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

Convert Cherokee 140 to 180?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 7th 05, 07:35 AM
Tim Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Convert Cherokee 140 to 180?

Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.

We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.

Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:

1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
3 - 180 hp conversion

Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
cowling/engine mount mods.

I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.

  #2  
Old January 7th 05, 01:08 PM
Jay Masino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tim Long wrote:
1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
3 - 180 hp conversion



I've heard that #3 is very expensive. More than just getting an O-360
(180hp) overhauled.

My 140 has both #1 and #2. I also have the full Knots2U kit, Metco
wingtips, etc. It now performs fairly close (maybe a little short) to a
180's performance. Of course, this is still using it as a 1 or 2 person
plane, with occasional 3rd person. Since I fly mostly alone, I never
have a concern about performance, even on hot and muggy summer days. I
think that #1 and #2, plus some gap seal kit is the most cost effective
performance improvement. Another thing to consider adding would be the
Lasar ignition system.

Another topic for consideration is wheter you'll ever want to get the auto
gas STC. Converting to 160hp requires 100LL, but you can get the Petersen
STC, if you have the Powerflow exhaust. Apparently the stock 140 exhaust,
when combined with the 160hp upgrade, doesn't qualify (the exhaust is too
close to the firewall). Unfortunately, the Petersen STC costs almost
$1500. The higher compression requires changes to the fuel system,
including adding an additional electric pump (total of 2), in order to
avoid vapor lock. So, if you ever think you'd like to burn autogas, you'd
want to take this into consideration. Note that the 180hp lycoming also
has the higher compression pistons, so also requires the more expensive
STC (and mods) if you want to burn autogas. Also note that the use of
the Lasar ignition system also disqualifies you from using autogas.

For now, I'm still using 100LL.


--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com
  #3  
Old January 7th 05, 01:06 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Tim Long wrote:

Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:

1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
3 - 180 hp conversion

Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
cowling/engine mount mods.


#1 and/or #2 are not that expensive but wouldn't make the 140 into
a 160. That is, it is likely that a comparable 160 would sell for more
than a 140 converted to 160hp.


I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.


(note: I own a cheroke 140)

One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the speed
increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.

The Cherokee Pilot's Association had an article on a 180 conversion a long
time ago. The bottomline was that the 180hp conversion was not worth it.

btw - if you convert to 160hp, also re-pitch the prop so that you can gain
higher cruise speed (the 160hp 140 will fly just about warrior numbers if
you use warrior power settings).

good luck.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like
  #4  
Old January 7th 05, 04:09 PM
xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Tim Long wrote:


Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:

1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
3 - 180 hp conversion

Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
cowling/engine mount mods.



#1 and/or #2 are not that expensive but wouldn't make the 140 into
a 160. That is, it is likely that a comparable 160 would sell for more
than a 140 converted to 160hp.


I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a plane
whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have better
avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend a
lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.



(note: I own a cheroke 140)

One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the speed
increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.


Interesting, my club has Warriors that have an STC raising the MGW to
2440 lbs. There isn't a similar STC for the 140?

  #5  
Old January 7th 05, 04:19 PM
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't think there is one for the 140. That STC is based on the fact that
later Warrior II's (1982 + I believe) have that gross weight of 2440 out of
the factory with the same specs. The STC (from a place at my home
airport--FRG) is purely a paperwork STC--no modifications are done on the
aircraft.

Marco Leon


"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Tim Long wrote:


Planning ahead, we've thought of a few options:

1 - 160 hp conversion (this is almost the minimum we'd do)
2 - Powerflow exhaust (article in Plane and Pilot claims 20% power
improvement - can it be combined with #1?)
3 - 180 hp conversion

Anybody know about praciticalities, costs of #3 above? I know it would
require extra $$ for dissimilar engine exchange, STC costs, and
cowling/engine mount mods.



#1 and/or #2 are not that expensive but wouldn't make the 140 into
a 160. That is, it is likely that a comparable 160 would sell for more
than a 140 converted to 160hp.


I know that some may say sell the plane and buy a 180, but we have a

plane
whose condition we know, it has a pretty fresh paint job, it has all ADs
complied with, and we just spent ~$7K for a panel mount GPS. We have

better
avionics than most and would hate to do the new buy thing and then spend

a
lot extra getting the plane's condition up to that of our current one.



(note: I own a cheroke 140)

One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the

speed
increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.


Interesting, my club has Warriors that have an STC raising the MGW to
2440 lbs. There isn't a similar STC for the 140?



  #6  
Old January 8th 05, 02:39 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , xyzzy wrote:

One significant consideration is useful load. Do you just want the speed
increase? There isn't any way to get a higher useful load.


Interesting, my club has Warriors that have an STC raising the MGW to
2440 lbs. There isn't a similar STC for the 140?


The highest max gross weight for a 140 is 2150lbs (some early 140's had/have
a max gross of 1950 lbs iirc - those can go to 2150 lbs).

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like
  #7  
Old January 7th 05, 04:17 PM
xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tim Long wrote:

Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.

We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.


I fly warriors in a club and have been toying with the idea of buying a
140. I don't know if I'd be happy with less plane than I am flying now,
but for 99% of the flying I do, a 140 would be sufficient, at least on
paper. Hell, for 90% of the flying I do an Ercoupe or a Tripacer would
be sufficient, but I'm not willing to go that small and limited since
the 140 isn't THAT much more expensive to buy.

What do you mean by a dog? Useful load, speed, what? What kind of TAS
do you get in cruise? I'd be curious to hear this kind of feedback from
140 drivers, especially if they have also flown Warriors, 160s, or 180s
and can give comparative experience.

  #8  
Old January 7th 05, 05:28 PM
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why don't you get a Warrior? There are some OK ones going for between
$30-$40K. My uncle is looking for his own. Right now he is partnering with
me on my Warrior. IMHO, the Warrior is one of the better values out there.
They go almost as fast (according to the Piper single Engine catalog, the
difference is 1 kt!) and about 100 lbs less useful load for an average of
$20-$30K cheaper than an Archer.

Marco Leon
N36616



"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Tim Long wrote:


I fly warriors in a club and have been toying with the idea of buying a
140. I don't know if I'd be happy with less plane than I am flying now,
but for 99% of the flying I do, a 140 would be sufficient, at least on
paper. Hell, for 90% of the flying I do an Ercoupe or a Tripacer would
be sufficient, but I'm not willing to go that small and limited since
the 140 isn't THAT much more expensive to buy.

What do you mean by a dog? Useful load, speed, what? What kind of TAS
do you get in cruise? I'd be curious to hear this kind of feedback from
140 drivers, especially if they have also flown Warriors, 160s, or 180s
and can give comparative experience.



  #9  
Old January 7th 05, 05:45 PM
xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Marco Leon wrote:

Why don't you get a Warrior? There are some OK ones going for between
$30-$40K.


I was lured into looking at 140s because I was looking at Air/Ercoupes
and then realized that 140s with a lot more capability than Air/Ercoupes
could be had for not much more than people are asking for decent
Air/Ercoupes (up to mid 20's for the Alon models), with the added
advantage of being a relatively standard airframe. Going up to Warrior
money is a significantly bigger step. Since it's all fantasy and not
likely to actually happen at this point, I can look into that too
Also I fly in a club that has Warriors and is a pretty good deal, so if
I bought my own I'd simply be paying more and taking all the finanical
risks and responsbilities, to fly the same thing (but with sole
availability to me)

My uncle is looking for his own. Right now he is partnering with
me on my Warrior. IMHO, the Warrior is one of the better values out there.
They go almost as fast (according to the Piper single Engine catalog, the
difference is 1 kt!) and about 100 lbs less useful load for an average of
$20-$30K cheaper than an Archer.


Funny you should mention that, my club has Warriors but has a faction
that wants Archers (I doubt these debates EVER end in clubs). Those who
want the Archers say they are 10-15kt faster, those who don't make the
exact case you made, but they say they are 5-7kt faster, not just 1Kt
faster. And of course people in both factions have flown Archers and
swear by their numbers

I'm inclined to agree with you, I'd rather if they were going to spend
that much money that they increase the Warrior fleet size rather than
upgrade the same number of planes, especially since we already have
Mooneys in the feet too.

  #10  
Old January 7th 05, 06:04 PM
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The book says it's 1 kt faster. The determining factor is the new-style
wheel pants. I put on a set of the pants on my Warrior and I consistently go
into the yellow arch (which starts at 126 kts IAS) below 2000ft MSL. Without
the pants, I would agree that it's more like 7 kts difference. Your club
should have a "fly-off" between both airframes to do some real-life
comparisons. It would be a good reason to fly around for a day.

From a strict value perspective, I think the Archer is not worth the 50%
premium in purchase price over the Warrior.

Marco Leon

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Marco Leon wrote:

Why don't you get a Warrior? There are some OK ones going for between
$30-$40K.


I was lured into looking at 140s because I was looking at Air/Ercoupes
and then realized that 140s with a lot more capability than Air/Ercoupes
could be had for not much more than people are asking for decent
Air/Ercoupes (up to mid 20's for the Alon models), with the added
advantage of being a relatively standard airframe. Going up to Warrior
money is a significantly bigger step. Since it's all fantasy and not
likely to actually happen at this point, I can look into that too
Also I fly in a club that has Warriors and is a pretty good deal, so if
I bought my own I'd simply be paying more and taking all the finanical
risks and responsbilities, to fly the same thing (but with sole
availability to me)

My uncle is looking for his own. Right now he is partnering with
me on my Warrior. IMHO, the Warrior is one of the better values out

there.
They go almost as fast (according to the Piper single Engine catalog,

the
difference is 1 kt!) and about 100 lbs less useful load for an average

of
$20-$30K cheaper than an Archer.


Funny you should mention that, my club has Warriors but has a faction
that wants Archers (I doubt these debates EVER end in clubs). Those who
want the Archers say they are 10-15kt faster, those who don't make the
exact case you made, but they say they are 5-7kt faster, not just 1Kt
faster. And of course people in both factions have flown Archers and
swear by their numbers

I'm inclined to agree with you, I'd rather if they were going to spend
that much money that they increase the Warrior fleet size rather than
upgrade the same number of planes, especially since we already have
Mooneys in the feet too.



 




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
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FLY-IN - MORE INFORMATION Don Owning 0 June 16th 04 05:14 AM
CHEROKEE NATIONAL FLY-IN - MORE INFORMATION Don General Aviation 0 June 16th 04 05:13 AM
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention - THIS MONTH Don General Aviation 0 June 3rd 04 05:01 AM
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention Don Owning 0 March 20th 04 03:17 AM
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention Don General Aviation 0 March 20th 04 03:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 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.