OK, I've Read Through All 10 Pages, PA-22 or C-172

[fshaw]

I'm approaching the first anniversary of my private license and approaching 100 hours so I'm a newbie. I own a 150G that I'll be flying for the next few years and live in the Adirondacks of NY. While I don't have any mountain experience I did my training and check ride from a 2400' grass strip and am very comfortable on it. I will be retiring in the next 5 to 7 years and plan to buy a plane my wife and I can fly out west and into some of the backcountry. Priority will be on affordability and capability. When I buy I want to come in at under $30,000 as I'll probably take a hit when I sell the 150 unless the AOPA/EAA medical thing goes through and makes 150's more desirable. As I said, I've looked through all the posts and it looks like a TriPacer or 172 will probably be my best choices. I'll probably stay with a nose wheel (hanging my head in shame) unless tailwheel insurance comes in cheaper than I expect. My questions are - Given 145 to 160 HP is one plane more capable than the other for short field or high DA applications? If I find a TRIPacer I don't anticipate higher maintenance costs given 2 planes in similar overall condition. Is that reasonable? The TriPacer shows a significantly higher service ceiling, the 172 shows as a bit faster. Is the higher service ceiling actual and significant? I'm more interested in STOL than speed. GPH/MPG is a consideration. Maules, 180/182's, constant speed props, big engine modes, etc. are out due to cost. I would be willing to go for bigger tires, wing tips, vg's, possibly a STOL kit. Basically I want to get there, do some camping and have some fun and see some sights.

As you can see this is post #1

Great site.

Thanks,

Frank

[denalipilot]

Guessing you won't have a hangar? Outdoors in the Adirondacks I'd put a premium on a metal airframe myself.

p.s. - What about those previous posts about a 196? Anyway, welcome

[dplunkt]

Hi Frank, Welcome

I fly a PA-22 and chose that over the 172 because I could get a better condition plane for about $10K less at the time. Mine is a 0-320 150. As for being slower than a 172 I'm not sure that's true if the 172 has a 0-320. I also like the pa-22 as it seems to be more rugged, the landing gear is better to off airport operations. Both can be fitted out for STOL.

Things to watch out for: First, get a good pre-buy inspection by someone who knows what they are doing. This saved me a ton of headacks and cost. Secondly, if you can you should hanger a pa-22. Having said that I know alot of folks (in Alaska) for example who don't.

Now, everyone who flys a PA-22 or the tail weel version loves them. There is something about the Pipers that you don't get with a 172. To prove this just go to the shortwingpipers.org site and spend some time there. Good luck.

[lesuther]

The PA-22 is a lot more fun to fly due it's short wings. It is really fun to maneuver. It's also easier to work on/maintain (although you will be working on it). It is quite a bit more rugged- the nose gear was used all the way to the cherokee six. The -22 is known by a few nicks- the flying milkstool (for its looks), or the simonized manhole cover (for the way it sinks when you pull off the throttle...the flaps are sort of unneccessary). AD-wise, the -22 has some real doozies (struts, longerons) to be wary of, and you are dealing with fabric (which is great, really, but hangar it!). You'll undoubtedly find a ridiculously low time -22 for a heck of a lot less than a more tired 172. It'll pay for a lot of gas, and a hangar. The -22 has a bit more prop clearance and slightly more leg room due to the layout.

The 172 is more comfy by far. It's also a bit quieter inside. It also hauls a full gross load undeniably better. There is more to look at in an inspection, and it has more AD's to look after than the -22, but they are generally firewall forward and not big deals. The panels in any 172 are far better for IFR and radios and layout than any comparable -22.

I loved my Piper, and would choose it every time over the 172 personally for affordability and fun if I was looking to meet that kind of mission. I live up higher, and appreciate the performance of the 182. I sometimes ride along in a friend's 160 HP -22, and definitely prefer the feel of the -22 to the 172 for fun flying.

[crazyivan]

I have flown 172s and own a PA-22 with the tailwheel conversion. My 2 cents:

The TriPacer will match or outperform a 172's performance. I can't talk intelligently for higher density altitudes, and the 172 might be better at higher DA with the longer wings. I just don't know.

