Cherokee 6

[Steven Barnes]

My partners & I sold our Cherokee 180 a couple months ago & have begun
looking for a C-182 (fits our mission profile). A local mechanic also
recommended a Cherokee 6. Most we've looked at have been a bit outside of
our price envelope. We've now found one that's in our price range.
Anyone have any recommendations of things to look for in a 260 HP Six?
Gotchas? None of us know much about the Six. Two of us have hi-perf in 182s.

Thanks!

--



CP-ASEL, instrument, CFI

[Mike Noel]

Try looking on Google groups. There was a recent discussion about Cherokee
6's.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Steven Barnes" > wrote in message
.. .
> My partners & I sold our Cherokee 180 a couple months ago & have begun
> looking for a C-182 (fits our mission profile). A local mechanic also
> recommended a Cherokee 6. Most we've looked at have been a bit outside of
> our price envelope. We've now found one that's in our price range.
> Anyone have any recommendations of things to look for in a 260 HP Six?
> Gotchas? None of us know much about the Six. Two of us have hi-perf in
> 182s.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
>
>
>
> CP-ASEL, instrument, CFI
>
>

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Steven Barnes wrote:
>My partners & I sold our Cherokee 180 a couple months ago & have begun
>looking for a C-182 (fits our mission profile). A local mechanic also
>recommended a Cherokee 6. Most we've looked at have been a bit outside of
>our price envelope. We've now found one that's in our price range.
>Anyone have any recommendations of things to look for in a 260 HP Six?
>Gotchas? None of us know much about the Six. Two of us have hi-perf in 182s.
>
If your mission fits the C-182, you may also want to take a look at the
235 hp version of the 4-seat Cherokee (variously known as the
235/Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota). The Six is good if you need the extra seats.
If you can do with 4 seats, the 235 hp Cherokee is more along the lines of a
C-182 in terms of both capabilities and price.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/18/08 13:56, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Steven Barnes wrote:
>>My partners & I sold our Cherokee 180 a couple months ago & have begun
>>looking for a C-182 (fits our mission profile). A local mechanic also
>>recommended a Cherokee 6. Most we've looked at have been a bit outside of
>>our price envelope. We've now found one that's in our price range.
>>Anyone have any recommendations of things to look for in a 260 HP Six?
>>Gotchas? None of us know much about the Six. Two of us have hi-perf in 182s.
>>
> If your mission fits the C-182, you may also want to take a look at the
> 235 hp version of the 4-seat Cherokee (variously known as the
> 235/Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota). The Six is good if you need the extra seats.
> If you can do with 4 seats, the 235 hp Cherokee is more along the lines of a
> C-182 in terms of both capabilities and price.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

Isn't there a large difference in insurance requirements/premiums between a 4 and
a 6-seat airplane as well?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 01/18/08 13:56, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Steven Barnes wrote:
>>> My partners & I sold our Cherokee 180 a couple months ago & have begun
>>> looking for a C-182 (fits our mission profile). A local mechanic also
>>> recommended a Cherokee 6. Most we've looked at have been a bit outside of
>>> our price envelope. We've now found one that's in our price range.
>>> Anyone have any recommendations of things to look for in a 260 HP Six?
>>> Gotchas? None of us know much about the Six. Two of us have hi-perf in 182s.
>>>
>> If your mission fits the C-182, you may also want to take a look at the
>> 235 hp version of the 4-seat Cherokee (variously known as the
>> 235/Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota). The Six is good if you need the extra seats.
>> If you can do with 4 seats, the 235 hp Cherokee is more along the lines of a
>> C-182 in terms of both capabilities and price.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>
> Isn't there a large difference in insurance requirements/premiums between a 4 and
> a 6-seat airplane as well?

There can be. I insure my Bonanza for four seats only. When I shopped
for a 206 about 4 years ago I was quoted two prices for insurance and
the savings were worth doing if you didn't want six seats.

[Steven Barnes]

The older 235's have the same airframe as our 180. Too cramped. To get the
larger airframe in a Dakota type plane, puts us out of our price range.

