Skyhawk versus Archer?

In article ,
wrote:
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.


Agree, but in this debate there is one very significant difference: the
extra 20hp. In my opinion, the 160hp C172 is underpowered unless you
plan to be a solo flyer.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
: Agree, but in this debate there is one very significant difference: the
: extra 20hp. In my opinion, the 160hp C172 is underpowered unless you
: plan to be a solo flyer.

I did say *comparable* aircraft. That would be a 150hp C172 vs. PA-28-140.
More bang for the buck in the Piper. There aren't too many 180hp C172's that are the
same age as most of the Archers, so it's not really a fair comparison. In the lower
HP range, though, (150 or 160) the Cessna brings $5-10K more than a comparable Piper.

As someone who trained in an 145hp O-300, I can't say I'd agree with the last
bit either. In fact, the older 172's tend to perform better on less engine because
they're not weighted down with extra radios, other equipment, and sound treatment.
The straight-tails in particular have good performance.

-Cory

--

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

"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

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Agree, but in this debate there is one very significant difference: the
extra 20hp.

Numerous older skyhawks have been converted to 180hp. I just helped my club
buy one, and there were plenty on the market (although they were the
minority, admittedly).

Most still had fixed pitch props, but I did find one example that had been
upgraded to a constant speed prop. Amusingly, while I'd never heard of
that done before on a 172, the owner of that plane had never heard of a
180hp upgrade w/o the constant speed prop.

This aviation stuff is fun.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
: Jonathan Goodish wrote:

: Agree, but in this debate there is one very significant difference: the
: extra 20hp.

: Numerous older skyhawks have been converted to 180hp. I just helped my club
: buy one, and there were plenty on the market (although they were the
: minority, admittedly).

: Most still had fixed pitch props, but I did find one example that had been
: upgraded to a constant speed prop. Amusingly, while I'd never heard of
: that done before on a 172, the owner of that plane had never heard of a
: 180hp upgrade w/o the constant speed prop.

: This aviation stuff is fun.

I think that 180hp (or the rarely-seen 168hp low-compression version of the
O-360) is a great engine for a trainer++ class plane. As far as the constant-speed,
the only thing it really buys you is load/climb. If you don't get a gross weight
increase with a C/S 180hp upgrade, IMO it's not worth the added expense. As I've said
many time before, airframe determines speed (within reason)... not engine.

Just FYI, our -140 with a 180hp engine upgrade could have had the C/S as
well... it's and option with the engine STC paperwork.

-Cory

--

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

But you can throttle back and only burn 7 if you want to. Most of the
time you aren't in a hurry so why 75% it? The extra speed, climb, and
payload is there if you need it but you don't have to burn 8.5 if
you don't want to.


Trip

In article , says...

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.

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.