172/Cherokee gotchas

A

ateamer

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
2,070
Location
Port St. Lucie, FL
Display Name
Display name:
ateamer
I’m selling the RV-8 and will be looking for a plane with preferably four seats. Given our budget, a Cherokee 180 is most likely. I’d prefer a 172/180 but a decent one is probably more quid than I’ll have in coin pouch.

Having co-owned a 172M, and flown & managed another one for work, I’m pretty familiar with maintenance issues. I’m fairly familiar and experienced with Cherokees as well.

What gotchas do I need to be especially aware of? I know of the PA-28 spar issue, the flat gear corrosion/cracking possibility on older 172s, Cessna wing carry-through corrosion issues, flap tracks, and seat tracks. What other potentially expensive/hazardous things should be especially looked for?
 
As a two-time owner of PA-28 types, I can't relate to how someone can get into any of them after owning an RV-(n)/(a).

I also don't see how, given what people are asking for RV-8s these days, you wouldn't have coin to buy one of said snooze cans. 172s perhaps I can see, but they are poor ROI unless you ladder pulled it by purchasing 10 years ago when life was actually wage-affordable. Those are work airplanes and priced accordingly. You can do better in that space.
 
hindsight2020 said:
As a two-time owner of PA-28 types, I can't relate to how someone can get into any of them after owning an RV-(n)/(a).

I also don't see how, given what people are asking for RV-8s these days, you wouldn't have coin to buy one of said snooze cans. 172s perhaps I can see, but they are poor ROI, those are work airplanes and priced accordingly. You can do better in that space.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they’re definitely apples and oranges, but we need more room. Besides luggage, we need to be able to bring my wife’s wheelchair so we can go sightseeing (she has MS and can’t walk well for extended periods). My -8A isn’t at the upper end - mid-time engine, steam gauges. The RV is a ball to fly, but the passenger mainly gets to see the back of my bald melon, and it’s like sitting inside a reflector oven anytime after about 9:00 AM for at least half the year.

I’m setting our purchase budget by knocking ten grand off the top for sales tax, a prebuy or two, and the first annual on the next plane.
 
Entry into a Cherokee if disabled could be a challenge. Might want to try before getting too far down the road.
 
Hang 4 said:
Entry into a Cherokee if disabled could be a challenge. Might want to try before getting too far down the road.
Click to expand...
Good thought, thanks. She is able to get in and out of the -8 and Cherokees with minimal assistance, usually completely on her own. I’d definitely prefer a Cessna, though.
 
I know you're asking about Cherokees, but given your mission you might consider a baby Beech. The ones with larger engines have performance similar to a Cherokee 180, but the cockpits are more spacious, the entry door is larger, and they have fewer issues and onerous ADs.
 
Half Fast said:
I know you're asking about Cherokees, but given your mission you might consider a baby Beech. The ones with larger engines have performance similar to a Cherokee 180, but the cockpits are more spacious, the entry door is larger, and they have fewer issues and onerous ADs.
Click to expand...
What is the real-world cruise speed of a Sundowner? Also, how about the landing gear donuts? I know they’re pretty pricey, but what is their useful life?
 
ateamer said:
What is the real-world cruise speed of a Sundowner?
Click to expand...

I have a B23 ("Custom III"), which is basically a one-door Sundowner (180hp engine) and it will cruise around 140-143 mph TAS (a bit over 120 knots), depending on loading and CG. I think the Sundowner is about the same. The Beeches are a bit nose heavy so to get better speed it's necessary to ballast the CG aft. That also makes landing easier.

Here's a comparison of the Cherokee 180 to the B23:

1715546923625.png

1715546946990.png


ateamer said:
Also, how about the landing gear donuts? I know they’re pretty pricey, but what is their useful life?
Click to expand...

They're very pricey if you buy them from Textron (around $3k for the whole set), but many of us source them from a business in South Africa. I paid about $800 for a full set. Depending on environment and use, you should get 10-15 years out of a set. Mine are sitting in a box, still waiting for installation; that's on my to-do list.
 