I'm going to call our old insurance company for a rough quote to see where
we're at in a Six.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/18/08 13:56, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> > Steven Barnes wrote:
> >>My partners & I sold our Cherokee 180 a couple months ago & have begun
> >>looking for a C-182 (fits our mission profile). A local mechanic also
> >>recommended a Cherokee 6. Most we've looked at have been a bit outside
of
> >>our price envelope. We've now found one that's in our price range.
> >>Anyone have any recommendations of things to look for in a 260 HP Six?
> >>Gotchas? None of us know much about the Six. Two of us have hi-perf in
182s.
> >>
> > If your mission fits the C-182, you may also want to take a look at
the
> > 235 hp version of the 4-seat Cherokee (variously known as the
> > 235/Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota). The Six is good if you need the extra
seats.
> > If you can do with 4 seats, the 235 hp Cherokee is more along the lines
of a
> > C-182 in terms of both capabilities and price.
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> >
>
> Isn't there a large difference in insurance requirements/premiums between
a 4 and
> a 6-seat airplane as well?
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA

[Matt Whiting]

Steven Barnes wrote:
> The older 235's have the same airframe as our 180. Too cramped. To get the
> larger airframe in a Dakota type plane, puts us out of our price range.

Do you mean width, length or both? I thought the Dakota was the same
width as all of the PA028 series. I know they stretched the Arrow in
1972, but I don't know much about the Dakota. Is it just longer than
the older 235s or did they increase the width as well?

I'm looking at a nice Arrow III at the moment, but the trouble is the
cabin is so narrow compared to my former 182. I thought you had to move
to the PA-32 to get a wider Piper cabin, but I'm not intimately familiar
with the Piper line as I'm pretty much a Cessna guy. However, I must
admit that Piper's are cheap to buy compared to a Cessna of similar
performance and equipment. I just don't find the PA-28 series
comparable to the 182 in comfort for flights beyond 2 hours. I flew the
182 4 hours or more several times with no problem, but found the club
Arrow I flew most recently to be uncomfortable past about 1.5 hours.

Matt

[Steven Barnes]

To be honest I don't know about the width part. I know that the length got
stretched around 1973 or 1974 with the Challenger, right? Even then, we want
a bit more width.
A agree that for the same money we could get a newer (or better equipped)
235 vs a 182. So, we were willing to pay the Cessna price premium.
Our price range in anywhere up to low-mid 80K. More often than not, we won't
need 6 seats. Although, I have an opportunity for a flight next weekend
where I'd need 5... :-)

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven Barnes wrote:
> > The older 235's have the same airframe as our 180. Too cramped. To get
the
> > larger airframe in a Dakota type plane, puts us out of our price range.
>
> Do you mean width, length or both? I thought the Dakota was the same
> width as all of the PA028 series. I know they stretched the Arrow in
> 1972, but I don't know much about the Dakota. Is it just longer than
> the older 235s or did they increase the width as well?
>
> I'm looking at a nice Arrow III at the moment, but the trouble is the
> cabin is so narrow compared to my former 182. I thought you had to move
> to the PA-32 to get a wider Piper cabin, but I'm not intimately familiar
> with the Piper line as I'm pretty much a Cessna guy. However, I must
> admit that Piper's are cheap to buy compared to a Cessna of similar
> performance and equipment. I just don't find the PA-28 series
> comparable to the 182 in comfort for flights beyond 2 hours. I flew the
> 182 4 hours or more several times with no problem, but found the club
> Arrow I flew most recently to be uncomfortable past about 1.5 hours.
>
> Matt

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> The older 235's have the same airframe as our 180. Too cramped. To get the
> larger airframe in a Dakota type plane, puts us out of our price range.

Look for a Pathfinder. Same engine and airframe as the Dakota, much lower
price.

If you can fit it in the door, you can fly. It's a great plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

I have owned a 1965 PA32-260 since Feb 1996. It is a fairly simple plane
from a maintenance standpoint, basically a warrior on steroids. There
are only a few repetive AD's, which include the fuel drain (50hrs), the
fuel drain cover assembly (100hrs) (both of those are owner inspect
items, just a nuisance to keep up with), rear seat retention, which is
annual, and the old style bowtie yokes have a 100 hour inspection for
cracks, and the older style landing gear links have a 500 hour dye
penetrant inspection for cracks. Check to make sure the other ADs are
all complied with (there isn't anything onerous there), most of them are
old AD's from the 60's and 70's and should have been complied with a
long time ago.

