A Piper Cherokee 140... good first plane?

This same story probably extrapolates to the Cherokee 235

But you can fill a Cherokee 235 up with led anvils and still not exceed
gross! ;-) I'd want a 235 for that reason alone (I'm not getting any
slimmer as I get older) LOL!!!

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:56:18 GMT, "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?

And adding still more confusion... :-))

My opinion and preference would be hands down for the Cherokee 180.
Having flown the 140 and 180 into and out of a relatively short field
on two consecutive flights about a half hour to hour apart, the 180
was off and climbing sooner and steeper than the 140. Yes, the old
Hershey bar wing has a *lot* of sink, but that makes it a relatively
good short field airplane and I could hit pattern altitude by the end
of the runway here at 3BS.

A note he Most Cessna 172 and Cherokee 140/180 pilots use at least
twice as much runway as they really need for landing. Fly them by the
numbers, use good technique and both will really open eyes at how
short they will really land.

The Cessna 172 with 180 or 190 HP (Hawk) has the ability to get out of
some really tight spots and it scoots right along, but one of those in
good shape might be a tad pricey.

Even pushing hard, the Cherokee 180 doesn't burn all that much more
fuel than the 140. I used to burn about 8 GPH at 75% and maybe 130 to
135 MPH (the speed is a bit hazy). Coming from Gainesville GA to
Cincinnati Lunken we hit some strong winds. I went up high, throttled
back, leaned it out and about 5 hours later landed with something on
the order of 22 gallons left.

Surprisingly, under normal conditions the 172 is more likely to float
than the Cherokee 180. Full flaps on the 180 add a lot of drag and
that wing has a lot of dihedral.

Maintenance should be about the same through the range of these planes
depending mostly on their history.

If you are just going to fly around looking at the scenery the 172
offers a much better view. The Cherokee will ride the bumps much
better. The heavier 180 a little bit better than the 140.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Confused....

--

Since you can't fly all the time anyway have you concidered getting a
partner to split all the costs with? We have had our Mooney almost a
year now and there have been several times when I was glad that my
portion of the bill was only half. We have a nice plane that fits our
missions well. A nice traveling plane that is a very stable instrument
platform. Perfect for when I decide to get my commercial ticket (having
too much fun now to even think about it). My partnership runs so well it
seems like I own the aircraft but only pay half the bills. I have not
had one scheduling conflict yet. I also was able to get a much better
aircraft than I would have been able to afford by my self. Remember to
put 10% of the aircraft price back for first year gotcha's. You will
need it.

I have found airplane ownership a very rewarding, life and checkbook
altering experience. The bottom line is going to be that ownership is
going to be more expensive then you think it is. Unless you fly 150-200
hours a year (very doubtful) than ownership will be more than renting.

The good news is that the market for used airplanes is very soft right
now. You should be able to find a very good deal. Determine what kind of
plane you want and then start the search. The joy is truley in the
journey. You will get a lot of good advise in these groups. Probably
some bad advise too. Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

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?

Confused....

In article 1125604186.490738@sj-nntpcache-3, Dave Butler wrote:

Some random observations:

The up-front cost of a higher powered Cherokee is higher.

The fuel cost for a higher powered Cherokee is higher.

not for mine. I had my cherokee 140 for nine years before upgrading
the engine to 160hp during an overhaul. I'm still burning about 8 gph.

And a friend had a 180, his fuel burn was 10 gph when running at 75%.
He usually ran it less than that and would see 8 gph at speeds at least
as fast as a 140.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

xyzzy wrote:

As someone with experience as an owner, could you (or other owners who
have experienced that) expand on that?

Back in 1994, Maule put their aircraft on sale. I discovered that I could buy a
brand new MX-7 with 160 hp for $45,000. So I worked out the financing and bout
one. By the time I got a few avionics in it and a gyro panel, it could haul 806
pounds.

I figured that was fine; I weighed 150 and I was single. I ordered the plane.
Mission: mostly boring holes with a few long-distance vacation runs every year.

By the time I picked it up I was engaged to a lovely woman who weighed less than
I and had a 7 year old who weighed 40 pounds. Still good to go, but it really
would've been nice if it had occurred to me that we might need a bigger plane.