Ok, Capt Obvious here.
PA-28s, and most low wing single engines, single door, which means she gets in after you do, on her own. In the event of an emergency landing, she is blocking the exit. Cessna, two doors, but normally one must climb up into the seat. But you can be available outside to assist and then get in your own door.

I knew a paraplegic that owned his own PA-28-180. He could maneuver from wheel chair to sitting on wing. Put his own wheel chair in the back seat of the airplane, then maneuver himself into the seat from the low wing. Reverse the process on his own to get out. He had a rudder bar hand control to fly. I flew it a couple times from left seat. I had to be careful to not bump throttle when using the hand control for left rudder. It was attached to the right rudder pedal, so pulling the bar up, pulled the right pedal back, but the bar could bump the throttle up from low idle.
 
My paraplegic pilot friend, who I have seen get into the front of a Bonanza just fine, has a 172. I’ve pre-decided that, if my mission includes mobility challenged pilot or passengers on a regular basis, I’ll be in the market for a Cessna single.

Have you and your wife gone and tried to get into a PA-28 and/or a 172 already? Maybe she is fine with the Piper, but I wouldn’t buy one without a test run.
 
iamtheari said:
My paraplegic pilot friend, who I have seen get into the front of a Bonanza just fine, has a 172. I’ve pre-decided that, if my mission includes mobility challenged pilot or passengers on a regular basis, I’ll be in the market for a Cessna single.

Have you and your wife gone and tried to get into a PA-28 and/or a 172 already? Maybe she is fine with the Piper, but I wouldn’t buy one without a test run.
Click to expand...
She has gotten into our friend’s Lance a number of times. If we both go with him, I get stuck in the back. We’ve talked about it and she is confident that a Cherokee will be okay.

I do prefer Cessnas for the doors, those nice vents at face level, and being able to open the windows.
 
Couple of thoughts. If you need to put someone in the back seat, you'll need the 180 hp version of the skyhawk. The normal 150 is going to be limited.

Have you considered the Cardinal? It has wide doors, its floor is lower to the ground, and cabin is wider as well. The B models have about the same cruise speed as the 172's I believe. (Don't think you want the A models with the 150 HP engines, but that's just my cursory top of mind thought).
 
If you are ever leaning toward a Cardinal, you should pay up for a wing-spar inspection. They are subject to corrosion and are made of unobtanium. I like the cardinal, but it has the spar as its Achilles heel, sadly.

-Skip
 
ateamer said:
Yeah, they’re definitely apples and oranges, but we need more room. Besides luggage, we need to be able to bring my wife’s wheelchair so we can go sightseeing (she has MS and can’t walk well for extended periods). My -8A isn’t at the upper end - mid-time engine, steam gauges. The RV is a ball to fly, but the passenger mainly gets to see the back of my bald melon, and it’s like sitting inside a reflector oven anytime after about 9:00 AM for at least half the year.

I’m setting our purchase budget by knocking ten grand off the top for sales tax, a prebuy or two, and the first annual on the next plane.
Click to expand...

Understood. I will say, given my experience owning both cessnas and pipers for 13 years, honestly go high wing if this is going to be an airplane you folks are intending to go into senior age into, and considering the progressive nature to MS.

Cardinals have excellent door ingress ergonomics for this type of thing. Alas, as has been pointed out, they have potentially big gotcha with the spar carry through. Things are just getting dumb in fac built space as the fleet ages into absurdity. Cardinal owners will shortly come in to defend their honor. Meh, don't care much about the topic to get into it anymore/to each their own type of thing.

Prices are all over the place, though they are lowering. I think a lower end 182 (fixed gear only, forget that retract mess) might be a decent and more serviceable option long term. That'd be my choice if I were in your situation. Given a Lyco almost sent me to the pasture last year, I no longer care about engine brand as a hedge. I do prefer the -470 series over their 520/550, and def over their 360. Engine brand is really a wash in terms of long term costs for me anymore.