The expensive problems are related to corrosion. Check the "hat section
rails" on the belly, especially where they join the belly skin for
corrosion. The insides are generally not painted and if moisture or
exhaust get in there it can be an expensive repair, also check the belly
skins for corrosion. Most likely along the exhaust trail and around the
door step attach point. I wouldn't buy a Six or a PA-28 without a
recent service bulletin SB1006, which is an inspection of the wing
spars for corrosion. It involves pulling out the wing tanks, inspecting
and treating the spar, replacing fuel and fuel vent lines and putting it
all back together. Very few have corrosion, but when you do get it
there, it means replacing or rebuilding the wings. There is also a
service bulletin for checking the rear spar attach points (dissimilar
metal) for corrosion. While you are in there, pull back the interior
and look below the windows for corrosion caused by leaking windows.
There is also a service bulletin for periodic checks of the stabilator
attach point for corrosion (again dissimilar metals). Make sure the
fuel valve drain exceeds the margins allowed by the fuel drain AD be a
good margin. If it fails that AD, the fuel valve has to be replaced,
and that is expensive (>5 AMU's). For an older six, check the condition
of the fiberglass tip tanks with attention for any delamination and also
make sure the filler neck isn't pitted, as the there doesn't seem to be
many places to repair those tanks. The filler neck is a steel ring
bonded into the fiberglass. Other than that, there really isn't
anything that sticks out as a problem area.

The Six is a wonderful airplane, probably the best airplane piper ever
built (OK, I am biased). The fact is though, it is a load hauler
(mine's got a 1550lb useful load) built for cross country travel and yet
it is economical enough at 14GPH to fly solo locally. Older ones have a
higher useful load because they have less soundproofing and extra crap
stuffed into them. It will take a couple hours to get used to a six, as
the long nose limits the foward and down view somewhat. The airplane is
a different airplane when it is full vs when it is flown solo, so be
careful with flying with a full load.

The PA28's all have the same cabin width. The PA32 is some 11 inches
wider, which makes for some nice elbow room.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> The Six is a wonderful airplane, probably the best airplane piper ever
> built (OK, I am biased). The fact is though, it is a load hauler (mine's
> got a 1550lb useful load)

Ahem. That honor is held by the Pathfinder...

;-)

Great primer on Cherokees, Ray. You covered all the gotchas on the Six, and
hit some of the generic Cherokee "watch-outs", too.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven Barnes]

Yeah, thanks. I tried to get some insurance quotes today, but the world was
closed. Should get 'em back tomorrow. I did get one quote back. $2500!! Ugh.
3 pilots. I'm 640 TT, Commercial, IFR, CFII. I've got 5 hours in
Saratoga/Six. Other 2 are PP, IFR. One is 260 TT the other 360 TT. No Six
time for either.
Checkout & IPC for me. 5 hours dual & IPCs for the other 2 guys.

Still seemed kinda high. A quote from AOPA for just me was $1500. Am I off
base here?


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Fs1lj.45515$Ux2.10012@attbi_s22...
> > The Six is a wonderful airplane, probably the best airplane piper ever
> > built (OK, I am biased). The fact is though, it is a load hauler
(mine's
> > got a 1550lb useful load)
>
> Ahem. That honor is held by the Pathfinder...
>
> ;-)
>
> Great primer on Cherokees, Ray. You covered all the gotchas on the Six,
and
> hit some of the generic Cherokee "watch-outs", too.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Peter Clark]

Insurance companies always write the policy based on the lowest
qualified pilot in the list. The rate will be based on the 260TT
PP/IR with no 6 time.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:40:15 -0600, "Steven Barnes"
> wrote:

>Yeah, thanks. I tried to get some insurance quotes today, but the world was
>closed. Should get 'em back tomorrow. I did get one quote back. $2500!! Ugh.
>3 pilots. I'm 640 TT, Commercial, IFR, CFII. I've got 5 hours in
>Saratoga/Six. Other 2 are PP, IFR. One is 260 TT the other 360 TT. No Six
>time for either.
>Checkout & IPC for me. 5 hours dual & IPCs for the other 2 guys.
>
>Still seemed kinda high. A quote from AOPA for just me was $1500. Am I off
>base here?
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:Fs1lj.45515$Ux2.10012@attbi_s22...
>> > The Six is a wonderful airplane, probably the best airplane piper ever
>> > built (OK, I am biased). The fact is though, it is a load hauler
>(mine's
>> > got a 1550lb useful load)
>>
>> Ahem. That honor is held by the Pathfinder...
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Great primer on Cherokees, Ray. You covered all the gotchas on the Six,
>and
>> hit some of the generic Cherokee "watch-outs", too.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>

[Douglas Paterson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:6Cxkj.43350$Ux2.28861@attbi_s22...
> Look for a Pathfinder. Same engine and airframe as the Dakota, much lower
> price.