The TirPacer is the way to go if you plan on doing rougher backcountry strips. The nose gear is rugged - integral to the engine mount. The 172 is kind of flimsy in comparison. In fact, Maule took the TriPacer's nosewheel design and incorporated it into the tricycle version of the M5 and M7. Those are quite capable backcountry aircraft.

There are some TriPacers out there that have been converted to metal skin, but at the cost of some weight. This might be a good tradeoff if you intend on keeping her outside.

TriPacers have a front door on the right side and a rear door on the left. If the pilot (front left seat) is inflexible or has back problems, the TriPacer might not be the right plane. There are some out there with a left front door installed, but not too many.

My PA-22/20-150:
No wheel fairings
8.5 tires (larger than the stock 6x6)
Droop tips
"Climb prop" with a 58" pitch instead of the stock 61"
Cruise at 120 mph at 9gph
Useful load of 865 lbs
Takeoff and land on a hot, humid Pensacola day easily under 1000' with a full bag of fuel and a passenger
Can handle about 6" of fresh or groomed snow without skis

I love my Pacer so I am biased, but there is something about the tube-n-fabric that always gets me. Spam cans just don't have the character.

Check out http://www.shortwingpipers.org/

Good luck and let us know how the hunt goes.

[Emory Bored]

The back seat, cargo hold, do have it's own door when you fly a Tri-Pacer. My PA-22 experience is from a very long time ago but if I remember right I was somewhat surprised when I first checked out in a 172 that it felt heavier and less responsive than the Tri. You got that cranky trim on the ceiling in the Tri-pacer that, if you started in pipers, seems just right but if you started in Cessna's they tell me is just plain wrong. I never had any great confusion about which way to turn it when flying early cherokees either. The Cherokees are a completely 'nuther kettle of fish you know? The PA-22 I learned in had a johnson bar for equal application of both brakes at once. I heard later how horrible it is to not have differential braking but how could I have known? I had never flown anything with two brake pedals. The rudder pedals made the nose wheel turn and the johnson bar made you slow down. It all seemed so natural and right at the time. I was just 15 Y/O kid though and teenagers are famously adaptable.
Having said all that, now I have a whole bunch more hours in 172s than in Tri-Pacers and I've learned to deal with the nose heaviness and overall sluggish controls on the Cessna. It's stable, it glides WAY better but I must say it feels more underpowered at 145 hp than the Tri-pacer does at 150. I would never buy a 145 horse Cessna for flying where I live today, but if confronted with just two choices and living where you do I would look for a good airplane at a fair price and probably favor the Cessna. Get a straight tail '58 or '59. You may win the lotto and you can put a real engine in there someday. If you get a Cessna with manual flaps, maintain the dang flap handle mechanism for heaven's sake. You haven't lived until you've had the flaps auto retract from full to zero on short final. To the airplane's credit, if you yank hard enough on the yoke you'll grease it on but you will need a quick change of shorts before continuing your journey.

I like 'em both. I think the Piper is more funner maybe. I think the Cessna is over all a more prudent choice. Especially if you must keep it outside. If BC flying is only a now and then kind of a deal for you, you might not want to rule out the cherokees.

Now make up your own mind, I got troubles enough of my own.

EB

[GroundLooper]

I'll just throw in my 2 cents which might not help much.

I looked at both when trying to decide but haven't actually flown a Tripacer. The tripacer has some nice features and I like the back door but I found the 172 doors to be large enough I can cram just about anything through them, even a road bicyle with the front tire off. The cabin is larger on the 172. The tripe less expensive to acquire for a comparable bird than a 172 but it's also fabric which will need replacing at some point. The nose gear is stouter but... the prop clearance seemed less than a 172. The nose is standard with a 6.00 while the 172 is a 5.00 but I was able to get a larger fork for the 172 (for extra $$$). Clearance between the wheel and the prop on the tripacer seemed to preclude putting a larger tire on nor was I finding anything available for that (I may be wrong here).

The tripe is faster by all accounts but might not get off quite as quick... haven't flown one so others may say differently. Glide ratio sucks on a tripe but can be great for spot landings.