Good luck on the pivot. Totally understand the desire to share this thing with loved ones, it's what got me into airplanes I would have otherwise not have owned. Cheers!
 
Go have your wife get in and out of a Cardinal, a Skylane, and a Skyhawk. Love the Skylane, but it is a little bit of a step up to get in vs Skyhawk and Cardinal.
 
The Cardinal/210 spar inspection AD is well known now, to the point that it would be silly to even list a Cardinal for sale without having the inspection completed. It would be on par to listing a high time Arrow with the wing spar inspection open. Check the maintenance records, and if it hasn’t been completed, suspect a reason why.

I’m familiar with the ingress/egress of the Cardinal, and I have to say, I’d be happy with it. Got to spend a few hours under the panel of one this weekend. Easy airplane to work on.

I own a Cherokee 140/180. It’s ok. I love flying it. A second door would make me love it. I hate getting in and out of it.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
(Don't think you want the A models with the 150 HP engines, but that's just my cursory top of mind thought).
Click to expand...
Only the "straight" (no letter suffix) 1968 177 Cardinals -- about 35-40% of the fixed-gear Cardinals built -- had the 150 hp engine. The 1969 177A had the 180 hp O-360 and fixed-pitch prop, and the 1970-78 177B had constant-speed prop and modified wing leading edges
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
If you haven’t already, join the type club. When I was shopping, I joined the clubs for the planes I was considering. Great resources, tons of info.
 
ateamer said:
What is the real-world cruise speed of a Sundowner? Also, how about the landing gear donuts? I know they’re pretty pricey, but what is their useful life?
Click to expand...
A Sundowner sucks. It’s heavy and slow with a poor climb rate. WB envelope is terrible and even with 2 passengers you will want ballast in the baggage area. The flaps are not very effective.
 
Clip4 said:
A Sundowner sucks. It’s heavy and slow with a poor climb rate. WB envelope is terrible and even with 2 passengers you will want ballast in the baggage area. The flaps are not very effective.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Its performance is comparable to the Cherokee 180. Yes, it flies better with some weight in the baggage area OR there is an aft ballast weight that can be permanently installed in the tail. The planes are very well built, are quite stable and handle nicely, are roomy and comfortable, and are simple to maintain with no onerous ADs.
 
Half Fast said:
Baloney. Its performance is comparable to the Cherokee 180. Yes, it flies better with some weight in the baggage area OR there is an aft ballast weight that can be permanently installed in the tail. The planes are very well built, are quite stable and handle nicely, are roomy and comfortable, and are simple to maintain with no onerous ADs.
Click to expand...
Baloney indeed. Put 2 normal size adults in the front seats and you can’t carry full fuel. Beach sold an optional ballast weight to be installed at aft bulk head around Station 120 to try to off set this. There are owners who install and unapproved ballast weighing 2x as much to try to correct the issue. Otherwise owners are sticking 40# of ballast in the baggage area and still can’t carry full fuel.

The Sundowner wallows around in mild turbulence like you flying a fishing bobber. The airplane doesn’t trim well for approaches and the flaps are not very effective.

While the POH values are similar between an Archer and a Sundowner, the Sundowner falls well short of the POH values and actual Archer performance,

It is a comfortable airplane. The airplane with trailing main gear is capable of the best soft field take offs of any tricycle gear aircraft I have flown. That is its only attributes.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Only the "straight" (no letter suffix) 1968 177 Cardinals -- about 35-40% of the fixed-gear Cardinals built -- had the 150 hp engine. The 1969 177A had the 180 hp O-360 and fixed-pitch prop, and the 1970-78 177B had constant-speed prop and modified wing leading edges
Click to expand...
Didn't the "B" models also have some modifications to the stabilator to make landing a bit easier??
 
Clip4 said:
Baloney indeed. Put 2 normal size adults in the front seats and you can’t carry full fuel. Beach sold an optional ballast weight to be installed at aft bulk head around Station 120 to try to off set this. There are owners who install and unapproved ballast weighing 2x as much to try to correct the issue. Otherwise owners are sticking 40# of ballast in the baggage area and still can’t carry full fuel.

