The Cessna 182 Skylane brings real four-seat load, the Archer brings lower running costs, so the choice is capability against economy.
Both aircraft have four seats and only one of them routinely fills them. That is the whole decision. Once fuel for a real trip is aboard, the Archer is a two-adult aeroplane with bags, while the 182 keeps a usable fourth seat and still has the legs to make the trip without a stop. If the flying is a couple of people, local and often, the Archer costs less to buy and less to keep and you will never meet what it cannot do. If there is a family aboard, or the cabin is routinely loaded, the capability of the 182 is the reason to accept the higher burn and the dearer annual.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna 182T SkylaneView aircraft profile | Piper Archer LXView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Estimated purchase | €580k | €419k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €43k | €34k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €797k | €589k |
| Cruise speed | 145 kt | 128 kt |
| Advertised range | 915 nm | 522 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 365 kg | 293 kg |
| Runway need | 461 m | 490 m |
| Landing gear | Fixed tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | None beyond the certificate | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172. | Predictable, comfortable and widely supported, but performance is conservative and four-person trips require loading discipline. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Piper Archer LX is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Cessna 182T Skylane | Piper Archer LX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $811k (€751k) | $598k (€554k) | $213k (€197k) to Piper Archer LX |
| 100 h / year | $886k (€820k) | $655k (€607k) | $231k (€214k) to Piper Archer LX |
| 200 h / year | $1.01m (€935k) | $750k (€694k) | $260k (€241k) to Piper Archer LX |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 613 nm from the Cessna 182T Skylane against 350 nm from the Piper Archer LX. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Cessna 182T Skylane has enough runway at 27,184 of them and the Piper Archer LX at 26,780, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,512 ft and 1,608 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Neither carries an endorsement or rating requirement of its own beyond a pilot certificate for the category and class.
Four-seat high-performance touring and utility aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172.
Planning snapshot: $626k (€580k) indicative price and $47k (€43k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFour-seat personal touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Predictable, comfortable and widely supported, but performance is conservative and four-person trips require loading discipline.
Planning snapshot: $453k (€419k) indicative price and $37k (€34k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile