According to the owners manual, the fixed-pitch Cherokee 235 is a couple mph faster in cruise than with the constant-speed prop.
That looks about right.
Here's one ... https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...EROKEE+235&listing_id=2405953&s-type=aircraft
Fixed-pitch was standard, and constant-speed an extra-cost option, through the 1972 "235F". This is from the brochure for the 1970 235D:
I stand corrected.
Comanche 400 is one of my dream planes. Until you need an overhaul, of course and then it’s a nightmare. My A&P has one…. OH costs nearly 70k.
When flying with the family in my 181, with the exception when the kids were small, we (me + 3 ladies and their baggage) were always at gross.
Really true, as you have stated for any non-turbo IC engine in that high altitude will lower available HP, but the fuel saving is very healthy and associated with less loss in ground speed because of the thin air. In general also, the higher altitude air is smoother giving a comfortable ride for all.The only exceptions are icing considerations higher up or hellacious headwinds at higher up that can be mitigated much lower(unless really turbulent). But for me, in my 181, the usual increased headwind from the west higher up is outweighed by the increased efficiency, and comfort with minimal loss in ETE.
The 1973 redesign in the -180 and -235 (1972 for the Arrow) involved not only the longer fuselage, but also more wingspan (in the -180 and Arrow only, matching the -235's 32' wingspan), longer stabilator and more weight. Stands to reason that performance would be degraded somewhat, but the extra cabin room was well worth it.
This seems quite optimistic unless you are flying very light and very high. Our club has an Archer and a 180 and I don't think I've ever seen 130 in them.
Piper quoted service ceiling of 12,000' for the 1973 Cherokee Charger, and 13,550' for the 1974 Cherokee Pathfinder. I'm suspicious of that, though. There was no difference between them other than the name, the paint job and the shape of the windows -- not enough to account for another 1,550 feet of climb.
Piper quoted service ceiling of 12,000' for the 1973 Cherokee Charger, and 13,550' for the 1974 Cherokee Pathfinder. I'm suspicious of that, though. There was no difference between them other than the name, the paint job and the shape of the windows -- not enough to account for another 1,550 feet of climb.
Close; POA is a good beer reviewed journal.
Piper quoted service ceiling of 12,000' for the 1973 Cherokee Charger, and 13,550' for the 1974 Cherokee Pathfinder. I'm suspicious of that, though. There was no difference between them other than the name, the paint job and the shape of the windows -- not enough to account for another 1,550 feet of climb.
I believe the 12,000' number. But I would doubt the 13,550' quoted for the 1974-77 models (gross weight, ISA, etc., etc.) It wouldn't surprise me if the sudden and otherwise unexplainable increase were driven by the marketing department, smarting from hearing about the competitor C-182P's lofty service ceiling of 17,700'.
Yeah AI is missing some I
to about 11.5 - 12.0 GPH
For me personally it was too much of a performance hit to go for the Charger/Pathfinder, especially in the relatively high and hot DA of Las Vegas where I live. If you want the extra legroom in the back and the performance then a Dakota is probably the best fit. I looked for one for some time and had 2 fall out of prebuy before I made the decision on a 235. I’ve been REALLY happy with my ‘68.