I bought an older 172 with manual flaps, I love those things.
The older 172's O-300 has been discontinued so parts may get more expensive. Don't know about the tripacers engine.

Honestly, it's probably a toss up. If you can find a good deal on either one, I'd bet you'd be happy. Of course, hangar availability might make one choice more obvious than the other.

As far as service ceiling. I never come anywhere near it anyway. How high do you need to go?

[ajfriz]

I don't see how this is even a real question since everyone knows the PA-22 is superior in every way (especially in the looks department) The o-300 is smooth, but I don't think it can really produce 145hp at sea level unless you throw some nos to it... PA-22 is faster, more useful load, stronger landing gear/fuselage, and lycoming still makes parts for the 0-320.

Real pilots fly tube and fabric airplanes.

[fshaw]

Denali,

Forgot about the Garmin posts, you got me threre. Guess I should have said "First real post."

[skiermanmike]

I don't really have any comments about the Tripacer vs. the 172, but can tell you that I've gone through a similar thought process on tube and fabric vs. metal planes. All in all, I probably would've preferred the tube and fabric competitors to my plane, but given the fact that hangars cost $500 bucks a month here in Southern California, the decision was pretty much made for me - metal. I suppose some will put a tube and fabric plane outside, but I wouldn't. Some won't put their plane outside at all, regardless of type, but with metal and in my climate, I don't mind a bit. Couldn't say the same about tube and fabric.

[EZFlap]

I have ZERO PA-22 experience, and not a whole lot of 172 experience. But some things seem apparent to my feeble mind. Both are great airplanes, that is universally agreed.

The 172 has a longer span and higher aspect ratio, so by all rights and reason it SHOULD be more efficient in takeoff, climb and altitude performance. Cessna's barn door flaps give you some help in takeoff/climb as well as landing, but I doubt the PA-22's short wings and small flaps can give you much help on takeoff.

You probably cannot turn a PA-22 into a poor man's Maule quite as much as you can turn the 172 into a poor man's 180. The Maule is physically larger than the PA-22; you would have to stretch it and put longer wings on it to get the equivalent carrying capacity of the Maule. The 172 is pretty much the same dimensions as the 180. So with a tailwheel conversion and an engine upgrade on the older 172 (when your finances and logbooks allow) you can have a very capable 2 or 4 seat bushplane that is perhaps 3/4 of the way to owning a 180. With a tailwheel conversion and engine upgrade on the PA-22 you will have a really fun hotrod but I don't think it will be 3/4 of a Maule in terms of load carrying.

The Piper shortwings have a nasty corrosion weakness in the door frames and lower fuselages. That MUST be looked into when you are considering buying a milkstool.

[dplunkt]

A couple other things:

VG's and some of the wing tip mods do make the PA-22 a very capable BC machine. My PA-22 has an empty weight of 1,176 and a useful load of 824lbs. The 172, I think, empty is around 1,700 ( a 152 is approx 1,080lbs) with less useful load. As for climb; folks who ride with me are suprised that I, with my stock wings, no VGs and 150 0-320, can climb out with half tanks and two 200 lb adults at over 1,000 fpm at best rate. The short wings and lighter weight make it handle a lot different that a 172. I like to say to folks that my tripe can get me into and out of trouble faster.

By the way, there is a neat skylight stc that gives more headroom and opens up the cockpit of the PA-22.

[robw56]

I don't think there's any 172's out there with 1700lb empty weights, that doesn't sounds right at all. My 170 weighs 1319. I don't think a nosewheel weighs 400lbs.

[WWhunter]

I totally disagree with the guys saying the PA22 is a better looking plane than the 172. All I can say is, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' because I personally think the 172 is a much nicer looking plane.
I went through the same process as the OP 25 years ago and I just never could get past the 'ugliness' of the flying milk-stool. The price on PA-22 was definitely less than what I would pay for a similarly equipted 172 but the thought of spend big bucks years down the road on a recover made my mind up for me. Heck a recover done by a licensed shop cost 50% plus of what the plane is worth!
I also heard the stories about lack of parts for the O-300.....well, they were just that,...stories. I had mine rebuilt a few years ago and never had any problems getting parts. I really like the engine, very smooth, easy on fuel, and super reliable. If the need to run mogas is an issue, there is an STC for the O-300. I would recommend either getting the prop twisted to a climb pitch if you want to do lots of shorter field stuff.
A buddy of mine has a video of me flying out of a grass strip getting off very short with my 172.
Whatever you decide...Have fun and welcome to the wonderful world of flying!
Keith

