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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Archer Tach Red Arc | Greg Esres | Owning | 15 | February 9th 05 08:28 AM |
World War II Flying 'Ace' Salutes Racial Progress, By Gerry J. Gilmore | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 03:33 AM |
Dreamfleet/flight1 archer c310 FPS? | Tlewis95 | Simulators | 4 | February 2nd 04 12:12 AM |
RNZAF Skyhawk Sale Update | Errol Cavit | Military Aviation | 10 | September 21st 03 09:46 AM |
Piper Archer III or Cessna 172SP | Dale Harwell | Owning | 10 | July 15th 03 04:01 AM |