A Piper Cherokee 140... good first plane?

[Cecil Chapman]

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....

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

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

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 -

[Steve Foley]

Many of the 140s have been upgraded to 160HP engines. I've got one that I
upgraded. I find to be every bit as useful as a Skyhawk.

Everyone is pretty free spending your money. I found the 140 to priced about
halfway between a 2 seat 150/152 and the 4 seat 172. The back seat isn't
very useful for adults, although I did stuff my 270lb brother back there
once (He gave his fiance the front seat)

The only difference between the 150 and 160HP engines are the pistons and
wrist pins (sp?). Mattituck upgraded mine for no additional cost when I
overhauled the engine in 2000. I did have to pay for the airframe STC.


"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
...
> 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....
>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> 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 -
>
>

[[email protected]]

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....

I've posted a bunch of stuff in the past few days for another guy under
the thread "Which airplane." I did my PPSEL in a rented '66 172 with a 145hp
Continental. I then bought (with two other partners) a Cherokee 140 that had been
upgraded to a 180hp engine. A friend of mine has a Cherokee 150, though, so I'm
familar with a 150 hp Cherokee. (Just for the record, Cherokee 150's are a bit
unusual... they're basically 160's with the full backseat and baggage compartment, but
with the 150hp low-compression engine).

A -140 with 150 hp engines can be relatively easily converted to a 160hp by
swapping out pistons as others have mentioned. There's an inexpensive STC and some
labor involved, but I would think it could be done for $500-$1000 depending on how
much work you did yourself. You will likely lose the ability to run autofuel (and if
you *can* do it, it's an expensive STC for a 140/160 vs. a cheap one for a 140/150).
The low-compression cherokees are quite happy on autofuel.

As far as will you "miss" the 10hp vs. a 172, I'd say the much bigger factor
will be the difference in how the planes handle. A Cherokee has a more forgiving
airfoil (very benign stall), but at the expense of a higher sink rate than a 172. I
think the 172 loads a little more "linearly"... in other words, the performance goes
down fairly consistently as you get closer to gross. On the Cherokees, it goes down
fairly slowly until you get to a certain point, and then it falls off quickly. In
general, the cherokee will take a bit more runway to takeoff and land, and cruise very
slightly faster.

Better bang-for-the-buck IMO. I think Pipers are engineered with a little
less "optimization" than Cessnas. They reused lots of parts for different airframes,
and they're more solid and heavier than the Cessnas. As such, they probably break a
bit less often and have a slight advantage of volume parts. No doubt others would
disagree... :)

-Cory


--

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

[Dave Butler]

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?

Some random observations:

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

The fuel cost for a higher powered Cherokee is higher.

The maintenance cost for a higher powered Cherokee is almost the same.

Many people (maybe not you) underestimate their mission. Mission creep sets in
after you make the decision.

The biggest cost is maintenance.

The difference in maintenance cost is swamped by the variability in maintenance
cost. That is, the maintenance cost is hard to predict for any given individual
aircraft, and the slightly higher maintenance cost of the higher-powered models
is a smaller difference than the seemingly random differences from airplane to
airplane.

You get to decide whether the additional capability is worth the extra up-front
cost and fuel cost. You can ignore the difference in maintenance cost (which is
your largest expense).

Let the flames begin.

[[email protected]]

I'm usually not one to flame, but a few of these beg explanation.

: Some random observations:

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

You mean 160hp 172 vs 160hp PA28? I find that hard to believe. I haven't
looked at prices for awhile so I suppose I could be mistaken, but I recall comparable
172s (same engine HP) were about $5-10K more than comparable PA28's.

: The fuel cost for a higher powered Cherokee is higher.

How is that? Same engine, same fuel, and perhaps slight speed advantage over
a 172... or are you comparing to a 15[02]? My post in the other thread went over the
speed vs. fuel thing. A 150hp cherokee at 55% cruise is the same speed and almost
identical fuel burn to a cessna 150 at 75%.

: The maintenance cost for a higher powered Cherokee is almost the same.

Pretty much. Unless you've got a strange bird, fixed gear with a normal
engine will be all pretty much the same.

: Many people (maybe not you) underestimate their mission. Mission creep sets in
: after you make the decision.

Agreed. I know I'm glad I got a PA28. We were looking hard at a Cessna 150
for it's cheap cost and mogas. Having a smallish range and load capacity ends up
being a lot more confining than you might think.

: The biggest cost is maintenance.

: The difference in maintenance cost is swamped by the variability in maintenance
: cost. That is, the maintenance cost is hard to predict for any given individual
: aircraft, and the slightly higher maintenance cost of the higher-powered models
: is a smaller difference than the seemingly random differences from airplane to
: airplane.

Quite true... don't get a lemon.... :)

: You get to decide whether the additional capability is worth the extra up-front
: cost and fuel cost. You can ignore the difference in maintenance cost (which is
: your largest expense).

Fuel cost does not *have* to be much higher. Don't drive it like you stole
it, and fuel burn goes down quite a bit.

: Let the flames begin.