The Sundowner wallows around in mild turbulence like you flying a fishing bobber. The airplane doesn’t trim well for approaches and the flaps are not very effective.

While the POH values are similar between an Archer and a Sundowner, the Sundowner falls well short of the POH values and actual Archer performance,

It is a comfortable airplane and that is its only attribute.
Click to expand...

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve flow mine numerous times with full fuel, two adults, and luggage and been well within the CG envelope. My plane hits the POH numbers, it trims easily, and the flaps are certainly effective.l
 
Half Fast said:
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve flow mine numerous times with full fuel, two adults, and luggage and been well within the CG envelope. My plane hits the POH numbers, it trims easily, and the flaps are certainly effective.l
Click to expand...
Folks, before you buy one of these pigs, do a web search and you will discover plenty of information on 11# optional approaved ballast weight and a 22# one people are installing as an unapproved par and other performance characteristics of this model. Someone named Half Fast suggests adding wakeballast steel shot bag to a Sundowner. Prosecution rests.


www.pilotsofamerica.com

Beech C23 Sundowner 4-1-1

Hi, Thoughts and/or impression these birds? Thanks
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Folks, before you buy one of these pigs, do a web search and you will discover plenty of information on 11# optional approaved ballast weight and a 22# one people are installing as an unapproved par and other performance characteristics of this model. Someone named Halffast reccomends to adding wakeballast steel shot bag to a Sundowner. Prosecution rests.


www.pilotsofamerica.com

Beech C23 Sundowner 4-1-1

Hi, Thoughts and/or impression these birds? Thanks
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
Click to expand...

Yes, they fly better with ballast. So what? Many planes fly best with aft CG. It costs nothing; when you load bags, take out the ballast.

I’m finished wasting bits and bytes on you. You’re giving bogus and worthless advice from ignorance and I’m sharing first-hand experience.
 
I’d consider a Mooney! You’ve been hooked on RV speed, why not get a fast 4 seater that sells at less than a Skyhawk and burns about 1/3 less fuel on a trip. My m20f has a 1050 useful, just flew it from MI to Florida, did 130-150kts on 8.5gph.
 
Is a Moony going to be friendly for a wheelchair user?
 
WDD said:
Is a Moony going to be friendly for a wheelchair user?
Click to expand...
Mrs. Ateamer can get in and out unassisted, the wheelchair is for once we’re there and want to stroll around for a while. From what I recall of flying a Mooney, entry is about the same as a PA-28, and I should be able to get the chair in with the wheels removed (quick release).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
One door sucks. You best see if you wife can get into one before you buy. My dad doesn’t need a wheel chair but I can’t see bringing him in our pa28 cause once I am in who’s going to make sure he can get up and in? And shoving him in the back is likely problematic too.

And yes it does not float. Might make for lazy piloting.
 
ateamer said:
Mrs. Ateamer can get in and out unassisted, the wheelchair is for once we’re there and want to stroll around for a while. From what I recall of flying a Mooney, entry is about the same as a PA-28, and I should be able to get the chair in with the wheels removed (quick release).
Click to expand...
Is a Moony’s cabin big enough for a wheel chair? I mean, it’s basically just big enough for two small adults to fly in while laying on their backs……. (I kid, I kid. Little good natured Moony humor here)
 
I really like my club's Mooney - but, it's not the easiest thing to get into and out of. I wouldn't recommend it in this case. A Cessna Cardinal is probably a better choice - might need some kind of a step stool, but there's a lot of room in the cabin, and nice big doors.
 
On landing Cessna's only float if a pilot is fast on short final and over the fence. 50 knots over the fence and chop power and land on your spot.

@ateamer Looks like you're in Florida? Given the heat, sitting under the shade of a high wing is something to consider. Worth consider only buying a plane that is still in production for obtaining new parts and getting factory support on technical issues. This is a plus for sticking with A Cherokee (now an Archer) or 172/182.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top