Another ‘Cherokee 180 vs. 235’ thread…

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
481
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
I’m well aware of the payload differences between the 180 & 235. If one planned on carrying 3 or even 4 adults regularly, and especially on x/c flights over 8k feet, it’d be the 235 all the way. I believe the 235 was intended for 4 business adults to be able to get around.

But if a pilot was going to spend a lot of time flying solo (occasionally carrying 1 passenger and only light luggage) the 180 seems to be just as good, due to the lower fuel burn, FP prop (even though there do exist 235’s with FP), and the lower engine overhauls. An o-360 OH ain’t cheap, but will definitely seem tolerable when compared to overhauling an o-540.

Lastly, the cruise performance doesn’t seem to be all that greater for the 235. A lightly loaded 180 can true close to 130 kts. For those who have flown both aircraft solo (or with 1 passenger), how does the climb, cruise, and service ceiling compare between the two?
 
I haven't flown the 235. But, let me say that nothing requires the pilot to use 75% power in either airplane. Reduce power, save gas.
 
Bob Noel said:
I haven't flown the 235. But, let me say that nothing requires the pilot to use 75% power in either airplane. Reduce power, save gas.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I haven’t flown either, and I realize there are multitudes of threads regarding the comparison of these two aircraft, but I created this one to verify the performance if flying solo. And while I can always read about the performance, the numbers seldom match those of the real world.
 
We fly a 1971 235, it lacks the extra 5 inches the later models have, so rear legroom may be an issue to you
 
Scrabo said:
We fly a 1971 235, it lacks the extra 5 inches the later models have, so rear legroom may be an issue to you
Click to expand...

Would spend most of the time flying solo, only occasionally carrying pax. :)
 
DMD3. said:
I’m well aware of the payload differences between the 180 & 235. If one planned on carrying 3 or even 4 adults regularly, and especially on x/c flights over 8k feet, it’d be the 235 all the way. I believe the 235 was intended for 4 business adults to be able to get around.

But if a pilot was going to spend a lot of time flying solo (occasionally carrying 1 passenger and only light luggage) the 180 seems to be just as good, due to the lower fuel burn, FP prop (even though there do exist 235’s with FP), and the lower engine overhauls. An o-360 OH ain’t cheap, but will definitely seem tolerable when compared to overhauling an o-540.

Lastly, the cruise performance doesn’t seem to be all that greater for the 235. A lightly loaded 180 can true close to 130 kts. For those who have flown both aircraft solo (or with 1 passenger), how does the climb, cruise, and service ceiling compare between the two?
Click to expand...
I have an Archer 2 with gobs of experience, but have very little 235 experience.

I have flown with all 4 seats occasionally, and even on 1000 mile trips. Some of the passengers were not light weights, but most were in the 175 lb or less. When flying this way at 8K, probably plan to reduce fuel to the 17 gal tab in one tank. If very heavy adults, consider 17 gal tabs in both tanks. That would also depend on how much baggage you were taking. That baggage could mean the difference between over-gross or not, but could also put you behind the W&B envelope, so weigh and place carefully. Since I usually need lots of baggage, I have sent the excess by FedEx or other carrier separately.

The main consideration for me was trying to preserve good range with IFR reserves. This is accomplished by leaning to peak and flying 65% power. This likely gives me a slight cruise speed disadvantage compared to the 235, but really on long cross countries, we are talking about a few minutes difference.
While I have not had complaints from passengers, I am sure those extra inches in the PA28-181 body makes a difference, although it still looks tight.
 
Let’s ask AI:


The Cessna 180 and 235 are both single-engine, high-wing, fixed-landing gear aircraft that are often used for personal and light-duty transportation. The primary differences between the two aircraft are payload capacity, engine power, and speed.

The Cessna 180 has a lighter, less powerful engine and a smaller payload capacity compared to the 235. As a result, the 180 typically has a slower climb rate, lower cruise speed, and lower service ceiling compared to the 235. However, due to its lighter weight, the 180 burns less fuel and has lower maintenance costs, making it a more cost-effective option for solo or light-duty flying.

In terms of performance, the Cessna 180 typically has a maximum cruise speed of around 120 knots, a service ceiling of around 13,000 feet, and a rate of climb of around 700 feet per minute. The Cessna 235, on the other hand, typically has a maximum cruise speed of around 130 knots, a service ceiling of around 18,000 feet, and a rate of climb of around 1,100 feet per minute.

