On 1-Sep-2005, "Cecil Chapman" wrote:

I'm beginning the process of looking for my own plane and have heard lots
of advice. Most have advised against getting something like a Cherokee
140
and opt instead for something like a Cessna 172 or a Cherokee 180. Now,
most
172 N's that I've flown have a 160 HP engine. It is my understanding that
the Cherokee 140 has a 150 HP
engine (about comparable to the engine size of a 172M). Will I really
miss out on the extra 10 hp difference
between the C172N and the Cherokee 140?


For a given airframe, going from 150 to 160 hp will have a negligible impact
of cruise speed. Maybe a couple of knots in this category of airplane. The
bigger difference will be in climb performance.

I have owned (with partners) both a Cherokee 140 and a 172M and have
hundreds of hours in each (and now fly an Arrow). Some observations:

If you routinely carry more than two people, a Cherokee 140 may cause you
some frustrations. The back seat will accommodate children comfortably
enough, and the useful load will allow carrying 4 adults (with fuel
restrictions), but back seat space isn't great. Also, there is minimal
baggage room behind the rear seats. But it's fine for carrying 4 off for a
$100 burger. If your typical mission is one or two on a XC, I would
actually prefer the 140 because of its large fuel capacity and resulting
excellent range, particularly for IFR.

The C-172 has much more rear seat room, plus a real baggage compartment. It
is an excellent "family" airplane, but without much performance.

For comparable equipment and condition you will pay considerably more for
the 172. Maintenance costs will likely be about the same. Flying
characteristics? I prefer the Cherokee. It seems to handle more precisely,
and to my taste is more fun to fly.

If you like the Cherokee but need the ability to carry 3 or 4 on a regular
basis, and want to stick to an airplane in the 150-160 HP class, consider
the Piper Warrior

--
-Elliott Drucker