Skyhawk versus Archer?

[Joe]

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

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

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
>

[Dave Butler]

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.

[Bob Chilcoat]

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.
>
>

[[email protected]]

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

[Bob Noel]

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

[Roy Page]

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
>

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Roy Smith]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Jonathan Goodish]

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

[[email protected]]

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[[email protected]]

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

[TripFarmer]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.