b) Therefore Piper safer.
G
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone actually seen a low wing bird in nature ??
Cessna is just naturally right.
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Cessna is just naturally right.
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, has anyone seen a bird which couldn't see where it was going in a turn??
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
--------------------
nose bleeds when being punched in the mug by bingoboy
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
--------------------
nose bleeds when being punched in the mug by bingoboy
Safety First!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper started out making high wing aeroplanes, i.e. Cub, Colt, etc. With the advent of the tricycle landing gear they chose to stick low mounted wings on their new models.
Having done more time on Cessnas than Pipers, I find the Cessna easier to land and nicer to handle. Even true for the C180 taildragger. The Piper is a nicer cruising machine and rides the turbulence better (except the yaw-hungry PA-38 <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ).
The high wing aeroplane is just as likely to suffer a mid-air collision as a low wing aeroplane. It comes down to a good pilot lookout and situational awareness. In fact the one and only mid-air collision I ever witnessed was between a PA-28 and a helicopter.
The Piper requires a fuel pump and has no BOTH selector on the tanks. The reason for this is if you inadvertantly dry one tank out, the effect of the system trying to draw fuel out of the remaining tank is like trying to suck water through on straw whilst trying to suck air through another straw at the same time. All you will get is air. Therefore the Cessna is simpler to operate and less likely to suffer an accident as a result of mismanagement of the fuel system.
The Cessna stall speed is lower than the PA-28, giving a larger speed range especially for landing.
Overall, my money is on the Cessna for throwing around and landing, and on the Piper for casual weekend cruising missions with the family and dog.
Kermie <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Having done more time on Cessnas than Pipers, I find the Cessna easier to land and nicer to handle. Even true for the C180 taildragger. The Piper is a nicer cruising machine and rides the turbulence better (except the yaw-hungry PA-38 <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ).
The high wing aeroplane is just as likely to suffer a mid-air collision as a low wing aeroplane. It comes down to a good pilot lookout and situational awareness. In fact the one and only mid-air collision I ever witnessed was between a PA-28 and a helicopter.
The Piper requires a fuel pump and has no BOTH selector on the tanks. The reason for this is if you inadvertantly dry one tank out, the effect of the system trying to draw fuel out of the remaining tank is like trying to suck water through on straw whilst trying to suck air through another straw at the same time. All you will get is air. Therefore the Cessna is simpler to operate and less likely to suffer an accident as a result of mismanagement of the fuel system.
The Cessna stall speed is lower than the PA-28, giving a larger speed range especially for landing.
Overall, my money is on the Cessna for throwing around and landing, and on the Piper for casual weekend cruising missions with the family and dog.
Kermie <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old arguments, same old prejudices.
The NTSB accident figures are probably the most robust data source - certainly much better than most of this thread!
Cessna 172 - 6.67 accidents per 100,000 hours of whci 1.6 per 100,000 hours were classed as serious. 24,000 aircraft on register
Piper pa28 - 5.7 accidents per 100,000 hours of which 2.0 were classed as serious. 20,000 aircraft on register
Piper series includes more 'types' but less aircraft.
The most important factor to note however is that both these types are safer than equivalent 'competition', often by a large margin. Realistically however the differences between these figures are not statistically significant. In other words they are equally safe aircraft!!!
Cheers
The NTSB accident figures are probably the most robust data source - certainly much better than most of this thread!
Cessna 172 - 6.67 accidents per 100,000 hours of whci 1.6 per 100,000 hours were classed as serious. 24,000 aircraft on register
Piper pa28 - 5.7 accidents per 100,000 hours of which 2.0 were classed as serious. 20,000 aircraft on register
Piper series includes more 'types' but less aircraft.
The most important factor to note however is that both these types are safer than equivalent 'competition', often by a large margin. Realistically however the differences between these figures are not statistically significant. In other words they are equally safe aircraft!!!
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]
The most important factor to note however is that both these types are safer than equivalent 'competition', often by a large margin.
<hr></blockquote>
Does 'competition' refer to other training aircraft or other GA light singles (which could be aerobatic, high-performance or homebuilt, for example)?
Cessna and Piper dominate the market, so accident/hours flown statistics presumably aren't going to be a good measure of the safety of the competition anyway.
The most important factor to note however is that both these types are safer than equivalent 'competition', often by a large margin.
<hr></blockquote>
Does 'competition' refer to other training aircraft or other GA light singles (which could be aerobatic, high-performance or homebuilt, for example)?
Cessna and Piper dominate the market, so accident/hours flown statistics presumably aren't going to be a good measure of the safety of the competition anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The competition refers to directly comparable aricraft types. In other words the Beech, Aerospatial, Grumman etc.. that have similar horsepower and configuration. Accident rates from instance of the single engine grumman types are 3 to 10 times higher.