In conclusion, the Cessna 180 and 235 are both capable aircraft, but the best choice depends on the intended use and mission profile. If you plan on carrying more weight or flying higher and faster, the 235 would be the better choice, but if you plan on flying solo or with a light load, the 180 may be the more cost-effective option.
 
I would think a 235 could fly at similar speed and fuel burn of a 180 if one had restraint with use of the money knob.

An O-540 loafing around at 55% power might just exceed TBO handily enough to cover the MOH cost difference.
 
As has been pointed out, a 235 can fly at 180 speeds and fuel burns. However, one should remember that a 180 cannot fly at 235 speeds and fuel burns.
 
I have a 1968 235 C with a 3 blade CS prop. I live in Vegas with fairly high DA. I climb at over 1k ft/min to about 7k and cruise at 140+ KTAS. I weigh 265, my wife is 135 and my son is 220. We can all go on trips with full fuel at 84 gallons. I can lean out in cruise at 10,000 and get 12 gph or less. I used to rent 180's here (before I bought my 235) and before that Cirrus SR20's.

On hot, high DA days I wouldn't dream of loading passengers up in the 180 and hope to get any sort of performance. The 180 is a GREAT plane - it's all about your mission. If you fly from low DA airports or don't need necessarily to take passengers all the time it will work great. If you want some extra speed, great climb and a plane that can haul its own weight then a 235 is a good choice.

 
I was in the same quandary a few years ago. Decided on the 180 for lower (much!) overhaul costs and regular 'feeding'. I'm based in hot Las Vegas, but - If like me - 95%+ of your flights are either solo or plus one, no problem at all at high DA. If you really need a third person with you, go the 235 route.
 
skier said:
Let’s ask AI:


The Cessna 180 and 235 are both single-engine, high-wing, fixed-landing gear aircraft that are often used for personal and light-duty transportation. The primary differences between the two aircraft are payload capacity, engine power, and speed.

The Cessna 180 has a lighter, less powerful engine and a smaller payload capacity compared to the 235. As a result, the 180 typically has a slower climb rate, lower cruise speed, and lower service ceiling compared to the 235. However, due to its lighter weight, the 180 burns less fuel and has lower maintenance costs, making it a more cost-effective option for solo or light-duty flying.

In terms of performance, the Cessna 180 typically has a maximum cruise speed of around 120 knots, a service ceiling of around 13,000 feet, and a rate of climb of around 700 feet per minute. The Cessna 235, on the other hand, typically has a maximum cruise speed of around 130 knots, a service ceiling of around 18,000 feet, and a rate of climb of around 1,100 feet per minute.

In conclusion, the Cessna 180 and 235 are both capable aircraft, but the best choice depends on the intended use and mission profile. If you plan on carrying more weight or flying higher and faster, the 235 would be the better choice, but if you plan on flying solo or with a light load, the 180 may be the more cost-effective option.
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to a Cherokee 180
 
Given a choice, would opt for the 235. Can always throttle back if not in a hurry, but have excess power available for hot/high and/or large payload days. Except for the lack of wingtip clearance against the snow banks, it could do pretty much everything a 182 could do.

I flew an early model with FP prop (first 50 or so came that way) and it could literally haul its empty weight - 1350# useful load, 2700# max gross come to mind. Later ones may be set up simpler, but the one I flew had four tanks and 84 gallons total, so lots of twisting of the fuel valve inconveniently located at the lower left.
 
Steamflyer said:
I flew an early model with FP prop (first 50 or so came that way)
Click to expand...
Constant-speed prop was an extra-cost optional item on the Cherokee 235 through the 1972 model year, though fewer and fewer were being sold with FP props as time went on.

Later ones may be set up simpler, but the one I flew had four tanks and 84 gallons total, so lots of twisting of the fuel valve inconveniently located at the lower left.
Click to expand...
That four-position fuel selector was just above the floor below the center of the instrument panel, still not all that convenient. It was the same on all PA-28-235s, from 1963 through 1977, and same as on all of the fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes through 1978. All other PA-28 models, with only two tanks, had the selector on the left sidewall.

The PA-28-236 Dakota replaced the Cherokee 235 in 1979, and featured longer, tapered wings, two-tank fuel system holding 72 gallons, and higher-compression engine producing 235 hp at 2400 rpm.
 
