Cherokee 235's

[Todd82]

Have found what appear to be a few decent deals on 235's from the 60's on the usual sources. Decent deals meaning a 235 for the price of a comparable 4 cylinder Cherokee.

What's the scoop on these? How much faster in the real world than the 180? They seem to be fixed pitch props in that vintage. Similar flying qualities? Maintenance hogs?

Basically it seems to be a "If it seems too good to be true" scenario to get that much more plane for similar money, so I'm guessing there's a gotcha.

 

[DBR1990]

Great planes. I believe the difference between 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder will be age and equipment. Climb like a homesick angel. Smaller, faster, and carries more than a 182. If you like Cherokees you will live a 235.

 

[AGL]

I had a 1980 236 with a few others, and loved it. Climbed really well as DBR1990 said. My only knock on the 235 was the 4 fuel tanks vs 2 for the Cherokee or the 236. I went through all 235 and 236 NTSB accident reports (this was 12 years ago) and there were more fuel starvation issues that ended in accidents in the 235 vs the 236.

The 236 was noticeably faster than a 180, but also drank more of fuel. I planned for 13.6 gph at 75% power. I usually beat that, but I may have been a bit under 75% as well.

Maintenance wasn't terrible (even with the constant speed prop), but I haven't owned another plane. Flying qualities are very much the same as a Cherokee except for the extra weight in the front. When I transitioned I learned to keep a bit of power in on short final, and be wary of the heavy nose. CG forward landings made the nose weight more noticeable, but it's not an issue once you're used to it.

One other thing to note - it can carry a LOT. It's a true 4 person airplane.

If you like Cherokees, you'll love the 235.

 

[Bob Noel]

and, btw, there is no reason why you have to run 75% power on the 235. Go slower, and enjoy the view...

 

[Racerx]

Have heard from more than one person that the 235 was the best of the Cherokee derivatives. I'm looking for a 73-77 model. Only difference would be Fuselage was stretched, larger stabilator, and toe breaks. Some are constant speed. But I think I've heard it's not really necessary. But the prices compared to what 180's are getting, don't want to say "bargain" but definitely more palatable.

 

[Pilawt]

They seem to be fixed pitch props in that vintage.

Cherokee 235s from 1964 through 1972 had fixed-pitch props as standard, with constant-speed optional (same with the PA-32-260). Takeoff and climb performance is predictably better with the constant-speed prop, but the performance charts in the manual say the airplane is a couple mph faster at higher power settings with the fixed prop.

 

[Racerx]

I seem to remember some posts from the late MikeA here that his 235 was a constant speed. Been meaning to talk to some people about it as we're based at the same airport. But kind of an awkward and sensitive subject. I don't do well with either, especially not knowing him personally.

 

[Scrabo]

Our 1971 F. model has a CS prop.

 

[7_Zero_Whiskey]

We have a ‘65 235 with fixed prop, climbs like crazy. Agree with previous poster that the 4 tanks suck, and agree with keeping a little power in on final. Great plane though and once you’re used to the extra nose weight it’s as easy to fly as anything else.

 

[Todd82]

With the wingtip tanks being optional, can you just use the mains and never even worry about those? Can't run dry what was never fueled to begin with.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The only significant downside to the earlier 235s is that the legroom in the back is pretty tight. Not the most comfortable for adults on long flights.

 

[7_Zero_Whiskey]

With the wingtip tanks being optional, can you just use the mains and never even worry about those? Can't run dry what was never fueled to begin with.

Sure. My gripe is more with the fuel selector than the tanks per se, it can be finicky and hard to tell if you’ve hit one of the detents in flight.

 

[Pilawt]

With the wingtip tanks being optional, can you just use the mains and never even worry about those? Can't run dry what was never fueled to begin with.

The tip tanks on the -235 were not an option - they were standard equipment. Every -235 ever built has them.

For structural reasons Piper recommended that the tip tanks be filled first, and the inboard tanks be used first. The owners manual suggested that if you planned for a less-than-maximum fuel load, fill the tips first and regulate the lesser fuel load in the inboard tanks.

 

[Todd82]

For you guys with the fixed prop 235's... What are your real world 50+ year old plane cruise speeds and fuel burns?

 

[Scrabo]

The only significant downside to the earlier 235s is that the legroom in the back is pretty tight. Not the most comfortable for adults on long flights.

And that annoying fuel drain cover is easy to dislodge by backseat passengers trying to get their feet comfortable due to lack of leg room

 

[N1120A]

The big engine 4 seat Cherokees are really underrated compared to the 182. A lot of them live in high DA environments as backdoor turbos for a reason - they really don't run out of power in climb.

and, btw, there is no reason why you have to run 75% power on the 235. Go slower, and enjoy the view...

I don't fly to go slow.

 

[Robert Williams]

Hello all! I am new here and a new PP and looking for a 73'-77' Cherokee 235 or early model Dakota. If anyone knows of one for sale please let me know.