Cessna 182N vs Piper Cherokee 235B

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
What are your thoughts on both aircraft? I have flown both makes but not models, (Cessna 172 and Piper Archer) which one is more difficult to maintain? Acquisition costs I believe the Cherokee is cheaper. Both have around the same useful load and I understand the low wing and high wing debate will go on forever so we can leave that out, (Both have advantages..but I like em both, low wing in my hangar and high wing to rent). Are insurance costs identical? for a low time pilot, (I'm at 89 hours right now) What is the most expensive thing to replace on both airplanes?
 
FloridaPilot said:
What are your thoughts on both aircraft? I have flown both makes but not models, (Cessna 172 and Piper Archer) which one is more difficult to maintain? Acquisition costs I believe the Cherokee is cheaper. Both have around the same useful load and I understand the low wing and high wing debate will go on forever so we can leave that out, (Both have advantages..but I like em both, low wing in my hangar and high wing to rent). Are insurance costs identical? for a low time pilot, (I'm at 89 hours right now) What is the most expensive thing to replace on both airplanes?
Click to expand...

There were a lot more 182s made, so there are more choices on the market.

The 182 is easier to load passengers and gear, with 2 big doors. I have a little and will probably try to take him in the Cessnas more than the Cherokees because it'll be much easier put the car seat in the back of the Cessna. Grandma's knees will make getting her in and out of the Cherokee harder too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've owned a Dakota. The 235 is a great airplane, real load hauler. Neither the 235 or 182 are speed demons. I doubt insurance costs are materially different.
But if I was to go back to a single again I would probably choose a 182 over the low wing. Two doors, ease of ingress/egress, still being manufactured and supported (provided you have a trust fund to pay for the parts :mad: ) and I'd just want to try something different.
 
Really depends on if you prefer a cessna or piper products, either i think are great choices. With time in both, they both are great airplanes. As far as maintenance, they both are pretty much equal(AD’s, overhauling a TBO engine), performance is the close to equal, insurance im sure is pretty much the same. Cherokees seem IMO to be a bit cheaper in initial buy in, espacially the older 235’s over 182’s of the same vintage. I do have to agree with @GRG55 on 182’s being the airframe because of choice for Dual door, factory support, more built, part availability. There is no right choice other than the choice you make.
 
The 182N will have more room inside than the 172 you’re accustomed to, while the Cherokee 235B has the shorter, old-style PA-28 fuselage and will have somewhat less rear seat legroom than the Archer.

Speeds will be about the same, while the 182 with its big wing will do a little better in short-field and high-altitude environments than the 235B. Visibility is much better from the 235. The 235 carries 84 gallons spread across four tanks, while the 182N has two tanks with a total of 65 gallons (standard) or 84 gallons (optional).

In systems complexity — in the 182 you have cowl flaps; in the 235B you have engine-driven and electric fuel pumps. Both have reliable engines, but I’m partial to the Lycoming. It has a longer TBO and is not as prone to carburetor ice. Most importantly, it’s not built by Continental (am I bitter?).
 
There is absolutely no leg room in the back of the Piper 235B I flew, especially if you are tall. The 182 is pretty comfortable to get into with time the doors. I don’t recall if the Cherokee is as narrow as the archer but the 182 is wider.
 
Width should be close to same, 182 may give you an inch or so shoulder room more, rear seat does have a bit more room. If your over 6,0ft cherokee rear seats wont be comfortable on long flights.
 
Pilawt said:
In systems complexity — in the 182 you have cowl flaps; in the 235B you have engine-driven and electric fuel pumps. Both have reliable engines, but I’m partial to the Lycoming. It has a longer TBO and is not as prone to carburetor ice. Most importantly, it’s not built by Continental (am I bitter?).
Click to expand...

Hey Pilawt, good to hear from you again!