[QUOTE="Pilawt, post: 3366494, member: 567"


That four-position fuel selector was just above the floor below the center of the instrument panel. It was the same on all PA-28-235s, from 1963 through 1977, and same as on all of the fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes through 1978. All other PA-28 models, with only two tanks, had the selector on the left sidewall.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reminder - confused the 235 with a Bonanza in terms of where the selector was. There were five positions though! We made a little foam block velcroed between off and the first position.
 
180 and 235 are great planes. Strongly considered both before I picked up a 182.
Fly both, it’s more of a UL question than anything else.
 
I have 30 hours in a Dakota, and 220 in an Archer. Different wing, same engines. Given the choice, id take the Dakota 7 days a week and twice in Sunday, even solo. Just so much more airplane. Rate of climb is significantly better, and more power makes everything more fun.

I flight planned 110 knots in the Archer and 135 in the Dakota. The Archer would do 120, but you're pushing the engine pretty hard and burning a lot of gas. The Dakota would do 140 if you ran it hard. Fuel/mi was basically the same, but the 540 got you there faster. The CS prop is great in that you can pull the engine back and significantly reduce the tach time vs Hobbs time. A major advantage in a club that charges by tach hour, but also in an ownership situation where you do your mx by tach time.

If your chief concern is frugal flying, why not throw the arrow into the mix? Dakota speeds on Archer gas, and you can always throttle back. My lance will actually fly Archer speeds on less than Archer gas around 55% power, which I will do sometimes if I'm running ahead of schedule or just or sightseeing. Nice option to have. Bendy legs have their own set of issue, but arrows are often cheaper than straight leg 180s and much cheaper than 235s. I bet an arrow would do 120 on 8 gph.
 
Jim K said:
The Archer would do 120, but you're pushing the engine pretty hard and burning a lot of gas.
Click to expand...
How hard are you pushing it? I can do 120ktas all day long at 65% in the Archer II.
 
my 180 does 120kt at 65% happily. Also, yes, you COULD pull the power back in a 235, but would you?.. Personally, my final decision was based on the costs of long term maintenance on the big engine (inc overhaul), vs the relatively cheap O360. The one point against me (honesty at work..) is that my mission is fairly long cross country flights, and I probably (ok, definitely..) spend more on fuel than if I bought a faster bird - that being the case, I console myself with my lower maintenance..
 
Jim K said:
I have 30 hours in a Dakota, and 220 in an Archer. Different wing, same engines. Given the choice, id take the Dakota 7 days a week and twice in Sunday, even solo. Just so much more airplane. Rate of climb is significantly better, and more power makes everything more fun.

I flight planned 110 knots in the Archer and 135 in the Dakota. The Archer would do 120, but you're pushing the engine pretty hard and burning a lot of gas. The Dakota would do 140 if you ran it hard. Fuel/mi was basically the same, but the 540 got you there faster. The CS prop is great in that you can pull the engine back and significantly reduce the tach time vs Hobbs time. A major advantage in a club that charges by tach hour, but also in an ownership situation where you do your mx by tach time.

If your chief concern is frugal flying, why not throw the arrow into the mix? Dakota speeds on Archer gas, and you can always throttle back. My lance will actually fly Archer speeds on less than Archer gas around 55% power, which I will do sometimes if I'm running ahead of schedule or just or sightseeing. Nice option to have. Bendy legs have their own set of issue, but arrows are often cheaper than straight leg 180s and much cheaper than 235s. I bet an arrow would do 120 on 8 gph.
Click to expand...
I think you meant, same wing but different engine when comparing the PA28-181 versus the 236.

Regarding cruise speed comparison, I file 125kts on FltPlan Go, and I am invariably right on the money on my cross countries at 8-9K. My Archer(well rigged and with wheel pants and strong engine ) will cruise 132-135 TAS at 75% power at slightly less than MGW, but I’ve found the trade off to sip less fuel at 65% more important to increase fuel reserves and range at really a very insignificant saving of few minutes of enroute time on those non stop cross countries.

IMO, the real differences lye at the increased load carrying, high density altitude performance, and service ceiling that the 236 variation gives you. Space inside is the same but the envelope is more generous.
 
RyanB said:
How hard are you pushing it? I can do 120ktas all day long at 65% in the Archer II.
Click to expand...
Jim K said:
Ours would do 120 at 75%. No wheel pants on it was part of that.
Click to expand...
Guess I'm an outlier. My '73 -180 with pants and a few speed mods can get to 120ktas at max power at 8000'. She will never reach 130 ktas unless I'm descending.
 
