|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
September 1st 05, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
A Piper Cherokee 140... good first plane?
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 - 
|
|
#2
September 1st 05, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 -
|
|
#3
September 1st 05, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 * ************************************************** ***********************
|
|
#4
September 1st 05, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
September 1st 05, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 * ************************************************** ***********************
|
|
#6
September 1st 05, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
September 1st 05, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#8
September 1st 05, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. :-)
|
|
#9
September 2nd 05, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
September 1st 05, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| My first aerobatic lesson | Marco Rispoli | Piloting | 6 | April 13th 05 02:21 PM |
| Four States and the Grand Canyon | Mary Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 6 | December 6th 04 10:36 AM |
| Newbie seeking glider purchase advice | Ted Wagner | Soaring | 19 | January 2nd 04 07:00 PM |
| Piper Pacer , trade $$ plus plane for R 22 | GASSITT | Rotorcraft | 0 | December 22nd 03 02:35 AM |
| Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) | Marry Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 18 | July 30th 03 08:52 PM |
Hybrid Mode
