![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wanted to ask the group for their pro's/cons between the Cessna Skyhawk
and Piper Archer 180. 1) What particular year models are more desired than others 2) Which one is easier to re-sell, and which one has more profit potential? 3) Easier to maintain? 4) Etc, etc thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Had an Archer II (similar to the 180) and really liked it.
FWIW: I like the 180hp, less would not be enough for me. Low wing is better vis. for some things (like base to final) and easier to fuel. Low wings are worse for taking Photos. Let's not get into that now. One door ingress & egress on the Archer is a problem for some. -- Thx, {|;-) Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr. "Joe" wrote in message ups.com... Wanted to ask the group for their pro's/cons between the Cessna Skyhawk and Piper Archer 180. 1) What particular year models are more desired than others 2) Which one is easier to re-sell, and which one has more profit potential? 3) Easier to maintain? 4) Etc, etc thanks |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joe wrote:
Wanted to ask the group for their pro's/cons between the Cessna Skyhawk and Piper Archer 180. 1) What particular year models are more desired than others I think there is only one model year that was both called "Archer" and "180", 1975. Before that the Cherokee 180 was called something else, not Archer and after that came the 181 with the tapered wing. This is from memory. Some people like the tapered wing better, but for me, the difference wouldn't be enough to drive a decision one way or the other. The constant cross section (hershey bar) wing works fine. 2) Which one is easier to re-sell, and which one has more profit potential? Pipers are lower cost generally, and that will be also reflected in your resale. I don't think either has any profit advantage. There is a slightly bigger market for the Cessnas because so many people trained in them. That's why the Cessna prices are a little higher. 3) Easier to maintain? No difference. 4) Etc, etc Personal preference. High-wing / low-wing yada yada. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Our 74 Archer is the first year it was called an "Archer". The year before
it was called the Challenger, but only for that one year. That was the year they added 5" to the fuselage and changed the name from Cherokee 180 to acknowledge the change. Don't know why they switched over to Archer the next year; AFAIK there was no difference in the airplane. -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) "Dave Butler" wrote in message news:1126816504.568534@sj-nntpcache-5... Joe wrote: I think there is only one model year that was both called "Archer" and "180", 1975. Before that the Cherokee 180 was called something else, not Archer and after that came the 181 with the tapered wing. This is from memory. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Chilcoat wrote:
: Our 74 Archer is the first year it was called an "Archer". The year before : it was called the Challenger, but only for that one year. That was the year : they added 5" to the fuselage and changed the name from Cherokee 180 to : acknowledge the change. Don't know why they switched over to Archer the : next year; AFAIK there was no difference in the airplane. IIRC the Challenger was the stretched Cherokee 180, but still had hershey bar wings. Don't all the Archers have the taperwings? -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you are going for an Archer keep to the Archer II which will hold the
price better than the 180, Challenger or Archer I. As already reported the Challenger and Archer I were one and the same thing, both having extra inches of cabin length and an couple of feet on its Hershey bar wing span. The first year for the Archer II was, I think, 1976. Most Challengers have a lower useful load than the Archer II, hence not so popular. Pre 1981 Archer II's have a useful load of between about 970and 1050 Lbs. Expect to pay $60,000 to $70,000 for an Archer II with mid time engine and older avionics. Don't buy an Archer II without the Autopilot [Century IIB until early 1980's] as most folk want an AP. The Century IIB [Piper Autocontrol III] does a really fine job and is quite reliable. Of course I fly an Archer II and it serves my mission really well which often have all 4 seats filled with flight legs of 2 to 3 hours. Flight plan for 110 Knots, lean it well and cruise at about 2450 RPM to use about 9.0 to 9.5 GPH. They climb easily to 12,500ft loaded up to max gross weight. A great reliable aircraft that will not cost the earth to maintain and can carry you and the family coast to coast. Roy Archer II N5804F "Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: IIRC the Challenger was the stretched Cherokee 180, but still had hershey bar wings. true. Don't all the Archers have the taperwings? Nope. the '74 and '75 pa-28-180 are Archer I's and have the hershey bar wing. -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Butler" wrote in message news:1126816504.568534@sj-nntpcache-5... I think there is only one model year that was both called "Archer" and "180", 1975. Before that the Cherokee 180 was called something else, not Archer and after that came the 181 with the tapered wing. This is from memory. The 180 horsepower Cherokee was introduced in 1963 as the "Cherokee 180 B". There was no "A" model. 1963-64 Cherokee 180 B 1965-67 Cherokee 180 C 1968-69 Cherokee 180 D 1970 Cherokee 180 E 1971 Cherokee 180 F 1972 Cherokee 180 G 1973 Challenger 1974-75 Archer 1976- Archer II |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think the Archer is more fun to fly, easier to score a "greaser"
landing in, and most of all on long x-c legs (50 gal fuel tanks, yay!) the two front seats are much more comfortable. The cabin is wider than a 172 and there is noticeably more shoulder room between the pilot and co-pilot. I also find Archers to have quieter cabins than Skyhawks too. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Archer Tach Red Arc | Greg Esres | Owning | 15 | February 9th 05 08:28 AM |
World War II Flying 'Ace' Salutes Racial Progress, By Gerry J. Gilmore | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 03:33 AM |
Dreamfleet/flight1 archer c310 FPS? | Tlewis95 | Simulators | 4 | February 2nd 04 12:12 AM |
RNZAF Skyhawk Sale Update | Errol Cavit | Military Aviation | 10 | September 21st 03 09:46 AM |
Piper Archer III or Cessna 172SP | Dale Harwell | Owning | 10 | July 15th 03 04:01 AM |