# Cessna 172RG Cutlass RG vs Piper PA-28R-201 Arrow

Page: https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/compare/cessna-172rg-vs-piper-pa-28r-201
Guides: https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/cessna-172rg, https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/piper-pa-28r-201

## Where they differ

- Most Cessna 172RGs have the Lycoming O-360; most Piper PA-28R-201s the Lycoming IO-360.
- The Piper PA-28R-201 carries more airframe ADs with a repeat action, 3 against 2: inspections that come back for as long as the AD applies.
- Mechanics report the Cessna 172RG's hydraulic system, main most, and the Piper PA-28R-201's nose/tail landing gear.

## Side by side

| | Cessna 172RG Cutlass RG | Piper PA-28R-201 Arrow |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registered in the US | 437 | 347 |
| Built | 1979 to 1985 | 1977 to 2018 |
| Half built by | 1980 | 1978 |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Most common engine | Lycoming O-360 | Lycoming IO-360 |
| Typical cruise fuel burn | Not set | Not set |
| Engine overhaul interval | 2,000 hr | Not set |
| Current airframe ADs | 25 | 36 |
| Airframe ADs with a repeat action | 2 | 3 |
| Current ADs on the main engine | 24 | 29 |
| Service Difficulty Reports | 11 (25.2 per 1,000) | 20 (57.6 per 1,000) |
| Most-reported system | Hydraulic System, Main | Nose/Tail Landing Gear |
| Accidents since 2008 | 51 (116.7 per 1,000) | 25 (72.0 per 1,000) |
| Fatal accidents since 2008 | 3 | 5 |
| Most common accident | Landing gear not configured | Loss of engine power (total) |

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.