Not that Jay's prejudiced or anything.... ;)

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Mike Isaksen]

"Douglas Paterson" wrote ...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote ...
>> Look for a Pathfinder. Same engine and airframe as the Dakota, much
>> lower price.
>
>
> Not that Jay's prejudiced or anything.... ;)

Did the 235 also get the airframe stretch for better rear seat legroom? And
if so, which year?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mike Isaksen wrote:
>
>Did the 235 also get the airframe stretch for better rear seat legroom? And
>if so, which year?

Yes. It got the fuselage stretch, wingspan stretch and larger stabilator
in '73. Same year as the 180 hp models. Piper called it the Charger in '73,
then switched to the Pathfinder name from '74 through '78. Though the name
changed, it was basically the same plane until the '79 taper-wing Dakota.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Steven Barnes]

The PA32 is stretched even more... :-)

The extra leg room was definitely needed in our '64 180. It also needed
widening a bit. That's why we were looking at 182s or Sixes. We're having a
pre-buy done on the Six we looked at last weekend. If all goes well, I may
be broke again in a few weeks....

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7eb4e0be14ab1@uwe...
> Mike Isaksen wrote:
> >
> >Did the 235 also get the airframe stretch for better rear seat legroom?
And
> >if so, which year?
>
> Yes. It got the fuselage stretch, wingspan stretch and larger
stabilator
> in '73. Same year as the 180 hp models. Piper called it the Charger in
'73,
> then switched to the Pathfinder name from '74 through '78. Though the
name
> changed, it was basically the same plane until the '79 taper-wing Dakota.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>

[JOM]

Ray does give a good overview of the Six. I purchased a Six a couple of months ago, and I really like this plane. Very solid to fly. It does have a long nose, but as a taildragger pilot I didn't think it was too bad on the forward visibilty. It will really haul a load, but the 260 isn't a real short field machine when you're heavy.

You can go to: http://bomar.biz/download.php and download a POH if you want to look over the numbers. This is a great site and you don't have to register to download and there is no fee either.

It's not terribly fast, but with tip tanks and throttled back some, you've got a lot of range with the 84 gallons of fuel.

John


I have owned a 1965 PA32-260 since Feb 1996. It is a fairly simple plane
from a maintenance standpoint, basically a warrior on steroids. There
are only a few repetive AD's, which include the fuel drain (50hrs), the
fuel drain cover assembly (100hrs) (both of those are owner inspect
items, just a nuisance to keep up with), rear seat retention, which is
annual, and the old style bowtie yokes have a 100 hour inspection for
cracks, and the older style landing gear links have a 500 hour dye
penetrant inspection for cracks. Check to make sure the other ADs are
all complied with (there isn't anything onerous there), most of them are
old AD's from the 60's and 70's and should have been complied with a
long time ago.

The expensive problems are related to corrosion. Check the "hat section
rails" on the belly, especially where they join the belly skin for
corrosion. The insides are generally not painted and if moisture or
exhaust get in there it can be an expensive repair, also check the belly
skins for corrosion. Most likely along the exhaust trail and around the
door step attach point. I wouldn't buy a Six or a PA-28 without a
recent service bulletin SB1006, which is an inspection of the wing
spars for corrosion. It involves pulling out the wing tanks, inspecting
and treating the spar, replacing fuel and fuel vent lines and putting it
all back together. Very few have corrosion, but when you do get it
there, it means replacing or rebuilding the wings. There is also a
service bulletin for checking the rear spar attach points (dissimilar
metal) for corrosion. While you are in there, pull back the interior
and look below the windows for corrosion caused by leaking windows.
There is also a service bulletin for periodic checks of the stabilator
attach point for corrosion (again dissimilar metals). Make sure the
fuel valve drain exceeds the margins allowed by the fuel drain AD be a
good margin. If it fails that AD, the fuel valve has to be replaced,
and that is expensive (5 AMU's). For an older six, check the condition
of the fiberglass tip tanks with attention for any delamination and also
make sure the filler neck isn't pitted, as the there doesn't seem to be
many places to repair those tanks. The filler neck is a steel ring
bonded into the fiberglass. Other than that, there really isn't
anything that sticks out as a problem area.

