Skyhawk versus Archer?

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

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

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.

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.

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

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

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

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.

Agreed, the Piper Archer is a great aircraft. It does everything okay, and
nothing terrible -- which is about as good as it gets in a Spam Can. And
it will out-perform a standard Skyhawk in every measure. (Of course, with
20 or 30 extra horsepower, it's not really a fair comparison. You really
should be comparing it with the Skyhawk XP...)

If you buy an Archer, don't forget to join the Cherokee Pilots Association.
See them at http://www.piperowner.com/ Don't let the amateurish website
fool you. Their on-line "Cherokee Chat" offers an unbelievable wealth of
Cherokee knowledge that you won't find anywhere else.

Now if you *really* want the ultimate Cherokee, find yourself a Pathfinder
or a Dakota.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article EapWe.332775$_o.8703@attbi_s71,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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.

Agreed, the Piper Archer is a great aircraft. It does everything okay, and
nothing terrible -- which is about as good as it gets in a Spam Can. And
it will out-perform a standard Skyhawk in every measure. (Of course, with
20 or 30 extra horsepower, it's not really a fair comparison. You really
should be comparing it with the Skyhawk XP...)

Of course, keep in mind that the Archer will burn more fuel than the 172.
I flight plan the Archer at 8.5 GPH (and 2350 RPM). The 172 burns more
like 7 GPH. With the price of fuel these days, that's a good $5/hr cheaper
to operate.

But the bottom line is both the 172 and the Archer are good, simple,
reliable airplanes. Nothing outstanding from either in the way of
performance, but cheap to operate (by aviation standards), and any mechanic
anywhere will be familiar with working on them.

: Of course, keep in mind that the Archer will burn more fuel than the 172.
: I flight plan the Archer at 8.5 GPH (and 2350 RPM). The 172 burns more
: like 7 GPH. With the price of fuel these days, that's a good $5/hr cheaper
: to operate.

... only if you cruise it at 75%. If you cruise at the same absolute hp (e.g.
65% on a 180 vs. 75% on a 160), they burn the same. Approx 8-8.5 gph. I doubt a 172
with 150/160hp at 75% only burns 7 gph unless you're only running 60%... you need
fuel to make power.

That said, the Skyhawk vs. Archer has pretty much been beat to death.
Ignoring high/low wing debates, and the single-door that's already been mentioned,
they tend to fly about the same. Not sporty by any stretch, but not overly heavy
either. The biggest difference is in the sink/stall characteristics. The hershey-bar
cherokees (e.g. the Archer I as explained previously) has a very benign stall. They
also have a fairly high sink rate by comparison to a 172. I'm not so sure about the
taper-wing variety... I think they're somewhere in the middle.

Skyhawks carry a $5-10k premium over equivalent Cherokees. Most likely due to
"everyone" training in a Cessna. My feelings were Pipers give more bang for the buck.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************