Agreed... :)

-Cory
--

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

[three-eight-hotel]

Cecil,

I went through the same struggle, before I bought my 172... I liked
the 140, because of the thought of throwing my 2 young children in the
back, but decided to go with the 172 (160 hp).

I can't really say it was a one vs. the other decision I came to,
because I could have gone either way... To be fair though, I've had
more experience in a 172 and probably was leaning that way in my mind
anyway. I really like the overall stability and flying characteristics
of the 172. It's the classic trainer and seems to want to fly itself.
I have never had a bad experience with a cherokee (flew a 180 and a
couple of 140's), and enjoyed most of my flights in them, so I'm not
trying to sell you one way or the other.

I think bottom line is... what purpose do you hope either plane will
fill for you? Are you planning on upgrading down the road? Will you
be training others in it, or getting trained yourself? What are you
most used to and comfortable flying? What's your budget?

Go out with the willingness to buy either and let the "right" plane
come to you! I had a few shady prospects go bad before I stumbed onto
my 172, and let me tell you... it was destiny! I knew from the minute
I saw it, that it was going to be the plane I would be getting my
instrument rating in and would be taking my kids to Disneyland in! I
came sooo close to pulling the trigger on a 140, and was mid-way
through a deal on another 172 that fell through. Neither of those felt
right, as I had buyers remorse even before finalizing the purchase.
The 172 I did buy though.... I have never doubted in my mind, that she
wasn't meant to be mine!

It's funny though... I bought the plane to be a family plane, and as
hectic as family can tend to be at times, they've all been in the
plane, together at one time, only a handful of times. However, those
handful of times have been some of my best experiences as a pilot!
Especially our last trip to your neck of the woods (left the plane at
Watsonville for a week and stayed in a beach house at Aptos).

A 152 or something similar would have probably served most of the
purpose of my flying for the last 3 years, but those few times of
wanting to go somewhere with the family have made it all worth it. I
know I could always rent for trips like that, but I REALLY like the
fact that I know the plane is going to be where I left it last, I know
it has been well maintained, and I know how hard the last landing was
in it! ;-)

Don't think so hard about it, and just start shopping! Physically
inspect and fly a few planes. You'll start to develop a taste for what
you are looking for, much like buying a house. Then one day... "Your"
plane is going to find "You"!

Best of luck to you! Keep us posted!
Todd

[Dave Butler]

wrote:
> I'm usually not one to flame, but a few of these beg explanation.
>
> : Some random observations:
>
> : The up-front cost of a higher powered Cherokee is higher.
>
> You mean 160hp 172 vs 160hp PA28? I find that hard to believe. I haven't
> looked at prices for awhile so I suppose I could be mistaken, but I recall comparable
> 172s (same engine HP) were about $5-10K more than comparable PA28's.

No, sorry, I wasn't clear. I intended all comparisons to be relative to a
Cherokee 140. I understood the OP to be asking about Cherokee 140s vs higher
powered, more capable aircraft. I meant to speak only of comparisons within the
Piper family and didn't address differences with Cessnas.

>
> : The fuel cost for a higher powered Cherokee is higher.
>
> How is that? Same engine, same fuel, and perhaps slight speed advantage over
> a 172... or are you comparing to a 15[02]? My post in the other thread went over the
> speed vs. fuel thing. A 150hp cherokee at 55% cruise is the same speed and almost
> identical fuel burn to a cessna 150 at 75%.

See above.

>
> : The maintenance cost for a higher powered Cherokee is almost the same.
>
> Pretty much. Unless you've got a strange bird, fixed gear with a normal
> engine will be all pretty much the same.
>
> : Many people (maybe not you) underestimate their mission. Mission creep sets in
> : after you make the decision.
>
> Agreed. I know I'm glad I got a PA28. We were looking hard at a Cessna 150
> for it's cheap cost and mogas. Having a smallish range and load capacity ends up
> being a lot more confining than you might think.
>
> : The biggest cost is maintenance.
>
> : The difference in maintenance cost is swamped by the variability in maintenance
> : cost. That is, the maintenance cost is hard to predict for any given individual
> : aircraft, and the slightly higher maintenance cost of the higher-powered models
> : is a smaller difference than the seemingly random differences from airplane to
> : airplane.
>
> Quite true... don't get a lemon.... :)
>
> : You get to decide whether the additional capability is worth the extra up-front
> : cost and fuel cost. You can ignore the difference in maintenance cost (which is
> : your largest expense).
>
> Fuel cost does not *have* to be much higher. Don't drive it like you stole
> it, and fuel burn goes down quite a bit.

Quite so. I have a hard time remembering that when my hand is on the throttle. :-)

>
> : Let the flames begin.
>
> Agreed... :)
>

[xyzzy]

Dave Butler wrote:

> 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?
>
>
> Some random observations:
>
> The up-front cost of a higher powered Cherokee is higher.
>
> The fuel cost for a higher powered Cherokee is higher.
>
> The maintenance cost for a higher powered Cherokee is almost the same.
>
> Many people (maybe not you) underestimate their mission. Mission creep
> sets in after you make the decision.