Is it true Continental engines are more susceptible to cylinder cracking? You are right about Cherokees are easier to land I tend to grease the runway every time. I like the 177's but useful is not very good! Getting in an out of a Cherokee is a pain with the one door but once you are in it's pretty comfortable. I noticed the trim is in the middle of the roof and it looks like how you would open a window in a 70s style car. Reading the POH The Cherokee 235B burns 14 gph but has a 200 pound baggage compartment which is pretty sweet!
 
LowanSlow said:
Width should be close to same, 182 may give you an inch or so shoulder room more, rear seat does have a bit more room. If your over 6,0ft cherokee rear seats wont be comfortable on long flights.
Click to expand...

1970 and up Cherokee 235 models the seats have a 5 inch difference I believe.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I noticed the trim is in the middle of the roof and it looks like how you would open a window in a 70s style car.
Click to expand...
True, but you get used to it quickly. Starting with the 235C (1969) there was a conventional trim wheel on the floor between the seats.
FloridaPilot said:
1970 and up Cherokee 235 models the seats have a 5 inch difference I believe.
Click to expand...
That’s 1973 and up for the increased legroom.
 
I've had several Pipers with the trim on the ceiling, including my current 1979 Aztec. I prefer it there over the 182's pedestal mounted wheel. It's quite convenient to make fine adjustments.
 
@FloridaPilot , i believe you are right on after i thought 1972-73 (im no expert, when the third side window was added) or so they had lengthed the fuselage which increased rear leg room, for the OP he really just needs to see if he cant get access to a few examples of each and either fly them or at least sit in them and test the fit for his mission/needs, there are so many variables for everyones needs.
 
Last edited:
Any noticeable crosswind or turbulence difference between these two models?...overall stability?
 
Skyrys62 said:
Any noticeable crosswind or turbulence difference between these two models?...overall stability?
Click to expand...
With its lower CG and wider, oleo gear, the Cherokee will tolerate sloppier crosswind technique and be more stable on the ground. A 182 on the ground in a stiff breeze will remind you why they publish those "Taxiing Diagrams" in the POH.

Screen Shot 2018-03-25 at 7.09.34 AM.png

Neither has sportscar handling, but a 182 is more stable in flight, and demands trim on final, or you'll build biceps quickly. The Cherokee's stabilator has a lighter pitch feel.
 
Thanks Bodine.

That's the first I've seen the little notation about bursts of throttle and braking. Makes perfect sense though.

When you say stable in flight are you referring to turbulence in the moving around aspect?
Probably a silly question....but I guess my initial thought was 'susceptability' to jarring and bumps. My girlfriend hates the bumps.
Wing loading on Cessna is 17.8 and Dakota is 17.6 would that make them about even in that respect?
 
Last edited:
Skyrys62 said:
but I guess my initial thought was 'susceptability' to jarring and bumps. My girlfriend hates the bumps.
Wing loading on Cessna is 17.8 and Dakota is 17.6 would that make them about even in that respect?
Click to expand...

Yeah ... but the Hershey-bar Cherokee 235's shorter wingspan (32', compared with the taper wing Dakota at 35' and the Cessna at 36') might help a little.
 
Pilawt said:
Yeah ... but the Hershey-bar Cherokee 235's shorter wingspan (32', compared with the taper wing Dakota at 35' and the Cessna at 36') might help a little.
Click to expand...

Got it...thanks.
With that info, I'll take a guess that the Dakota and 182 are very similar.

Now, for the $64 dollar question.
I know you'll likely never part with your Dad's plane, but if you ever did...what would you get?
 
Skyrys62 said:
I know you'll likely never part with your Dad's plane, but if you ever did...what would you get?
Click to expand...
I have pondered that very question. Even my dad once thought of trading up to a '65 182, but then decided to do the 180 hp engine conversion in the 172 instead.