The next year, we took our one-and-only aerial vacation trip to Sanibel,
Florida. During the next three years, we took a few trips to Tennessee for short
family visits, but vacations were pretty much out of the question by 1998.

By 2002, I weighed 180, Peter weighed 190, and Elisabeth weighed more than she
did when we married (but still less than I). We could not fill the tanks, get in
the plane, and be at or below MGW. We made one day trip that year to see the
Blue Angels perform at Schenectady. Partial tanks, of course. That was the last
time Peter flew in the plane.

I sold the Maule last February.

In one sense, that's not mission creep, since the mission (take aerial
vacations) didn't really change, but the mission really used to be to carry 150
pounds of people plus a week's worth of luggage and that certainly changed.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

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

: I bet if you run a 180hp cherokee at the same TAS as a 140/150/160,
: the fuel burn will be damn close to the same. The 180 simply provides
: the option to run at a higher power setting, and hence higher speed
: and fuel flow.

: This same story probably extrapolates to the Cherokee 235.

It does. Take any specific airframe that has the options of different engines. The PA28 with a
150/160/180/235 hp engine will cruise the same speed with the same fuel burn at a constant *total* hp. For example,
75% in a 160 hp, 65% in a 180 hp, and 45% in a 235... all will be 8.5 gph. Drag power goes as the cube of the speed.
Consider a PA24 (available with a 180/250/260/400 hp engine)... it scales with the cube.

The only difference is that compression ratio is "free" power... more "bang for the bang." A 160 hp will have
the same fuel flow gph as a 150 (percentage-wise).

- Cory


--

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

: $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.

That's what finally sold me on the PA28. Remember that even though the "book" fuel capacity of a PA28-140 is
36 gallons, it can hold 50... that can be very useful for a two-person cross-country. Something like a 6-7 hour
endurance at low power cruise... not too bad for a trainer-class plane.

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

True... the PA28-140 has pretty bad baggage room unless the back seats are removed. Also, back seats have no
legroom for a real adult. In a pinch they work, though.

: 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

Stretched fuselage by a few inches... good call. They fetch a fair bit more price, however.
-Cory
--

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

In article hMPRe.8089$__1.6277@trnddc07, wrote:

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.

unless you change the prop. My 140 with 160hp engine and the 60 inch prop
(same combo as the warrior) cruises faster and climbs better than it did
before the conversion.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

We have owned a 74' 140 for 11 years now. With no kids and few other
couples interested in flying, it has worked out pretty well. Climb
performance with the 150hp engine is pretty weak. The average 105kt
cruise speed is also not stellar, but O.K. with light winds. We usually
only travel 1/2 hour to 4 hour flights with the bulk being less than 1
hour, so it is not a real concern. Useful load is also a bit light (mine
is 729lbs.).

There are times when another 20kts of speed, 300fpm climb, and 150lbs.
of load would have been great. But, I suspect that once we had it, we
would only want more.

Maintenance has been on "our" schedule, not the plane's. This is because
the previous owner did it right and we continue the pattern.

The biggest trouble with 140s is that most were/are used as trainers
and/or are beat up with lots of hours. We now have 2600 hours and have
painted it, replaced the interior, and replaced (not overhauled) or
upgraded most other things. Few 140s have had this life. Matter of fact,
most are flying junk in my opinion. This is also true of may 180s. I
keep my eyes peeled for the "right" deal. After 11 years, I have not
seen one I would go back into hock for. Since the 140 now has nearly
everything we need, it is even harder to justify a swap. Almost every
Warrior I look at is even in worse shape. 5000 HARD hours plus and worn
out in nearly every way. Archers are out of the question financially. I
could afford it, but there is no way I want that kind of money tied up
in an airplane. If you go with an Archer, most have led pampered lives
and you will pay for it.

We have just adjusted our expectations to match the plane instead of the
reverse. I also find new "projects" to keep it interesting.

Skyhawks are a lot like Apple computers. They have quite a few tricks of
their own to make them interesting. They also have a fierce "fan club"
of people willing to pay unreasonable prices to get them. Hence, they
may not be worth the money for people not similarly afflicted.

The best thing going for 140s and Skyhawks are the vast numbers
available, especially for 172s. Plenty of parts, upgrades, STCs, and PMA
parts available. Once you own an airplane for a while you will
appreciate this fact.

Good Luck,
Mike