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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#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
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
: 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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |