Convert Cherokee 140 to 180?

[Tim Long]

Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.

We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.

Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:

1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
3 - 180 hp conversion

Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
cowling/engine mount mods.

I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Tim Long > wrote:

> Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:
>
> 1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
> 2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
> improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
> 3 - 180 hp conversion
>
> Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
> require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
> cowling/engine mount mods.

#1 and/or #2 are not that expensive but wouldn't make the 140 into
a 160. That is, it is likely that a comparable 160 would sell for more
than a 140 converted to 160hp.

>
> I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
> whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
> complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
> avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
> lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.
>

(note: I own a cheroke 140)

One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the speed
increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.

The Cherokee Pilot's Association had an article on a 180 conversion a long
time ago. The bottomline was that the 180hp conversion was not worth it.

btw - if you convert to 160hp, also re-pitch the prop so that you can gain
higher cruise speed (the 160hp 140 will fly just about warrior numbers if
you use warrior power settings).

good luck.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Jay Masino]

Tim Long > wrote:
> 1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
> 2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
> improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
> 3 - 180 hp conversion


I've heard that #3 is very expensive. More than just getting an O-360
(180hp) overhauled.

My 140 has both #1 and #2. I also have the full Knots2U kit, Metco
wingtips, etc. It now performs fairly close (maybe a little short) to a
180's performance. Of course, this is still using it as a 1 or 2 person
plane, with occasional 3rd person. Since I fly mostly alone, I never
have a concern about performance, even on hot and muggy summer days. I
think that #1 and #2, plus some gap seal kit is the most cost effective
performance improvement. Another thing to consider adding would be the
Lasar ignition system.

Another topic for consideration is wheter you'll ever want to get the auto
gas STC. Converting to 160hp requires 100LL, but you can get the Petersen
STC, if you have the Powerflow exhaust. Apparently the stock 140 exhaust,
when combined with the 160hp upgrade, doesn't qualify (the exhaust is too
close to the firewall). Unfortunately, the Petersen STC costs almost
$1500. The higher compression requires changes to the fuel system,
including adding an additional electric pump (total of 2), in order to
avoid vapor lock. So, if you ever think you'd like to burn autogas, you'd
want to take this into consideration. Note that the 180hp lycoming also
has the higher compression pistons, so also requires the more expensive
STC (and mods) if you want to burn autogas. Also note that the use of
the Lasar ignition system also disqualifies you from using autogas.

For now, I'm still using 100LL.


--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[xyzzy]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Tim Long > wrote:
>
>
>>Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:
>>
>>1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
>>2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
>>improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
>>3 - 180 hp conversion
>>
>>Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
>>require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
>>cowling/engine mount mods.
>
>
> #1 and/or #2 are not that expensive but wouldn't make the 140 into
> a 160. That is, it is likely that a comparable 160 would sell for more
> than a 140 converted to 160hp.
>
>
>>I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
>>whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
>>complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
>>avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
>>lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.
>>
>
>
> (note: I own a cheroke 140)
>
> One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the speed
> increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.

Interesting, my club has Warriors that have an STC raising the MGW to
2440 lbs. There isn't a similar STC for the 140?

[xyzzy]

Tim Long wrote:

> Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
>
> We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.
>

I fly warriors in a club and have been toying with the idea of buying a
140. I don't know if I'd be happy with less plane than I am flying now,
but for 99% of the flying I do, a 140 would be sufficient, at least on
paper. Hell, for 90% of the flying I do an Ercoupe or a Tripacer would
be sufficient, but I'm not willing to go that small and limited since
the 140 isn't THAT much more expensive to buy.

What do you mean by a dog? Useful load, speed, what? What kind of TAS
do you get in cruise? I'd be curious to hear this kind of feedback from
140 drivers, especially if they have also flown Warriors, 160s, or 180s
and can give comparative experience.

[Marco Leon]

I don't think there is one for the 140. That STC is based on the fact that
later Warrior II's (1982 + I believe) have that gross weight of 2440 out of
the factory with the same specs. The STC (from a place at my home
airport--FRG) is purely a paperwork STC--no modifications are done on the
aircraft.

Marco Leon


"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Tim Long > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:
> >>
> >>1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
> >>2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
> >>improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
> >>3 - 180 hp conversion
> >>
> >>Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
> >>require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
> >>cowling/engine mount mods.
> >
> >
> > #1 and/or #2 are not that expensive but wouldn't make the 140 into
> > a 160. That is, it is likely that a comparable 160 would sell for more
> > than a 140 converted to 160hp.
> >
> >
> >>I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a
plane
> >>whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
> >>complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have
better
> >>avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend
a
> >>lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.
> >>
> >
> >
> > (note: I own a cheroke 140)
> >
> > One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the
speed
> > increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.
>
> Interesting, my club has Warriors that have an STC raising the MGW to
> 2440 lbs. There isn't a similar STC for the 140?
>

[Marco Leon]

Why don't you get a Warrior? There are some OK ones going for between
$30-$40K. My uncle is looking for his own. Right now he is partnering with
me on my Warrior. IMHO, the Warrior is one of the better values out there.
They go almost as fast (according to the Piper single Engine catalog, the
difference is 1 kt!) and about 100 lbs less useful load for an average of
$20-$30K cheaper than an Archer.

Marco Leon
N36616



"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Long wrote:

> I fly warriors in a club and have been toying with the idea of buying a
> 140. I don't know if I'd be happy with less plane than I am flying now,
> but for 99% of the flying I do, a 140 would be sufficient, at least on
> paper. Hell, for 90% of the flying I do an Ercoupe or a Tripacer would
> be sufficient, but I'm not willing to go that small and limited since
> the 140 isn't THAT much more expensive to buy.
>
> What do you mean by a dog? Useful load, speed, what? What kind of TAS
> do you get in cruise? I'd be curious to hear this kind of feedback from
> 140 drivers, especially if they have also flown Warriors, 160s, or 180s
> and can give comparative experience.
>

[xyzzy]

Marco Leon wrote:

> Why don't you get a Warrior? There are some OK ones going for between
> $30-$40K.

I was lured into looking at 140s because I was looking at Air/Ercoupes
and then realized that 140s with a lot more capability than Air/Ercoupes
could be had for not much more than people are asking for decent
Air/Ercoupes (up to mid 20's for the Alon models), with the added
advantage of being a relatively standard airframe. Going up to Warrior
money is a significantly bigger step. Since it's all fantasy and not
likely to actually happen at this point, I can look into that too :)
Also I fly in a club that has Warriors and is a pretty good deal, so if
I bought my own I'd simply be paying more and taking all the finanical
risks and responsbilities, to fly the same thing (but with sole
availability to me)

> My uncle is looking for his own. Right now he is partnering with
> me on my Warrior. IMHO, the Warrior is one of the better values out there.
> They go almost as fast (according to the Piper single Engine catalog, the
> difference is 1 kt!) and about 100 lbs less useful load for an average of
> $20-$30K cheaper than an Archer.

Funny you should mention that, my club has Warriors but has a faction
that wants Archers (I doubt these debates EVER end in clubs). Those who
want the Archers say they are 10-15kt faster, those who don't make the
exact case you made, but they say they are 5-7kt faster, not just 1Kt
faster. And of course people in both factions have flown Archers and
swear by their numbers :)

I'm inclined to agree with you, I'd rather if they were going to spend
that much money that they increase the Warrior fleet size rather than
upgrade the same number of planes, especially since we already have
Mooneys in the feet too.

[[email protected]]

Tim Long > wrote:
: Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
So? If you're Part 91 and the engine isn't having any issues, keep flying!

: We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.
It's a Cherokee... what do you expect (I own one too).

: Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
: require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
: cowling/engine mount mods.
I don't know about the cost, but our plane was modified before we got it.
It's a 140 with a 180 hp engine, AND it's been modified to have the later-style
cowling. The fiberglass clamshell type, not the aluminum flip-side style. As such,
it has the dual exhaust with mufflers under the carb, not by the firewall. I have no
idea how much all that cost, but I'm sure it was expensive... even way back when the
guy we got it from did it.

: I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
: whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
: complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
: avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
: lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.

I've flown a number of different Cherokees, and I can attest that the 140/150
varieties are quite doggy. As far as climb goes, a 180 doesn't really buy you that
much as far as making the fpm more, but it will hold the same fpm with more load and
at a higher altitude. The PA-28 Hershey airframe just sucks at climbing. What
really does help the low-speed performance (and to some degree climb) are Matteson's
VG's. Four little tabs on each wing root lowers light-weight stall by 10-15mph from
my experimentation.

If you have any thoughts of autogassing, you're kinda stuck with what you've
got. Both the 160 and 180 require the new cowling (as someone else mentioned). The
O-360 HP STC that I've got (Avcon) does allow for a low-compression version, which
would be 168hp. You'd want to check for sure from Peterson if that airframe/engine
combo is approved (it's awfully weird so it may not be). It's be just as expensive as
a 180hp, but would allow you to run autogas.

I've got a friend with a 140/160 with the prop mod, powerflow exhaust,
Matteson VG's, etc and at least with 2 people it climbs as good or a bit better than
my 180. If you're overhauling the engine anyway, your best bang for the buck is
probably a 160hp conversion. If you need a new exhaust maybe do the powerflow, but
it's pricey for what you get.

It really boils down to if you want better climb (or reduced-pucker hauling
capacity) or cruise speed. If the former, enjoy the 160 with a non-repitched (thus a
climb) prop. If the latter, sell the plane and buy one that's faster. Speed mods are
almost always not worth it.

Sorry for the ramblings, but maybe some of them helped.

-Cory

--

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

[Marco Leon]

The book says it's 1 kt faster. The determining factor is the new-style
wheel pants. I put on a set of the pants on my Warrior and I consistently go
into the yellow arch (which starts at 126 kts IAS) below 2000ft MSL. Without
the pants, I would agree that it's more like 7 kts difference. Your club
should have a "fly-off" between both airframes to do some real-life
comparisons. It would be a good reason to fly around for a day.

From a strict value perspective, I think the Archer is not worth the 50%
premium in purchase price over the Warrior.

Marco Leon

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Marco Leon wrote:
>
> > Why don't you get a Warrior? There are some OK ones going for between
> > $30-$40K.
>
> I was lured into looking at 140s because I was looking at Air/Ercoupes
> and then realized that 140s with a lot more capability than Air/Ercoupes
> could be had for not much more than people are asking for decent
> Air/Ercoupes (up to mid 20's for the Alon models), with the added
> advantage of being a relatively standard airframe. Going up to Warrior
> money is a significantly bigger step. Since it's all fantasy and not
> likely to actually happen at this point, I can look into that too :)
> Also I fly in a club that has Warriors and is a pretty good deal, so if
> I bought my own I'd simply be paying more and taking all the finanical
> risks and responsbilities, to fly the same thing (but with sole
> availability to me)
>
> > My uncle is looking for his own. Right now he is partnering with
> > me on my Warrior. IMHO, the Warrior is one of the better values out
there.
> > They go almost as fast (according to the Piper single Engine catalog,
the
> > difference is 1 kt!) and about 100 lbs less useful load for an average
of
> > $20-$30K cheaper than an Archer.
>
> Funny you should mention that, my club has Warriors but has a faction
> that wants Archers (I doubt these debates EVER end in clubs). Those who
> want the Archers say they are 10-15kt faster, those who don't make the
> exact case you made, but they say they are 5-7kt faster, not just 1Kt
> faster. And of course people in both factions have flown Archers and
> swear by their numbers :)
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you, I'd rather if they were going to spend
> that much money that they increase the Warrior fleet size rather than
> upgrade the same number of planes, especially since we already have
> Mooneys in the feet too.
>

[Aaron Coolidge]

xyzzy > wrote:
: What do you mean by a dog? Useful load, speed, what? What kind of TAS
: do you get in cruise? I'd be curious to hear this kind of feedback from
: 140 drivers, especially if they have also flown Warriors, 160s, or 180s
: and can give comparative experience.

