Looking for the first plane

I've flown the M models,, don't like the clunky flap switch (really just a
toggle swtich ya hold for each increment of flaps) and it has a little less
HP.

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message
...

Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to
be at least an N model.

Why not an old 172? Why 'N' or later?

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message news
I've flown the M models,, don't like the clunky flap switch (really just a toggle swtich ya hold for each increment
of flaps) and it has a little less HP.

The 1960 A model I have uses the Johnson bar for flaps...no toggle switch there...

-----Original Message-----
From: Blueskies ]
Posted At: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:06 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: Looking for the first plane
Subject: Looking for the first plane


"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message
news
I've flown the M models,, don't like the clunky flap switch (really
just a toggle swtich ya hold for each increment
of flaps) and it has a little less HP.

The 1960 A model I have uses the Johnson bar for flaps...no toggle
switch
there...

....and your O-300 six cylinder runs so much smoother leaned out at
cruise too. I've never really understood the 145 vs. 150 or 160 horse
arguments. When you consider a 65% cruise power setting, it really boils
down to at most a 9 HP difference.



Kindest regards,
Jim Carter

Politicians fear most an armed, educated electorate.

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message
...

I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find
the climb performance too much of a dog to be useful for even pleasure
flying. Some have suggested a Warrior, instead.

Ideas regarding the Cherokee 140 (which has a 150 HP I believe?) .????

Most of the Cherokee 140s came out as 150HP. I believe there were a few
140HP two seaters as well. When the Warrior came out, I believe it was also
a 150HP. The Warrior II was 160HP.

The conversion from 150 to 160HP is negligable when done at overhaul. The
difference between the two engines are pisting and wrist pins (whatever
wrist pins are).

When I had mine overhauled, I also had the prop rebuilt and repitched.

Flying to Oshkosh one year with two Warrior IIs and two C172s (160HP as
well - don't know the models) we all flew the same speed, at the same power
settings and same fuel burn. One of the 172s was a few knots slower, as it
had been flipped during a hurricane many years ago, and was somewhat out of
rig.

The 140 with the 160 upgrade is a great two seater, or even a three-seater.
Two full size humans cannot fit in the back.

As Bob wrote, mine is presently for sale. I have found out that this is not
a good time to be selling a plane. I've gotten one low-ball offer since I
started advertising. I'm asking $27, he offered $23.

Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model.

Hmmm... as the owner of a very clean, stable, dependable "M" model,
I'm curious as to why your index of approval starts with "N"?

Best Regards,
Todd

On Jul 30, 12:25 pm, three-eight-hotel
wrote:
Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model.

Hmmm... as the owner of a very clean, stable, dependable "M" model,
I'm curious as to why your index of approval starts with "N"?

Best Regards,
Todd

Dohh! Just saw your post! Never-mind... :-))

Mine, however, doesn't have the notched flap switch, and has the 160
hp conversion... It's not a screamer, and not incredibly sexy, but it
sure is a great first plane!

I've got a Cherokee 140 with a 180hp conversion and a field-approved baggage compartment in
addition to the back seats, so my own personal performance specs are slightly skewed. A buddy of mine
has a Cherokee 150 (Same backseat as a 180, but with the same 150 hp engine as a 140) though, so I know
the difference in performance.

Bottom line: A PA28-140 is a great first airplane as long as you don't plan on taking 3 or 4
real people anywhere very far. It'll do 3 without any luggage and mostly-full fuel, but 4 would be kinda
a pucker factor anywhere other than sea-level DA takeoff with minimal fuel. My home airport (Southwest
Virginia) is at 2100' MSL and routinely gets over 4000' DA during the summer and does just fine (600-700
fpm to 6000' DA, 300-500 up to 9000' DA) with full fuel, two real adults, and 150 lbs of luggage.

The big advantage of a Cherokee 140 is the "oversized" tanks. Don't look too hard at the
"full-fuel payload" of different planes It's a ****ty measure of aircraft performance. If a plane has
bigger tanks, it's got more utility than one with smaller tanks... they don't have to be full. The
50-gallon capacity of the PA-28's tanks is what convinced me to get that over the Cessna 150 for cheap
flying. It's got range enough to go places. I just flew back from OSH, and have done the trip between
Milwaukee and Virginia about 20 times in the 5 years I've owned the plane. Even flew it to Alaska up the
highway.

It's tough to get anything much faster unless the wheels come up (Mooney, Comanche), it burns a
lot of fuel (Cessna 182, PA28-235), or costs a lot (Cirrus). A Grumman Cheetah or Tiger have about the
same market value of a 172 (5-10k more than a comparable PA-28).

Hope that helps. (You still haven't described your mission completely... how many people and
luggage?)

-Cory

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
: sheepish grin..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
: and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
: g... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
: a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end
: Grin). Instructing in one would not be an interest at all,,, both in
: terms of liability/insurance costs nor would I likely be as good as an
: instructor if it were my own plane I were using to instruct in (i.e.,
: jumping in when it looks like a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby'
: g).

: Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others who
: have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described. The few
: I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared to aircraft
: with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the boat as to why I
: fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is nice,,,, but it is the
: journey that makes it all worthwhile.

: I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and enjoyed
: every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90 knots...
: always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on the
: destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up there'....
:

: Am I forgiven now for my slip..... grin

: --
: =-----
: Good Flights!

: Cecil E. Chapman

: Certificated Flight Instructor
: Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
: Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

: Member of:
: National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
: Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
: Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

: Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
: checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
: Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

: "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
: - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

: "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
: this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
: - Cecil Day Lewis -

: "Blanche" wrote in message
: ...
: Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
: I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
: an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.
:
: Hm...a long-time reader/contributor to this group, and he forgets the
: Number One question of all-time wanna-buyers? tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.
:
: "What's the mission?"
:
: What are you going to do with it? Any plans to teach in it? Short-range
: travel? Long cross-countries?
:



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

It's tough to get anything much faster unless the wheels come up (Mooney, Comanche), it burns a
lot of fuel (Cessna 182, PA28-235), or costs a lot (Cirrus). A Grumman Cheetah or Tiger have about the
same market value of a 172 (5-10k more than a comparable PA-28).

Hope that helps. (You still haven't described your mission completely... how many people and
luggage?)


Defining the mission is really important. If put-puting around every
other weekend by yourself is the mission then a 140 is great. If you
want to actually go somehwere, not too far away with a passenger and
some luggage then that's another mission profile.... you need a 180
(or a 172 [180 hp]). If you want to go farther away with a passenger
and luggage and get there without spending hours droning along at 130
Kts then you need a retract (Comanche/Mooney).

Beyond that, if money is no object there are even more options.

: Defining the mission is really important. If put-puting around every
: other weekend by yourself is the mission then a 140 is great. If you
: want to actually go somehwere, not too far away with a passenger and
: some luggage then that's another mission profile.... you need a 180
: (or a 172 [180 hp]). If you want to go farther away with a passenger
: and luggage and get there without spending hours droning along at 130
: Kts then you need a retract (Comanche/Mooney).

: Beyond that, if money is no object there are even more options.

Don't think I can agree with that. A 140 is a solid, 2-place travelling plane. If you're "putt-putting around every
other weekend by yourself," then a Cessna 150 is more the class of plane. A Cherokee 140 is a fair bit more plane than a C150.
The only exception to this that I can think of is if you fly out west and need to safely go over 8000' DA with two people and
luggage.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model.


In my opinion that would be a mistake.
The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
if you look after it.

FWIW

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE