Looking for the first plane

I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find the
climb performance too much of a dog to be useful for even pleasure flying.
Some have suggested a Warrior, instead.

Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model. I'd like to head for a C-182 but it is a little more
out of the wallet than I was planning for, although I've flown them and
greatly admire their versatility in terms of power.

Ideas regarding the Cherokee 140 (which has a 150 HP I believe?) .????

Thanks in advance

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

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 -

In article ,
"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

[snip]

Ideas regarding the Cherokee 140 (which has a 150 HP I believe?) .????

Have you seen (I believe) Steve Foley has a 140 for sale?
Look in rec.aviation.marketplace or pictures at http://n6480r.home.att.net

I've owned a cherokee 140 since 1994.

The stock 140 has 150hp. Some have been upgraded to 160hp.
(mine has the same engine/prop combination of the pa-28-161).
In other words, it has the same climb/cruise performance when
using the warrior power settings.

A couple of important considerations wrt a cherokee 140 vs
other cherokees.

(1) The 140 can have limited useful load, especially the
later models. Earlier models can have useful loads exceeding
early warriors.

(2) Rear seat comfort can be, ahem, a problem.

Those are probably two main reasons why a cherokee 140 carries
a lower price than a warrior or 180. On the other hand, it also means
that you can have an airplane for less money. If you are only flying
with maybe one pax, then the 140 could be all you need.

Note that mainenance/operating costs for the 140 will be about the
same as the warrior.

Good luck.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

Hm...a long-time reader/contributor to this group, and he forgets the
Number One question of all-time wanna-buyers? tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.

"What's the mission?"

What are you going to do with it? Any plans to teach in it? Short-range
travel? Long cross-countries?

sheepish grin..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
g... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end
Grin). Instructing in one would not be an interest at all,,, both in
terms of liability/insurance costs nor would I likely be as good as an
instructor if it were my own plane I were using to instruct in (i.e.,
jumping in when it looks like a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby'
g).

Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others who
have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described. The few
I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared to aircraft
with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the boat as to why I
fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is nice,,,, but it is the
journey that makes it all worthwhile.

I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and enjoyed
every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90 knots...
always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on the
destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up there'....


Am I forgiven now for my slip..... grin

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

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 -

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

Hm...a long-time reader/contributor to this group, and he forgets the
Number One question of all-time wanna-buyers? tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.

"What's the mission?"

What are you going to do with it? Any plans to teach in it? Short-range
travel? Long cross-countries?

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
sheepish grin..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
g... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end
Grin). Instructing in one would not be an interest at all,,, both in
terms of liability/insurance costs nor would I likely be as good as an
instructor if it were my own plane I were using to instruct in (i.e.,
jumping in when it looks like a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby'
g).

Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others who
have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described. The few
I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared to aircraft
with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the boat as to why I
fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is nice,,,, but it is the
journey that makes it all worthwhile.

I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and enjoyed
every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90 knots...
always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on the
destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up there'....


Am I forgiven now for my slip..... grin

How about a nice Tripacer? pretty good speed, lots of ramp appeal and
can be had for a pretty good price.

ugliest damn plane ever made...

Dave wrote:
Cecil E. Chapman wrote:

sheepish grin..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the
determinant and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and
eyes would fall off g... .... It would be used for both local,
intrastate flights and a once a year long, interstate flight (as in
across the U.S. to the other end Grin). Instructing in one would
not be an interest at all,,, both in terms of liability/insurance
costs nor would I likely be as good as an instructor if it were my own
plane I were using to instruct in (i.e., jumping in when it looks like
a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby' g).

Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to
others who have the plane and they use it for just the variety I
described. The few I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140
when compared to aircraft with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem
to miss the boat as to why I fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the
destination is nice,,,, but it is the journey that makes it all
worthwhile.

I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and
enjoyed every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering'
90 knots... always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated
on the destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being
'up there'....

Am I forgiven now for my slip..... grin

How about a nice Tripacer? pretty good speed, lots of ramp appeal and
can be had for a pretty good price.

Jon Kraus wrote in
:

ugliest damn plane ever made...

Naaaah, the PZL Wilga beats it. g


--

I'm surprised anyone finds the Piper Tripacer ugly. I would go out of the
way to look at a nice one on the ramp and talk with the owner.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

It is not work that kills men; it is worry. Worry is rust upon the blade.
"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
ugliest damn plane ever made...

Dave wrote:
Cecil E. Chapman wrote:

sheepish grin..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the
determinant and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and
eyes would fall off g... .... It would be used for both local,
intrastate flights and a once a year long, interstate flight (as in
across the U.S. to the other end Grin). Instructing in one would not
be an interest at all,,, both in terms of liability/insurance costs nor
would I likely be as good as an instructor if it were my own plane I
were using to instruct in (i.e., jumping in when it looks like a primary
student is going to bounce my 'baby' g).

Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others
who have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described.
The few I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared
to aircraft with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the
boat as to why I fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is
nice,,,, but it is the journey that makes it all worthwhile.

I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and
enjoyed every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90
knots... always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on
the destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up
there'....

Am I forgiven now for my slip..... grin

How about a nice Tripacer? pretty good speed, lots of ramp appeal and can
be had for a pretty good price.

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
sheepish grin..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
g... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end

I've got the 180 because I live in Colorado. Even in the summer, it's
just about the minimum for high-altitude flying (altho Jer/ and a
few others might disagree but they all have high HP engines, too!)
If I were living at sea level I'd go for the lower HP also.

Unless you have one of the later model 172s (you already mentioned the
172N as the minimum, right) the PA28 line will give you a bit more
fuel (if your body can handle more time in the airplane), a bit more
stability in the bumps, and....oh well, you already know the
religious arguments...

Either way (172 or PA28) everyone knows how to fix them, everyone has
parts for them, and as long as you don't do anything really, truly
stupid, you'll live.

Blanche wrote:
Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
snip
I've got the 180 because I live in Colorado. Even in the summer, it's
just about the minimum for high-altitude flying (altho Jer/ and a
few others might disagree but they all have high HP engines, too!)
If I were living at sea level I'd go for the lower HP also.

snip
I'm headed to NM and it's higher elevations in a year or two, and like
bayareapilot, hope to become an owner. And like him, I've been
deliberating: Piper vs Cessna. A Cherokee 180 has gained prime
interest (a Comanche would be nice, or an Arrow, but mission doesn't
dictate and budget would be tight).

Blanche: a couple of questions, please, about the Cherokee 180:

What is your range of airports - elevation (or density altitude), runway
length, and load?

Do you stick to paved runways, or are you willing to use dirt or sod
strips? Do you find that there drawbacks to the low-wing Cherokee
compared to the high-wing Cessnas?