# Cessna 172N Skyhawk vs Piper PA-28-161 Warrior

Page: https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/compare/cessna-172n-vs-piper-pa-28-161
Guides: https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/cessna-172n, https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/piper-pa-28-161

## Where they differ

- There are more Cessna 172Ns to choose from: 3,098 registered against 1,501.
- The Piper PA-28-161 burns more fuel in a typical cruise: about 8.5 gallons an hour against 8.
- The Cessna 172N carries more airframe ADs with a repeat action, 4 against 3: inspections that come back for as long as the AD applies.

## Side by side

| | Cessna 172N Skyhawk | Piper PA-28-161 Warrior |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registered in the US | 3,098 | 1,501 |
| Built | 1976 to 1980 | 1977 to 2015 |
| Half built by | 1978 | 1979 |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Most common engine | Lycoming O-320 | Lycoming O-320 |
| Typical cruise fuel burn | 8 gal/hr | 8.5 gal/hr |
| Engine overhaul interval | 2,000 hr | 2,000 hr |
| Current airframe ADs | 38 | 59 |
| Airframe ADs with a repeat action | 4 | 3 |
| Current ADs on the main engine | 24 | 24 |
| Service Difficulty Reports | 64 (20.7 per 1,000) | 102 (68.0 per 1,000) |
| Most-reported system | Reciprocating Engine Cylinder Section | Reciprocating Engine Cylinder Section |
| Accidents since 2008 | 227 (73.3 per 1,000) | 110 (73.3 per 1,000) |
| Fatal accidents since 2008 | 40 | 19 |
| Most common accident | Loss of control on ground | Loss of control on ground |

Report and accident counts are not rates: the hours each model flies are not published. Sources: the FAA aircraft registry, Airworthiness Directives and Service Difficulty Reports, and the NTSB aviation accident database.