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.

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Tim Long wrote:
: Our 140 is coming up on 1600 hrs TBO.
So? If you're Part 91 and the engine isn't having any issues, keep flying!

: We really hate what a dog it is and would like more power.
It's a Cherokee... what do you expect (I own one too).

: 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 don't know about the cost, but our plane was modified before we got it.
It's a 140 with a 180 hp engine, AND it's been modified to have the later-style
cowling. The fiberglass clamshell type, not the aluminum flip-side style. As such,
it has the dual exhaust with mufflers under the carb, not by the firewall. I have no
idea how much all that cost, but I'm sure it was expensive... even way back when the
guy we got it from did it.

: 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.

I've flown a number of different Cherokees, and I can attest that the 140/150
varieties are quite doggy. As far as climb goes, a 180 doesn't really buy you that
much as far as making the fpm more, but it will hold the same fpm with more load and
at a higher altitude. The PA-28 Hershey airframe just sucks at climbing. What
really does help the low-speed performance (and to some degree climb) are Matteson's
VG's. Four little tabs on each wing root lowers light-weight stall by 10-15mph from
my experimentation.

If you have any thoughts of autogassing, you're kinda stuck with what you've
got. Both the 160 and 180 require the new cowling (as someone else mentioned). The
O-360 HP STC that I've got (Avcon) does allow for a low-compression version, which
would be 168hp. You'd want to check for sure from Peterson if that airframe/engine
combo is approved (it's awfully weird so it may not be). It's be just as expensive as
a 180hp, but would allow you to run autogas.

I've got a friend with a 140/160 with the prop mod, powerflow exhaust,
Matteson VG's, etc and at least with 2 people it climbs as good or a bit better than
my 180. If you're overhauling the engine anyway, your best bang for the buck is
probably a 160hp conversion. If you need a new exhaust maybe do the powerflow, but
it's pricey for what you get.

It really boils down to if you want better climb (or reduced-pucker hauling
capacity) or cruise speed. If the former, enjoy the 160 with a non-repitched (thus a
climb) prop. If the latter, sell the plane and buy one that's faster. Speed mods are
almost always not worth it.

Sorry for the ramblings, but maybe some of them helped.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

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.