A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Piper Cherokee 140... good first plane?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 1st 05, 07:56 PM
Cecil Chapman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 1st 05, 08:07 PM
Steve Foley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 1st 05, 08:19 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 1st 05, 08:42 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 1st 05, 08:52 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 1st 05, 09:03 PM
three-eight-hotel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #7  
Old September 1st 05, 09:09 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...

  #8  
Old September 1st 05, 09:10 PM
xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #9  
Old September 1st 05, 09:30 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. :-)
  #10  
Old September 1st 05, 09:52 PM
Nathan Young
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:36 AM
Newbie seeking glider purchase advice Ted Wagner Soaring 19 January 2nd 04 08:00 PM
Piper Pacer , trade $$ plus plane for R 22 GASSITT Rotorcraft 0 December 22nd 03 03:35 AM
Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) Marry Daniel or David Grah Soaring 18 July 30th 03 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.