Jim K said:
Ours would do 120 at 75%. No wheel pants on it was part of that.
Click to expand...
Ah, going sans pants will do it.
Jim_R said:
Guess I'm an outlier. My '73 -180 with pants and a few speed mods can get to 120ktas at max power at 8000'. She will never reach 130 ktas unless I'm descending.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve found the 180 won’t quite get the same performance in cruise as the 181 will with its taper wing. The ‘78 Archer II that I fly has wheel pants and it’ll consistently do 120ktas at 65%.
 
If 1-2. People, the 180/Archer is the way to go. Heck, I’ve done 4 to FL from WI in a Warrior. All it takes is a little planning.
 
If you ever expect anyone in the rear seat, go Archer/Dakota. My 73 180 trues at 125kts @10,000
 
The Petersen auto fuel STC is available for the PA-28-235 Cherokee 235 (1963-1977), but not for the PA-28-236 Dakota. No modification is necessary for the PA-28-235. An STC is available for the PA-28-180/181 Cherokee 180 and Archer series, but a major modification to the fuel system is required.

https://www.autofuelstc.com/piper_airplanes.phtml
 
schmookeeg said:
I would think a 235 could fly at similar speed and fuel burn of a 180 if one had restraint with use of the money knob.

An O-540 loafing around at 55% power might just exceed TBO handily enough to cover the MOH cost difference.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, I remember reading about some owners claims their o-540’s going over 2,500 hours between overhauls, due to it being a derated engine, although the o-360 is said to be pretty bulletproof as well.
 
schmookeeg said:
I would think a 235 could fly at similar speed and fuel burn of a 180 if one had restraint with use of the money knob.

An O-540 loafing around at 55% power might just exceed TBO handily enough to cover the MOH cost difference.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, I remember reading about some owners claims their o-540’s going over 2,500 hours between overhauls, due to it being a derated engine, although the o-360 is said to be pretty bulletproof as well.
 
Hang 4 said:
If you ever expect anyone in the rear seat, go Archer/Dakota. My 73 180 trues at 125kts @10,000
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the problem is they’re typically for sale at twice the price. But unlike the 180 & Archer differences, the Dakota has better climb, cruise speed, service ceiling. AND has more room in backseats, with the same engine. Amazing what tweaking the airframe will do.
 
DMD3. said:
But unlike the 180 & Archer differences, the Dakota has better climb, cruise speed, service ceiling. AND has more room in backseats, with the same engine. Amazing what tweaking the airframe will do.
Click to expand...
Cabin dimensions of the 1973 and later PA-28-180 Cherokee Challenger and Cherokee Archer, PA-28-181 Archer II/III, 1973 and later PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger and Pathfinder and PA-28-236 Dakota are all identical. 1972 and later Arrows, too.
 
Pilawt said:
Cabin dimensions of the 1973 and later PA-28-180 Cherokee Challenger and Cherokee Archer, PA-28-181 Archer II/III, 1973 and later PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger and Pathfinder and PA-28-236 Dakota are all identical. 1972 and later Arrows, too.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the performance when I stated the the 180 & Archer weren’t that different p, but the 235 & Dakota were.
 
I had a cherokee 180D for a few hundred hours. I loved that plane, it climbed like a home sick angle, and if it fit through the door it would fly. Would do 120kt at 8.5gph and a fun plane to fly. I don't get why you would buy a faster plane but pull power back to 180 speeds. I fly to go as fast as that airframe will go. When we started flying 800nm round trip floght every month the 180 got too slow for me. Now I go 165kts and use the same amount of total fuel as I did with the cherokee but shaved hours off the flight. Food for thought if you can swing a faster plane.
 
If I may hijack my own thread (so I don’t have to post another one) what are the performance differences between the fixed-pitch Cherokee 235 and the c/s one? Naturally, it means longer takeoff roll and lower climb rates, but by how much? Is the f/p prop still much cheaper? I would assume it’s still considerably more expensive than a prop for the 180. And would the cruise speed still be same? Perhaps fuel burn is less due to lower rpms, but by how much? I would fly out of low DA airports with no mountains, so takeoff/climb wouldn’t be a huge issue if I can $ave by having a f/p prop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top