The Six is a wonderful airplane, probably the best airplane piper ever
built (OK, I am biased). The fact is though, it is a load hauler
(mine's got a 1550lb useful load) built for cross country travel and yet
it is economical enough at 14GPH to fly solo locally. Older ones have a
higher useful load because they have less soundproofing and extra crap
stuffed into them. It will take a couple hours to get used to a six, as
the long nose limits the foward and down view somewhat. The airplane is
a different airplane when it is full vs when it is flown solo, so be
careful with flying with a full load.

The PA28's all have the same cabin width. The PA32 is some 11 inches
wider, which makes for some nice elbow room.

[Steven Barnes]

We've made an offer & they've accepted. Hopefully, we'll get her this
weekend or early next week.

"JOM" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ray does give a good overview of the Six. I purchased a Six a couple of
> months ago, and I really like this plane. Very solid to fly. It does
> have a long nose, but as a taildragger pilot I didn't think it was too
> bad on the forward visibilty. It will really haul a load, but the 260
> isn't a real short field machine when you're heavy.
>
> You can go to: http://bomar.biz/download.php and download a POH if you
> want to look over the numbers. This is a great site and you don't have
> to register to download and there is no fee either.
>
> It's not terribly fast, but with tip tanks and throttled back some,
> you've got a lot of range with the 84 gallons of fuel.
>
> John
>
>
> Ray Andraka;594982 Wrote:
> > I have owned a 1965 PA32-260 since Feb 1996. It is a fairly simple plane
> >
> > from a maintenance standpoint, basically a warrior on steroids. There
> >
> > are only a few repetive AD's, which include the fuel drain (50hrs), the
> >
> > fuel drain cover assembly (100hrs) (both of those are owner inspect
> > items, just a nuisance to keep up with), rear seat retention, which is
> >
> > annual, and the old style bowtie yokes have a 100 hour inspection for
> > cracks, and the older style landing gear links have a 500 hour dye
> > penetrant inspection for cracks. Check to make sure the other ADs are
> >
> > all complied with (there isn't anything onerous there), most of them
> > are
> > old AD's from the 60's and 70's and should have been complied with a
> > long time ago.
> >
> > The expensive problems are related to corrosion. Check the "hat
> > section
> > rails" on the belly, especially where they join the belly skin for
> > corrosion. The insides are generally not painted and if moisture or
> > exhaust get in there it can be an expensive repair, also check the
> > belly
> > skins for corrosion. Most likely along the exhaust trail and around
> > the
> > door step attach point. I wouldn't buy a Six or a PA-28 without a
> > recent service bulletin SB1006, which is an inspection of the wing
> > spars for corrosion. It involves pulling out the wing tanks,
> > inspecting
> > and treating the spar, replacing fuel and fuel vent lines and putting
> > it
> > all back together. Very few have corrosion, but when you do get it
> > there, it means replacing or rebuilding the wings. There is also a
> > service bulletin for checking the rear spar attach points (dissimilar
> > metal) for corrosion. While you are in there, pull back the interior
> > and look below the windows for corrosion caused by leaking windows.
> > There is also a service bulletin for periodic checks of the stabilator
> >
> > attach point for corrosion (again dissimilar metals). Make sure the
> > fuel valve drain exceeds the margins allowed by the fuel drain AD be a
> >
> > good margin. If it fails that AD, the fuel valve has to be replaced,
> > and that is expensive (5 AMU's). For an older six, check the condition
> >
> > of the fiberglass tip tanks with attention for any delamination and
> > also
> > make sure the filler neck isn't pitted, as the there doesn't seem to be
> >
> > many places to repair those tanks. The filler neck is a steel ring
> > bonded into the fiberglass. Other than that, there really isn't
> > anything that sticks out as a problem area.
> >
> > The Six is a wonderful airplane, probably the best airplane piper ever
> >
> > built (OK, I am biased). The fact is though, it is a load hauler
> > (mine's got a 1550lb useful load) built for cross country travel and
> > yet
> > it is economical enough at 14GPH to fly solo locally. Older ones have
> > a
> > higher useful load because they have less soundproofing and extra crap
> >
> > stuffed into them. It will take a couple hours to get used to a six,
> > as
> > the long nose limits the foward and down view somewhat. The airplane
> > is
> > a different airplane when it is full vs when it is flown solo, so be
> > careful with flying with a full load.
> >
> > The PA28's all have the same cabin width. The PA32 is some 11 inches
> > wider, which makes for some nice elbow room.
>
>
>
>
> --
> JOM