Aircraft with 180 hp conversions vs. their counterparts

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
474
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
When it comes to the Cherokee 140/160/Warriors that have had a 180 hp etc done, how do they compare with the actual Cherokee 180 in terms of cruise speed, climb, payload, etc.? I believe the cockpit size may differ, so perhaps this could make it a better performer than the Cherokee 180?

If you saw a 140/180 hp and a Cherokee 180 on Barnstormers for the exact same price (and same SMOH, etc.), which would you prefer to buy?

Another aircraft is the Grumman Cheetah with 180 hp (I believe they’re called ‘Cheegers’). How do they compare in performance with the actual Tiger?
 
Generally the manufacturers made airframe changes as they increased HP and max gross weight. There are some STCs that increase max gross weight with the HP increase and others don’t.

An example of changes in the Piper Warrior was a change in the number of landing gear attachments for the increased weight. The 140/150 models have 3 bolts attaching the gear and the 160 and Archer models have a 4 bolt attachment.
 
DMD3. said:
Another aircraft is the Grumman Cheetah with 180 hp (I believe they’re called ‘Cheegers’). How do they compare in performance with the actual Tiger?
Click to expand...
Along with the engine, the cowling and spar are different. If the STC uses the Tiger cowl, you'll get the benefit of increased speed. If the plane was converter over to a Tiger spar, you'll get the benefit of increased MGW. Pretty much everything else is the same between Cheetah and Tiger.
 
interesting question
and interesting points about "other airframe changes" that piggy-back with the change.....
might include proper engineering for the added Horsepower, or other unrelated improvements
But with those piggy-back changes...I wonder about the "bloat" that comes along with that sort of thing in the name of improvement...added complexity that's not proportional to gains, unintended consequences, etc....
so maybe in some ways...adding the horsepower without the bloat might maybe could be better???
 
In the motorcycle world, the "250 class" bikes are made of the cheapest, lightest-weight parts. The larger-displacement bikes are built better.

I would presume, to a point, this translates to GA, as well, but I don't know specifics.

My dad had a Cherokee 140 that we owned for 10+ years, and an Archer sure seems like a much different plane. Not to mention baggage doors, and other nice things.
 
Rgbeard said:
In the motorcycle world, the "250 class" bikes are made of the cheapest, lightest-weight parts. The larger-displacement bikes are built better.

I would presume, to a point, this translates to GA, as well, but I don't know specifics.
Click to expand...
I suppose it's not a very simple translation. Motorcycles are a lot smaller, so I'm guessing there's less benefit from parts commonality (e.g. stocking different airplane wings is going to take up a lot more floor space than stocking different motorcycle frames). Plus, motorcycles probably have a much shofter certification path.
 
Brad W said:
interesting question
and interesting points about "other airframe changes" that piggy-back with the change.....
might include proper engineering for the added Horsepower, or other unrelated improvements
But with those piggy-back changes...I wonder about the "bloat" that comes along with that sort of thing in the name of improvement...added complexity that's not proportional to gains, unintended consequences, etc....
so maybe in some ways...adding the horsepower without the bloat might maybe could be better???
Click to expand...

Yes. Seems like I’ve read that the older 60’s model C172s with the conversions are real sweet machines compared with the later models.
 
DMD3. said:
Yes. Seems like I’ve read that the older 60’s model C172s with the conversions are real sweet machines compared with the later models.
Click to expand...
The one's I've flown were. The only thing is that if they didn't have extended tanks, expect some pretty short range.
 
Brad W said:
interesting question
and interesting points about "other airframe changes" that piggy-back with the change.....
might include proper engineering for the added Horsepower, or other unrelated improvements
But with those piggy-back changes...I wonder about the "bloat" that comes along with that sort of thing in the name of improvement...added complexity that's not proportional to gains, unintended consequences, etc....
so maybe in some ways...adding the horsepower without the bloat might maybe could be better???
Click to expand...

Changing from a 150 hp O-320 to a 160 hp O-320 isn’t much bloat.
 
asicer said:
Along with the engine, the cowling and spar are different. If the STC uses the Tiger cowl, you'll get the benefit of increased speed. If the plane was converter over to a Tiger spar, you'll get the benefit of increased MGW. Pretty much everything else is the same between Cheetah and Tiger.
Click to expand...

Fuel tank size. Tigers come with what were optional Long Range Tanks on the Cheetah.
 
used to fly a 172 w/180hp & climb prop, made a different aircraft out it.
 
The 180hp Cherokee 140's I think tend to be nose heavy.

Exterior dimensions are the same. Interior are not. If everything is equal, take the actual 180. It has a baggage door and I believe a couple hundred pounds of useful load. Really depends on the stc whether it has a weight increase. Some warriors are eligible for an increase, I don't know of any increase for the 140.
 
I used to fly both a 1972 CE 172 and a military T-41B within an hour of each other. T.O. climb & cruise were pretty close. As you know, the T-41B is a 172 with a heavier TCM IO-360, heavier c.s. prop and 7.00 x 7 mlg wheels. I swear that I could feel the heavier engine and prop in the landing flare. Cruise is pennies apart, but despite careful leaning and reduced MP in the T-41B, the best I saw was 12 GPH. At least the T-41B had bigger tanks. The stock 172 seemed to be like dancing with a ballerina. The T41B was more like a welterweight.
Load them both up and the 172 was noticeably more affected. I have no experience with the 180 conv.
 
Racerx said:
The 180hp Cherokee 140's I think tend to be nose heavy.
Click to expand...

heck, the 150hp Cherokee 140’s tend to be nose heavy…. at least mine was (and no, it wasn’t a fat pilot that made it so)
 
With a timed out engine....man crazy times are still here.
 
Based on the cost of the 180hp engines and c/s props and gear to me it will never be worth it. A few more 100fpm in climb is not worth a $10-$20k c/s prop rebuild.
 
If you have no use whatsoever for the baggage area, get the upgraded 140. It will be slightly lighter so you get an even bigger bang for your buck on the 180hp.

Otherwise there's something to be said for the baggage area so get the 180.
 
Brad W said:
bloat
Click to expand...
100%. In my opinion the best flying light generally aviation planes are older and lighter, for instance

-PA-28-151 > brand new PA-28-181

One feels light fast and nimble the other feels heavy and sluggish

I'd also much rather fly an old 172 and with the 180 conversion verse a new Skyhawk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top