[ajfriz]

I totally disagree with the guys saying the PA22 is a better looking plane than the 172. All I can say is, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' because I personally think the 172 is a much nicer looking plane.
I went through the same process as the OP 25 years ago and I just never could get past the 'ugliness' of the flying milk-stool. The price on PA-22 was definitely less than what I would pay for a similarly equipted 172 but the thought of spend big bucks years down the road on a recover made my mind up for me. Heck a recover done by a licensed shop cost 50% plus of what the plane is worth!
I also heard the stories about lack of parts for the O-300.....well, they were just that,...stories. I had mine rebuilt a few years ago and never had any problems getting parts. I really like the engine, very smooth, easy on fuel, and super reliable. If the need to run mogas is an issue, there is an STC for the O-300. I would recommend either getting the prop twisted to a climb pitch if you want to do lots of shorter field stuff.
A buddy of mine has a video of me flying out of a grass strip getting off very short with my 172.
Whatever you decide...Have fun and welcome to the wonderful world of flying!
Keith

I was joking about it being better looking. It's ugly as hell, but that's what makes it look cool.

[M6RV6]

Hi guys
I'm a big guy and flew a pacer from Grand Junction CO. to Nulato AK last spring.
It is a great bird to fly, very responsive, but for me it would have been nice to have had the room in the 172.
As I said 3X and 6'3' kinda reminds me of the old saying about the monkey and the football.
But I was flying and that was my ride so the Dog and I enjoyed it immensely!! I might have got over 500' some times but not very often and spent way more time below 300'.
I quit counting black bears after about 30, and there are a few wolves south of Watson Lake.
If I had had a 172 the dog could have soloed by the time we got there !!
GT

[alaskadrifter]

I don't think there's any 172's out there with 1700lb empty weights, that doesn't sounds right at all. My 170 weighs 1319. I don't think a nosewheel weighs 400lbs.

The 172s at the school here are pigged out at 1700lbs empty with Lyc. 160hp O-360s (you read that right), and G1000s with all that they entail. I always feel like there is a lack of aileron authority. They are fine for training though.

[lesuther]

The Piper shortwings have a nasty corrosion weakness in the door frames and lower fuselages. That MUST be looked into when you are considering buying a milkstool.

Yep. But it is easy to look after, and most I have come across have already had the longerons linseeded, the struts changed to sealed ones, and the door frames proofed the past time they were covered.

The -22 is more fun to fly, although I've never flown one (IFR ). The book says a higher gross, but it will not haul the load up high as easily as the 172 (the service ceiling figures are not realistic for the -22 after running one around a lot in Colorado). I prefer the -22 for 1) handling, 2) simplicity in design, 3) toughness 4) looks. I just like being in them more, even with my 6'8 frame.

The flaps are not used very often. They do help a bit on takeoff actually, but a lot of guys rarely use them even for steep approaches since the airspeed markings show only a couple of mph change in stall, and the the slip is really the best way to address performance landings in the thing. It didn't earn the "Simonized manhole cover" moniker for nothing. There is simply less to wear out, less to inspect, and less to break on the -22. Again, for the very large price difference, you can spend a lot on extra fuel, a small hangar for a few years (with lower insurance), or practically pay for half of a tail wheel conversion by the looks of it.

[qmdv]

I know of a 1956 182 with 206 nose fork, fuel flow meter, week on avionics but less than 100hrs on engine for 40 grand. Good solid plane.

Tim

[dplunkt]

I don't think there's any 172's out there with 1700lb empty weights, that doesn't sounds right at all. My 170 weighs 1319. I don't think a nosewheel weighs 400lbs.

Even Cessna' own site notes a 2,450 gross with about 750 in useful load. A 172 is not a 170 with nose gear. But, to your point I know of some that are down in the 1,500+ range.