Jonathan Goodish wrote:
: Agree, but in this debate there is one very significant difference: the
: extra 20hp. In my opinion, the 160hp C172 is underpowered unless you
: plan to be a solo flyer.

I did say *comparable* aircraft. That would be a 150hp C172 vs. PA-28-140.
More bang for the buck in the Piper. There aren't too many 180hp C172's that are the
same age as most of the Archers, so it's not really a fair comparison. In the lower
HP range, though, (150 or 160) the Cessna brings $5-10K more than a comparable Piper.

As someone who trained in an 145hp O-300, I can't say I'd agree with the last
bit either. In fact, the older 172's tend to perform better on less engine because
they're not weighted down with extra radios, other equipment, and sound treatment.
The straight-tails in particular have good performance.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************