Cherokee 140/180 and Cherokee 180 high altitude performance?

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
474
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
While a modified Cherokee 140 with 180 hp won’t have the payload of a stock Cherokee 180, performance is supposed to be neck & neck in terms of cruise and climb. But I’m curious about the service ceiling. Assuming that you’re flying light and wanted to cruise at 11k or even above to maybe catch a tailwind, overfly Bravo airspace or safely pass over a mountain top, do the slight airframe differences give one any advantage over the other? And yes, if I want to regularly cruise at hypoxia altitudes, I‘d need a larger engine or turbocharging :p.

Same with flying in & out of high elevation airports. Does either airframe have any advantage over the other?

And here’s a fun video I came across, though they didn’t really discuss high altitude flight.

 
Not alot of experience in 180 Cherokee but assume the 140/180 would have a higher service ceiling due to less weight and same wing. No problem climbing to get tailwind, but quite a speed penalty with Hershey bar wing at altitude. 180 Comanches and Mooney 180 did better maintaining their speed at altitude, but even they started to hang from the props at 11T. With my 180hp C172(with CSP), I’ll go up to 11T for large tailwind, but otherwise 6-9T.
 
I’ve had my stock 180 up to 15k ..took a while but no problem. I regularly cruise 9k to 13k. Of course I start at 5500 msl.
 
saddletramp said:
The 140 & 180 have the same airframe. Your post implied they were different. Hershey bar Cherokees are NOT great high altitude performers.
Click to expand...

I assumed they were at least slightly different, as the 140/180 has similar performance just not the payload. If the airframe were identical, then payload should be identical as well.
 
DMD3. said:
I assumed they were at least slightly different, as the 140/180 has similar performance just not the payload. If the airframe were identical, then payload should be identical as well.
Click to expand...

Many engine STCs were approved without changing gross weight. In other words, the payload won't be identical because they never did any testing to approve a higher weight limit. It may have nothing to do with the physical attributes of the aircraft in question.
 
There also may be differences that affect the gross weight but do not impact the flying characteritics.

My 252 is upgraded to Encore specs, which gives a 230 pound GW increase. There is a minor engine adjustment that ups the HP from 210 to 220, but the main difference is you replace the mid body single puck brakes with the dual puck brakes off the long body models.
 
saddletramp said:
The 140 & 180 have the same airframe. Your post implied they were different. Hershey bar Cherokees are NOT great high altitude performers.
Click to expand...
Have some data to back that up? Specs show a higher service ceiling for a PA28 180 with Hershey bar wing vs Archer II which has the tapered wing.

Archer II - Ceiling: 13236 ft
Challenger - Ceiling: 14150 ft (Challenger is the extended fuselage of the Archer with a Hershey bar wing)

My Challenger trues out at around 120 kts @ 65% power and can run as low as 7.5 GPH up high.
 
saddletramp said:
The 140 & 180 have the same airframe. Your post implied they were different. Hershey bar Cherokees are NOT great high altitude performers.
Click to expand...

really? I thought the wingspar on the 180 was different. now I have to go look through my IPB ...if I can find it... mumble mutter...
 
saddletramp said:
The 140 & 180 have the same airframe. Your post implied they were different. Hershey bar Cherokees are NOT great high altitude performers.
Click to expand...
The 140 is slightly shorter and lighter than the 160/180 airframe which includes a baggage door not on the 140.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
The 140 is slightly shorter and lighter than the 160/180 airframe which includes a baggage door not on the 140.
Click to expand...
The difference in length (2-1/2 inches) between the 140 and the 150/160/180 (1964-72) airframe is solely due to the sleeker fiberglass cowl and spinner introduced in 1964 for the "Cherokee C". From the firewall aft the external dimensions are the same.

The Cherokee 150s, 160s and 180s built from 1961 to early 1964 (through the "Cherokee B") had the same metal cowl as the 140, and thus the same overall external dimensions, including length of 23 ft 3.5 in.
 
Hang 4 said:
Have some data to back that up? Specs show a higher service ceiling for a PA28 180 with Hershey bar wing vs Archer II which has the tapered wing.

Archer II - Ceiling: 13236 ft
Challenger - Ceiling: 14150 ft (Challenger is the extended fuselage of the Archer with a Hershey bar wing)

My Challenger trues out at around 120 kts @ 65% power and can run as low as 7.5 GPH up high.
Click to expand...
I've had my 1969 Cherokee 180 up to 15K. Took some time, but then I start at 5K. Easily cruise 12.5 to 13.5K all the time.
 
Pilawt said:
The difference in length (2-1/2 inches) between the 140 and the 150/160/180 (1964-72) airframe is solely due to the sleeker fiberglass cowl and spinner introduced in 1964 for the "Cherokee C". From the firewall aft the external dimensions are the same.

The Cherokee 150s, 160s and 180s built from 1961 to early 1964 (through the "Cherokee B") had the same metal cowl as the 140, and thus the same overall external dimensions, including length of 23 ft 3.5 in.
Click to expand...
I did not know that. I owned a 1968 PA 28-140. It did not have a baggage door and I assumed the 180 body was longer in that area to accommodate it. My old bird also had the trim crank on the ceiling. It was a good bird and I enjoyed owning and flying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top