The accident rates are based on aircraft types, not their uses so some care needs to used in interpreting the rates if the aircraft types are overtly aerobatic or whatever.
The accident rates are based on aircraft types, not their uses so some care needs to used in interpreting the rates if the aircraft types are overtly aerobatic or whatever.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toppers It must be nice to have a wife with a technical perspective on flying. Mine loves flying, but won't let me buy a Cessna because they're too ugly. Pipers are much prettier, apparently.
I fly a Warrior because I like it a lot more than the Cessnas I trained on. Haven't had much time in 172's but they seem good enough. At least you get a door each on a Cessna - trying to evacuate four people from an aircraft with one door has always struck me as iffy in case it gets jammed. Maybe I'm just jealous that the door isn't on my side!
I fly a Warrior because I like it a lot more than the Cessnas I trained on. Haven't had much time in 172's but they seem good enough. At least you get a door each on a Cessna - trying to evacuate four people from an aircraft with one door has always struck me as iffy in case it gets jammed. Maybe I'm just jealous that the door isn't on my side!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're each about as much fun to fly as a 1959 Vauxhall Victor is to drive IMHO. And how many, of either type, do you ever see being landed correctly (properly held off - mainwheels first followed some time later by the nosewheel)? Not many.
Maybe they are so boring to fly that pilots just give up trying.
SSD
Maybe they are so boring to fly that pilots just give up trying.
SSD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Among the clouds
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chocks Whayhey,
I guess when it comes to evacuating from a Warrior it's every man for himself, the strongest person gets to live!!
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
I'll bet they sink like a brick just to add to the excitement.
Still, i'd rather fly a Warrior (proper plane) over a Cessena (lawnmower) any day. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: bow5 ]</p>
I guess when it comes to evacuating from a Warrior it's every man for himself, the strongest person gets to live!!
<img src="wink.gif" border="0"> I'll bet they sink like a brick just to add to the excitement.
Still, i'd rather fly a Warrior (proper plane) over a Cessena (lawnmower) any day. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: bow5 ]</p>
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Shaggy, think of all the exceedingly good cakes Mr Kipling could have put in those nice little tin dishes if Cessna and Piper hadn't wasted all that aluminium.
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
When I did my PPL it was spilt between low wing (AA-5A), shoulder wing (ARV-2) and high wing (Cessna 152 & 172). I generally preferred the low wing aircraft. I have since flown Warriors and at 6' tall could just see over the glareshield. The low tops to the windows block your view into a turn nearly as much as the Cessna wing!
Most of my flying since has been in aeroplanes with high wings and see through roofs, 150 Aerobat, L4 Cub, Auster. Much better than being surrounded by opaque material This way I can see below me, above me and by lifting the wing before turning check that I'm not about to fly into anything while turning.
bow5, what makes a Cessna 172 a lawnmower and a PA-28 a "real" aeroplane. They both have derivatives of the same engine <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Agree with FNG and Shaggy, I've seen too many landings resembling people pushing a supermarket trolley along. Yet to see a noseleg fold though. Read about lots in GASIL though <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: LowNSlow ]</p>
Most of my flying since has been in aeroplanes with high wings and see through roofs, 150 Aerobat, L4 Cub, Auster. Much better than being surrounded by opaque material
This way I can see below me, above me and by lifting the wing before turning check that I'm not about to fly into anything while turning. bow5, what makes a Cessna 172 a lawnmower and a PA-28 a "real" aeroplane. They both have derivatives of the same engine <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Agree with FNG and Shaggy, I've seen too many landings resembling people pushing a supermarket trolley along. Yet to see a noseleg fold though. Read about lots in GASIL though <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: LowNSlow ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown both, I would say that there really isn't enough difference between the 172's and Warriors to make the choice dependent upon anything except personal preference.
I like the Piper's manual flaps much better than the fiddly electric controlled flaps on Cessnas. On the other hand, it's nice not to have to worry about the fuel pump, and to be able to simply place the fuel selector on "both".
MLS-12D
P.S. Generalizations like "All Pipers land like sh*t" are ridiculous. kabz, your local pilot friend should know *better* then to voice such a silly opinion.
I like the Piper's manual flaps much better than the fiddly electric controlled flaps on Cessnas. On the other hand, it's nice not to have to worry about the fuel pump, and to be able to simply place the fuel selector on "both".
MLS-12D
P.S. Generalizations like "All Pipers land like sh*t" are ridiculous. kabz, your local pilot friend should know *better* then to voice such a silly opinion.
Last edited by MLS-12D; 13th Dec 2002 at 22:24.