As someone with experience as an owner, could you (or other owners who
have experienced that) expand on that? I often think it's the opposite.
I fly 160hp Warriors in a club and often think if I owned I wouldn't
want anything less capable, but then when I look honestly at my logbook,
a pretty high percentage of my flights could just as well have have been
accomplished with much less airplane, and more fun if it was the right
airplane. Of course maybe if I were an owner instead of a renter I'd
want to go farther more often, is that what causes the mission creep?

I have toyed, sometimes more seriously than other times, with purchasing
a small plane (like an Ercoupe) to use for the kind of shorter distance
or no-passengers fun flying and use club planes when I need more plane.
We have members who do that. My personal concern is keeping
proficiency in both types, particularly: if I spend so much time having
fun in an Ercoupe how good would I be at getting in the Warrior to do an
IFR flight? Also, that could be the best of both worlds but it could
also be the worst of both worlds (paying for capital and maintenance on
an owned plane while still having the availability concerns that come
with a club when I need to do more).

I save a lot of money by thinking this kind of stuff to death, rather
than acting :)

[Dave Butler]

xyzzy wrote:

> As someone with experience as an owner, could you (or other owners who
> have experienced that) expand on that? I often think it's the opposite.
> I fly 160hp Warriors in a club and often think if I owned I wouldn't
> want anything less capable, but then when I look honestly at my logbook,
> a pretty high percentage of my flights could just as well have have been
> accomplished with much less airplane, and more fun if it was the right
> airplane. Of course maybe if I were an owner instead of a renter I'd
> want to go farther more often, is that what causes the mission creep?

I'm thinking about a friend who bought a 152 and wishes he had more speed. A 152
in a headwind can be frustrating if you thought your mission involved cross
country flying.

I agree we often think about family vacations when we are estimating our
mission, and then end up doing the majority of our flying either solo or with
one passenger.

In my individual experience, there were two drivers of mission creep, speed and
weight carrying capacity. I solved the speed problem by trading the Archer for
a partnership in a Mooney, but unfortunately I still have the weight limitation.
Only additional infusions of money are going to solve that, I guess, and
approaching retirement, I don't see that happening.

I started doing some paper and pencil flight planning with a hypothetical faster
airplane, and then every trip in the slower airplane seemed long. If you use
realistic winds in your fantasy flight planning, there's a big difference in
cross-country capability between a 115 knot airplane and a 150 knot airplane.
Cross-country is what I like to do. If your mission is something else, then
never mind.

The weight capacity limitation started to become obvious when I started flying
Angel Flights. I'm pretty much limited to volunteering for flights with two
clients plus baggage, and then I look for the missions with smaller passengers
(the mission volunteer form lists the passengers' weights). I end up flying a
lot of women and children, which is not all bad.

>
> I have toyed, sometimes more seriously than other times, with purchasing
> a small plane (like an Ercoupe) to use for the kind of shorter distance
> or no-passengers fun flying and use club planes when I need more plane.

That might be a good plan. As you know, I have from time-to-time coupled club
membership with ownership. Well, actually my first plane was leased to a club. I
was in a club with a Lance, and I thought I would use the Lance for Angel
Flights and fly my plane otherwise. I found I wasn't flying the Lance often
enough to stay comfortably current in it, and besides, I really wanted to be
flying *my* plane, just because it was *mine*.

> We have members who do that. My personal concern is keeping
> proficiency in both types, particularly: if I spend so much time having
> fun in an Ercoupe how good would I be at getting in the Warrior to do an
> IFR flight? Also, that could be the best of both worlds but it could
> also be the worst of both worlds (paying for capital and maintenance on
> an owned plane while still having the availability concerns that come
> with a club when I need to do more).
>
> I save a lot of money by thinking this kind of stuff to death, rather
> than acting :)

Works for me. Just because you buy doesn't mean you have to stop fantasizing. :-)

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:42:58 -0400, Dave Butler > wrote:

>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?
>
>Some random observations:
>
>The up-front cost of a higher powered Cherokee is higher.
>
>The fuel cost for a higher powered Cherokee is higher.

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.

[three-eight-hotel]

>> 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!!!

[Roger]

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 here: 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....
>
>--

[Jon Kraus]

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....
>

[Bob Noel]

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

[George Patterson]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: $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 *
************************************************** ***********************

[Bob Noel]

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

[Mike Spera]

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

[[email protected]]

: 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.

I never thought of it that way, but it's a very good analogy. I used to be a
Mac guy before I became a linux guy, so I understand said affliction.... :) The nice
thing is that I bypassed the Winders crap altogether... never have used it for any
length of time.

I'll agree with you that most Cherokee 140's are pretty ragged out. Lots have
original radios, paint, and interior... that means pretty rough all the way around.
Often they've got lots of deferred maintenance from previous owners' negligence and
apathy. Fortunately, there aren't too many things that will bite you and they're
fairly easy to check for on a pre-purchase.

-Cory

--

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