Maybe I can help. I have a Cherokee 180 and have flown it 600+ hours. I have
also ferried a Cherokee 140 with the 160HP upgrade back & forth from MA to
FL a few times. I've also flown a Cherokee 140 with 150HP a couple times...

Real world figures with 36 year old airframes (the Cherokees all have METCO
wing tips, the Archer doesn't):
My Cherokee 180, no speed mods, Piper wheel pants, trues out at 141 MPH
at 70 ish % power.
The 160 HP Cherokee 140, no speed mods, Piper wheel pants, trues out at
117 MPH at 70 ish %. It has the AMRD prop tip mod.
The 150 HP Cherokee 140, no speed mods or wheel pants, trues out at
109 MPH at 70 ish %.
An Archer 2 (Old style wheel pants) owned by my friend (we fly in formation)
uses 50 less RPM to get the same TAS as I do.

Climb:
With 1 or 2 people and full fuel I rarely see less than 800 FPM initial
climb in my airplane. I usually see more like 1200 FPM. With the cold
weather, of course, climb performance is even better. In the summer at
gross wt (2400 lbs) I'll see at least 500 FPM.
The 150 HP Cherokee rarely makes 700 FPM, even in the winter. 500 FPM
in the summer is also unusual. (This plane has a tired engine, though.)
The 160 HP Cherokee is a solid 500+ FPM climb in the summer, 2 people and
36 gals of fuel. I haven't flown it in the dead of winter.

Thoughts: The big triangular hole under the Cherokee 140 cowling for
the cooling air exhaust is a tremendous source of drag. I would guess that
the fiberglass cowling on my airplane is the source of most of the speed
change between the 140 and the 180 airplanes. 20 extra HP just shouldn't
change the speed that much. The 20 extra HP also shouldn't make that much
difference in climb performance; I suspect that the much wider chord
prop on the 180 makes a big difference at low speeds. The 180 prop pitch
is also a climb prop pitch, and it can't be changed - it will easily make
redline RPM at any altitude I've flown at. Both 140 aircraft have cruise
props though I don't know the details.

I'd be happy to arrange a demonstration if anyone's in the area.
--
Aaron C. (N9376J)

[xyzzy]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> I'd be happy to arrange a demonstration if anyone's in the area.

Where's "the area"?

[[email protected]]

Tim Long wrote:
> Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
>
> We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.
>
> Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:
>
> 1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)

If you're already doing an overhaul, this is probably the most
cost-effective option on your list.

> 2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
> improvement - can it be combined with #1?)

This one is good if your current exhaust system needs a lot of work
and replacement parts. It's a bit pricey otherwise. The 140 owners I
know that have installed it are very happy with its performance.

> 3 - 180 hp conversion
>
> Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it
would
> require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
> cowling/engine mount mods.

That's the biggie. I know two people who have done the conversion
(was available from Avcon). It's popular out here in the mountainous
west because the 140 is somewhat limited at high density altitudes
found at mountain airports in the summer. Both of the owners were
happy with the resulting performance, but both said that they'd never
do it again. It was more expensive than they thought it would be (lots
of mods required), it took months to complete, they had difficulty
working with the current STC holders (not Avcon) and in the end, they
still had a 140.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Chuck]

>Thoughts: The big triangular hole under the Cherokee 140 cowling for
>the cooling air exhaust is a tremendous source of drag. I would guess that
>the fiberglass cowling on my airplane is the source of most of the speed
>change between the 140 and the 180 airplanes. 20 extra HP just shouldn't
>change the speed that much. The 20 extra HP also shouldn't make that much
>difference in climb performance; I suspect that the much wider chord
>prop on the 180 makes a big difference at low speeds. The 180 prop pitch
>is also a climb prop pitch, and it can't be changed - it will easily make
>redline RPM at any altitude I've flown at. Both 140 aircraft have cruise
>props though I don't know the details.
>
>I'd be happy to arrange a demonstration if anyone's in the area.

No demonstration, but I'd sure like to talk about those numbers.

I purchased an older 180 ('63) about six months ago. She's great for
her primary purpose -- traning. She can climb at ~1000 even in our
San Antonio summers. Four people, temps in the low 90s this past late
summer and she's still going up at 900FPM. So, I agree with that.

I haven't had the opportunity to look up the exact type, but I
strongly suspect a climb prop (not original -- changed in '92).
That's based on performance. It climbs great compared to a 140 and a
140/160mod I've flown. But my speed is horrible compared to those
numbers you quoted.

At ~70% power, I'm lucky to get it to 110knots. The only way she ever
gets into the yellow is decending with power still on!!!

You mentioned the cowl with the big trangular hole in bottom -- well,
that's what I've got. And to make it worse, there is a lip that stick
downwards around the front of the opening -- creating even more drag.

I also saw someone else mention a replacement cowl that improved
airflow, dual exhaust (instead of muffler in front of the firewall),
and less drag. Is that what you have on your 180???



Chuck
N7398W

[[email protected]]

Chuck wrote:
>
> I also saw someone else mention a replacement cowl that improved
> airflow, dual exhaust (instead of muffler in front of the firewall),
> and less drag. Is that what you have on your 180???
>

Chuck,

Your -180 is one of the earliest examples ( a "B" model, I think).
As such, it incorporated the same cowl and restrictive exhaust system
that was used on the lower power models. Beginning with the "C" model
in '65, the -180 cowl was changed to a two-piece fiberglass clamshell
type and the less restrictive dual exhaust was added. With the old
cowl and old exhaust (particularly the latter), I'm not surprised that
you see a cruise of 110 kts. That's not unusual for the earlier
models.

I suppose that you could recowl the plane with a newer version, but
you'd probably have to get some kind of official signoff for a mod like
that (i.e 337 at minimum, field approval worst case). This could be
pretty expensive for minimal returns and there might be issues fitting
the existing exhaust into the newer style cowl.

For the exhaust, Powerflow exhausts are available only for the early
model -180s. It seems that the later model stock dual exhaust was not
very restrictive and didn't warrant a specially modded pipe. If the
-180 Powerflow improvements are similar to those of the -140 with a
similar exhaust, this could improve your engine output significantly.
Of course, the downside is that it's expensive. I'd probably wait
until my exhaust system needed major work, then go with the Powerflow.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Aaron Coolidge]

Chuck > wrote:
: At ~70% power, I'm lucky to get it to 110knots. The only way she ever
: gets into the yellow is decending with power still on!!!

Hmmm, my airplane cruises a needle width into the yellow arc at 70%.

: You mentioned the cowl with the big trangular hole in bottom -- well,
: that's what I've got. And to make it worse, there is a lip that stick
: downwards around the front of the opening -- creating even more drag.

That lip actually reduces drag quite a bit. I read a kitplanes article
a while ago about cooling drag, and the "Cherokee 140" design is almost the
worst except for that lip. Remove the lip, and the design is the worst
possible. I wonder sometimes if Piper intended to make the airplane draggy
to ensure that it didn't compete with the Comanche 180.

: I also saw someone else mention a replacement cowl that improved
: airflow, dual exhaust (instead of muffler in front of the firewall),
: and less drag. Is that what you have on your 180???

Yes, the Cherokee 180 got the 2-piece fiberglass cown and a dual
muffler design in 1965 IIRC (the Cherokee "C"). Mine is a 1968 Cherokee "D".
(I think the Comanche 180 was dropped around 1965, as well, so the
artificially high drag would no longer be required to limit speeds.)
The cooling air outlet is lower than the rest of the fuselage, so the
cooling airflow is to the rear and below the fuselage. The bottom of my
cowling has no openings except a small hole for the nose gear leg, and
a faired hole for the exhaust pipes. The nose gear leg hole is filled up
behind the oleo strut with a sheel of aluminum.
--
Aaron C. (N9376J)

[Aaron Coolidge]

xyzzy > wrote:
: Aaron Coolidge wrote:

:> I'd be happy to arrange a demonstration if anyone's in the area.

: Where's "the area"?

Southeastern Massachusetts.
--
Aaron C.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, xyzzy > wrote:

> > One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the speed
> > increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.
>
> Interesting, my club has Warriors that have an STC raising the MGW to
> 2440 lbs. There isn't a similar STC for the 140?

The highest max gross weight for a 140 is 2150lbs (some early 140's had/have
a max gross of 1950 lbs iirc - those can go to 2150 lbs).

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Aaron Coolidge > wrote:

> Real world figures with 36 year old airframes (the Cherokees all have METCO
> wing tips, the Archer doesn't):
> My Cherokee 180, no speed mods, Piper wheel pants, trues out at 141 MPH
> at 70 ish % power.
> The 160 HP Cherokee 140, no speed mods, Piper wheel pants, trues out at
> 117 MPH at 70 ish %. It has the AMRD prop tip mod.
> The 150 HP Cherokee 140, no speed mods or wheel pants, trues out at
> 109 MPH at 70 ish %.
> An Archer 2 (Old style wheel pants) owned by my friend (we fly in formation)
> uses 50 less RPM to get the same TAS as I do.

I don't have speed mods, but do have those metcoair tips (or whatever the name
is)

Before I converted my 140 to 160hp, it could cruise at about 105 KTAS at
~4000' and 75% (with wheel pants) but I would usually plan on 100 KTAS.

After converting to 160hp (and repitching the prop to a cruise prop) it'll
do 110+ KTAS down low at 75% (without wheel pants).

>
> Climb:
> With 1 or 2 people and full fuel I rarely see less than 800 FPM initial
> climb in my airplane. I usually see more like 1200 FPM. With the cold
> weather, of course, climb performance is even better. In the summer at
> gross wt (2400 lbs) I'll see at least 500 FPM.
> The 150 HP Cherokee rarely makes 700 FPM, even in the winter. 500 FPM
> in the summer is also unusual. (This plane has a tired engine, though.)
> The 160 HP Cherokee is a solid 500+ FPM climb in the summer, 2 people and
> 36 gals of fuel. I haven't flown it in the dead of winter.

before conversion: my 140 did not climb well, except in the winter. :-)
However, unlike the 150hp 140 example above, mine would regularly
climb at 1000fpm in the winter (initially).

after conversion (even with the cruise prop), it's much stronger in climb.
Easily 1000+ fpm climb even when pushing the nose over for cooling.
In fact, I now have to worry about climbing into the KBOS Class B airspace
when departing KBED to the west. I never had to worry had to worry about
that before.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Prime]

xyzzy > posted the exciting message
:

> Tim Long wrote:
>
>> Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
>>
>> We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.
>>
>
> I fly warriors in a club and have been toying with the idea of
buying a
> 140. I don't know if I'd be happy with less plane than I am
flying now,
> but for 99% of the flying I do, a 140 would be sufficient, at
least on
> paper. Hell, for 90% of the flying I do an Ercoupe or a
Tripacer would
> be sufficient, but I'm not willing to go that small and
limited since
> the 140 isn't THAT much more expensive to buy.
>
> What do you mean by a dog? Useful load, speed, what? What
kind of TAS
> do you get in cruise? I'd be curious to hear this kind of
feedback from
> 140 drivers, especially if they have also flown Warriors,
160s, or 180s
> and can give comparative experience.
>
>
It's a dog even compared to a C172. The ceiling sucks and the
climb rate sucks. If you get near gross it doesn't climb worth a
damn. In the desert on a hot summer day we can't get much over
9000', and that doesn't buy a lot when you're trying to get to
OSH or otherwise east of the Rockies. Try taking off from any
runway when the density altitude is 4000' (not that high around
here) or so - you need something like 4000' feet of runway if
you're hot and heavy.

It's a dog in that we want better performance for ceiling and
takeoff distance. While speed and load carrying would be nice,
they are not the biggest issue!

Prime

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Tim Long" > wrote in message
...
> Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
> I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
> whose condition we know

In a plane like a Cherokee the engine is the number one point of concern- by
the time you've overhauled or done an engine swap you no longer have "a
plane whose condition you know" in one very significant sense. You may,
however, have a warranty, for a few years anyway.

> avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
> lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.

Easily avoided: there are guys like you out there selling above-average
PA-28-180s etc. trading up to even bigger faster planes. The higher up the
totem pole you go the more likely you'll find one with the goodies you want.

-cwk.

[Roger]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:43:01 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"Tim Long" > wrote in message
...
>> Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
>> I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
>> whose condition we know
>
>In a plane like a Cherokee the engine is the number one point of concern- by
>the time you've overhauled or done an engine swap you no longer have "a
>plane whose condition you know" in one very significant sense. You may,
>however, have a warranty, for a few years anyway.


As I recall changing the engine to a 180 HP does not make the 140 a
180 as I believe the fuselage on the 140 is shorter.

>
>> avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
>> lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.

Spend a lot. That way the next guy saves a lot. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Easily avoided: there are guys like you out there selling above-average
>PA-28-180s etc. trading up to even bigger faster planes. The higher up the
>totem pole you go the more likely you'll find one with the goodies you want.
>
>-cwk.
>

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
: I suppose that you could recowl the plane with a newer version, but
: you'd probably have to get some kind of official signoff for a mod like
: that (i.e 337 at minimum, field approval worst case). This could be
: pretty expensive for minimal returns and there might be issues fitting
: the existing exhaust into the newer style cowl.

Just for info. Our 140/180 was modified with the newer cowling. From the
paperwork and logbooks, it required a 337 (of course), but also required getting the
Piper drawings for the firewall-forward. They had to relocate everything according to
that drawing (e.g. oil cooler on the firewall with a bracket, not in front beside the
prop). Landing gear, exhaust, and maybe engine mount (not sure on that one). Lots of
redoing, and required the "approved data" of the Piper drawings... it wasn't an STC,
but a plain 337.

-Cory
--

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

[[email protected]]

Roger > wrote:
: As I recall changing the engine to a 180 HP does not make the 140 a
: 180 as I believe the fuselage on the 140 is shorter.

That's partially true. The 140/180 in general doesn't get you the updated
cowling or the third window (so it's like an older -180). It also doesn't give you a
baggage compartment or real back seats. We got a field approval to put a baggage
floor behind the rear seats in ours, but haven't actually done the modification yet.
The rear seats are the horribly uncomfortable plywood slab jumpseats. A buddy of mine
has a '65 -150 (same as a 'C' model 180 but with an 0-320) with a baggage floor and
bench seat in the rear. The PA28 airframe didn't get any longer until about '73 when
the 180 was briefly called a "Challenger." IIRC. There are lots of -180s without the
stretched fuselage. Fortunately I never ride back there, so I don't care... :)

The other thing it doesn't do is give you legally much more weight increase.
Our -140 was 2150 gross. With the 180, it's 2200 T.O., 2150 landing. Oh, and for
speed comparisons, I plan for 115 kts TAS and pretty much get it in still air at
reasonable altitudes and loading. At 6000' DA, 65% power, I'll get 130-135 mph TAS
depending on weight and CG. Loading doesn't seem to affect climb rate much at
all until you get over a certain point where it kill it. From my 2100 MSL airport,
it'll do between 800-600 fpm no matter if it's just me or am full with three people
and full fuel on board. Much more than that, and it's a pucker.

-Cory


--

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

[xyzzy]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> xyzzy > wrote:
> : Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>
> :> I'd be happy to arrange a demonstration if anyone's in the area.
>
> : Where's "the area"?
>
> Southeastern Massachusetts.

drat :)