Sometimes I get frustrated with my airplane's skimpy 40 gallon fuel capacity. The -235's 84 gallons might be nice, even at 13+ gph; or even the 65 gallons of a standard 182 fuel system. Some extra power to deal with higher terrain out here would be welcome, too. Both the 182 (pre 1977) and -235 can use mogas, but the nearest airport with mogas is 200 miles away from me, so that's not a factor.

I like having two doors, but have gotten along with one when I owned low wing airplanes, and when I flew for a Piper dealer, years ago. (It wasn't an option for my dad, who suffered greatly with claustrophobia. He HAD to have a door next to him, and he was fine in the 172.) But then I like the visibility from a low wing. A 182 does better in short fields and unimproved strips, and has only 1/3 as many oleo struts to maintain.

So the pros and cons just about balance out. All else being equal, the tipping point for me, living and flying here in Arizona, would probably be the welcome shade from the 182's high wing, and the big openable windows.

But then all else is not equal. It's not like we're talking about new airplanes, where one 182 or one -235 is just as good as any other. These airplanes are old enough that there are no two alike, in total hours, maintenance history, equipment, mods, and overall TLC. Each individual airplane has to be judged on its own merits, and you find the best deal you can, whether it's a 182 or a -235.
 
Someone had a link to that C182 Buyers Guide, that would ne nice for this thread, no?
 
The backseat in the 235B would make the choice easy for me. The earlier Cherokee variants, as mentioned, have really tight backseats. The 182 with an average sized pilot up front has a huge amount of leg room in the back and it's slightly wider back there than in a Cherokee. The 182 is a legit four place airplane. And in my experience, regardless of what the measurements say (probably measured at different places anyway), you have more shoulder room up front in a 182 as well.
 
Bonchie said:
The backseat in the 235B would make the choice easy for me. The earlier Cherokee variants, as mentioned, have really tight backseats. The 182 with an average sized pilot up front has a huge amount of leg room in the back and it's slightly wider back there than in a Cherokee. The 182 is a legit four place airplane. And in my experience, regardless of what the measurements say (probably measured at different places anyway), you have more shoulder room up front in a 182 as well.
Click to expand...

I concur. Flown numerous times with 4 adults and full fuel and bags.
 
GRG55 said:
I've owned a Dakota. The 235 is a great airplane, real load hauler. Neither the 235 or 182 are speed demons. I doubt insurance costs are materially different.
But if I was to go back to a single again I would probably choose a 182 over the low wing. Two doors, ease of ingress/egress, still being manufactured and supported (provided you have a trust fund to pay for the parts :mad: ) and I'd just want to try something different.
Click to expand...

Where do people that own Pipers get parts?

Skyrys62 said:
Any noticeable crosswind or turbulence difference between these two models?...overall stability?
Click to expand...

From my experience in the Piper Archer and 172. I tend to feel the bumps more in a 172 than I do a Archer. I also noticed Engine noise is louder in the 172 does that apply to the 182 as well?


For a mission like mine I will only need the two seats in the front but if I need to bring a 3rd and 4th person I could do that.
 
The question is should I pay a premium for the double door and extra room because it does seem like Cessna's are more expensive.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Where do people that own Pipers get parts?
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on the particular parts. Piper stocks many and can still make some. Lots of 3rd party options for plastic and fiberglass parts. Lots of shops rebuild engine mounts and exhaust systems. Most A&Ps can make any flat aluminum part. There are "go to" shops regionally that can make some other aluminum parts and have specialist folks who can knock out the work quickly. Engines are engines whether Lyc, Con, or other. Lots of shops to rebuild engines. Instruments are instruments. Autopilots can be a problem since some of the servos are no longer made, can't be rebuilt, and new stocks are depleted. Parts aren't really a problem at all for the PA-28's since there are so many of them around.
 
Here is another one that would help someone else it's old but worth a look:

 
kayoh190 said:
I want to know who the hell is *honestly* doing 143 knots in a straight legged, non-turbo 182???
Click to expand...
If'n ya point it straight down it should get close...right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top