A classic low-cost PA-28 Cherokee against the fuel-injected Cessna 172 Skyhawk, the two default routes into first ownership.
The Cherokee can be the more honest first aircraft because it leaves room in the purchase budget for a pre-buy, avionics and the maintenance an old airframe will inevitably request. It is not the bargain if those items have merely been deferred. The 172 buys better performance, a wider support and training ecosystem, and easier resale, but much of its premium is liquidity rather than mission capability. Compare two actual logbooks, not two model names. A well-kept Cherokee with a trusted local PA-28 shop beats a neglected Skyhawk; without that inspection advantage, the newer Cessna is the lower-risk place to put the money.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Piper PA-28-140 CherokeeView aircraft profile | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SPView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 1967 | 2019 |
| Estimated purchase | €55k | €497k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €72k | €32k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €417k | €655k |
| Cruise speed | 105 kt | 124 kt |
| Advertised range | 500 nm | 640 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 343 kg | 301 kg |
| Runway need | 520 m | 497 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 | Affordable and forgiving, but performance is modest and many aircraft now need substantial refurbishment. | Exceptionally easy to support and resell, but four adults with bags and meaningful fuel are usually unrealistic. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee 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 | Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $427k (€396k) | $671k (€621k) | $244k (€226k) to Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee |
| 100 h / year | $461k (€427k) | $726k (€672k) | $265k (€245k) to Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee |
| 200 h / year | $518k (€480k) | $818k (€757k) | $300k (€278k) to Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee |
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 335 nm from the Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee against 429 nm from the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP. 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 Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee has enough runway at 26,235 of them and the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP at 26,749, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,706 ft and 1,631 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 light trainer and local tourer. Its central ownership trade-off is: Affordable and forgiving, but performance is modest and many aircraft now need substantial refurbishment.
Planning snapshot: $59k (€55k) indicative price and $78k (€72k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFour-seat training and personal touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Exceptionally easy to support and resell, but four adults with bags and meaningful fuel are usually unrealistic.
Planning snapshot: $537k (€497k) indicative price and $34k (€32k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile