I never got a straight answer (maybe there isnt one)

T

timrev8

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
12
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
will a piper cherokee 140 w 160hp carry 4 160lb people?

I know the cessna 172 w180hp will, but the one with 150hp will not

Thanks guys
 
I checked data on some rental Warriors, which have 160 HP, and with full fuel, the answer is no, but it could work if you only fueled it to the tabs (34 gallons usable) and carried little or no luggage or cargo. Of course, if the empty weight of a 140 is less than a Warrior, that could make a difference.

If you click on the tail number of one of the Warriors on this page, there is a weight and balance calulator for each plane:

http://www.wvfc.org/aircraft.html
 
Last edited:
The Cherokee 140 will do it.

Look for a copy of John King's story about doing just that and landing with Martha and another couple on a desert strip on hot day, telling the old guy to fill it up. :hairraise:

If you want to get airborne with full fuel on a hot day, you'll want to restrict yourself to 12,000 foot runways.

The 160HP Warriors at my home base have an STC to get a 900+ pound useful load.
 
timrev8 said:
will a piper cherokee 140 w 160hp carry 4 160lb people?

I know the cessna 172 w180hp will, but the one with 150hp will not

Thanks guys
Click to expand...

The max gross weight for the cherokee 140 is 2150 lbs. Upgrading the engine to 160hp does not change the max gross weight.

My cherokee 140 has a useful load of 696 lbs. Other 140's have higher useful load than mine (my 140 needs to go on a diet).
 
timrev8 said:
will a piper cherokee 140 w 160hp carry 4 160lb people?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not very far -- like around the pattern and back. And if it's one of the early "short" versions, the adults in the back better be above-the-knee leg amputees.
 
Ron Levy said:
And if it's one of the early "short" versions, the adults in the back better be above-the-knee leg amputees.
Click to expand...

All Cherokee 140s are the "short version" -- the 140 never got the fuselage stretch. From '69 on most had the aft cabin bulkhead moved back a few inches for a little "cargo" room but that didn't improve the rear legroom.
 
Bob Noel said:
The max gross weight for the cherokee 140 is 2150 lbs. Upgrading the engine to 160hp does not change the max gross weight.

My cherokee 140 has a useful load of 696 lbs. Other 140's have higher useful load than mine (my 140 needs to go on a diet).
Click to expand...
My old Cherokee 140 was a 1977, the last model year for the 140. It had a lot of heavy, late-'70s-era avionics and other options, and its useful load was 730 pounds.

That would be only enough for your four 160 pounders, 15 gallons of fuel (out of 50 gallon capacity), and nothing else.

Most -- but not all -- Cessna 172s have more useful load than that. One thing you can count on, though, is that C-172s have more rear seat and baggage room than Cherokee 140s.

Palmpilot said:
Of course, if the empty weight of a 140 is less than a Warrior, that could make a difference.

If you click on the tail number of one of the Warriors on this page, there is a weight and balance calulator for each plane:
Click to expand...
The gross weights of those Warriors are between 175 pounds and 290 pounds more than a Cherokee 140.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
My old Cherokee 140 was a 1977, the last model year for the 140. It had a lot of heavy, late-'70s-era avionics and other options, and its useful load was 730 pounds.
Click to expand...

Mine is a '74 140. The idiot who owned it before me had it painted by some crappy paint shop in RI which didn't strip it first - such a first class job that those clowns didn't remove overspray either. Plus the 140 still has a few AC parts in the tail.
 
I've done it on a hot day in the mountains of Vermont. I was within the weight and balance envelope. Barely. My Cherokee is 160 hp, and spanky.
 
Palmpilot said:
I checked data on some rental Warriors, which have 160 HP, and with full fuel, the answer is no, but it could work if you only fueled it to the tabs (34 gallons usable) and carried little or no luggage or cargo. Of course, if the empty weight of a 140 is less than a Warrior, that could make a difference.

If you click on the tail number of one of the Warriors on this page, there is a weight and balance calulator for each plane:

http://www.wvfc.org/aircraft.html
Click to expand...

Our club's pa-28-161's (warrior II) all have an STC for a gross weight increase of 100lbs. With no modifications that I am aware of - just a piece of paper. With that I was able to fit the equivalent of 4 160 pound guys in and be just under gross with full fuel.

You might want to check if there are STC's available
 
Last edited:
studiomusic said:
My W&B calculator says you can do it with 39 gallons of fuel to boot.
160hp is a powerful option in a 140!
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to see the official W&B sheet on your 160HP STC'd 140 Cherokee showing an empty weight of 1276 lb, because IIRC, there is no MGW increase with the 160HP STC on a PA28-140, and I don't remember seeing a 140 Cherokee that light.
 
Yeah, I also know of no up gross for the 140, so a 160 engine will actually cost you a little load as (depending on the STC, there are several) the engine might weigh more and you will need more fuel to feed the more powerful mill.
 
timrev8 said:
will a piper cherokee 140 w 160hp carry 4 160lb people?

I know the cessna 172 w180hp will, but the one with 150hp will not

Thanks guys
Click to expand...

Yes, there is an answer, it's in the POH in your airplane. There should also be current weight and balance information. All you have to do is sit down and do some arithmetic. If you have an Aera type GPS, it will do it all for you.

Your POH should also give you your ground roll, climb rate, it will give you every bit of information you need in order to make a go-no-go decision.

Determining weight and balance is basic ground school stuff, this should not be an issue, nor even a question.

John
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
Yes, there is an answer, it's in the POH in your airplane.
Click to expand...
My sense from the OP was that he's thinking about airplane shopping; and that he doesn't yet have an airplane, nor a POH to go with it.

I don't mind answering a general question in a general way as one embarks on a challenging quest in a very confusing marketplace.
 
Keep in mind that those who post that they have done it are only the ones who survived.:D

When I was training back in the early 70's, we had planned to do a lesson in a 140. I thought it would be great to take a couple family members for the ride. I don't recall how close to gross it was. But, I have to say that I was impressed at how sluggishly it handled. I did not like it. And, I assumed that is the way the 140's flew. So, I did not fly that type any more. Looking back, it was probably sluggish because it was loaded heavy.
 
It also depends where you will be flying. If in an area of higher altitude, and/or in the summers, you'll need more runway and less weight on board.
 
yeah still shopping and thinking...

thanks for all the good info i might look for a 180 cherokee but i like efficiency :)

thanks
 
timrev8 said:
i might look for a 180 cherokee but i like efficiency :)
Click to expand...
If you like efficiency and are looking in the 180HP class, consider the Grumman Tiger. Same engine as a 180 Cherokee, but 10-15 knots faster, and it will carry four 160 lb people plus full fuel (typical 950 lb useful load and 51 gallons usable fuel). Gonna cost you a lot more than a 140 Cherokee, but it gives you a lot more capability. Just don't plan on taking it into short, unpaved, obstructed airports with that load. If you want to do that, think Cessna 170/180.

If you can handle reduced fuel load with that payload, consider the Grumman Traveler/Cheetah. The typical 800 lb useful loads permit about three hours of fuel with 640 lb in the cabin and a 115-120 KTAS cruise speed. Caveats regarding short, unpaved, obstructed airports remain applicable.

Also, with either Grumman, the back seat is very roomy and comfortable for adults compared to the 140 Cherokee.
 
Pilawt said:
The gross weights of those Warriors are between 175 pounds and 290 pounds more than a Cherokee 140.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I forgot to mention that possibility. Those Warriors have 2325 max gross.
 
timrev8 said:
yeah still shopping and thinking...

thanks for all the good info i might look for a 180 cherokee but i like efficiency :)

thanks
Click to expand...

Do you ever plan on flying over mountains? If so, even a Warrior seems underpowered to me for that purpose.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, but not very far -- like around the pattern and back. And if it's one of the early "short" versions, the adults in the back better be above-the-knee leg amputees.
Click to expand...

You owe me a keyboard Ron! Tooo funny
 
Ron Levy said:
With four aboard, I'd agree, but it's a pretty good two-seater in high DA's.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of luggage aboard on some of my flights over mountains.
 
My 1966 Cherokee 140 had a useful load of 810 lbs. (1340 empty weight).

4x160=640, that would leave 170 lbs for fuel (27 gallons).

With only 150hp, mine was able to take off on a hot Texas day at nearly full gross, but I had 4000' of runway. :D
It still made the full book climb rate of 660 FPM!
 
I know that it wasn't part of the "Given" but there is a very simple prop mod for the Cherokee that effectively adds another 10 HP by generating more thrust instead of turbulence. My 140/160 has this mod and is turning 4 inches more prop pitch than it originally had at 150HP and is still turning red line at WOT straight & level. There is no weight limit increase so it still can't carry more than 2150 but it can carry 2150 better. As a point of interest, the Cherokee 160 (same fuselage) had a GW of 2200. Check pipermods.com for the prop tip mod.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you like efficiency and are looking in the 180HP class, consider the Grumman Tiger. Same engine as a 180 Cherokee, but 10-15 knots faster, and it will carry four 160 lb people plus full fuel (typical 950 lb useful load and 51 gallons usable fuel). Gonna cost you a lot more than a 140 Cherokee, but it gives you a lot more capability. Just don't plan on taking it into short, unpaved, obstructed airports with that load. If you want to do that, think Cessna 170/180.

If you can handle reduced fuel load with that payload, consider the Grumman Traveler/Cheetah. The typical 800 lb useful loads permit about three hours of fuel with 640 lb in the cabin and a 115-120 KTAS cruise speed. Caveats regarding short, unpaved, obstructed airports remain applicable.

Also, with either Grumman, the back seat is very roomy and comfortable for adults compared to the 140 Cherokee.
Click to expand...

Nice birds, but the price differential between the average Grumman and the average Cherokee will buy a boatload of avgas. Yeah, you'll get there 15 minutes later.
 
steingar said:
Nice birds, but the price differential between the average Grumman and the average Cherokee will buy a boatload of avgas.
Click to expand...
Here are the baseline Vref prices for 1976 models:

AA-5B Tiger: $43,000
PA28-181 Archer: $46,000

Of course, if you buy a much older 140 Cherokee with virtually no back seat and 30 less HP, yes, you can spend a lot less money compared to a Grumman AA-5x, but you'd have real trouble putting two 160 lb adults in the back as the OP wanted.

To be fair, the differential goes the other way comparing a 1976 Warrior to a 1976 Cheetah, but I think my point is made -- Grummans don't cost much different than comparable Pipers of similar vintage. The problem for the buyer of limited means is there is no 1964 Grumman Tiger to compare to a 1964 Cherokee.
 
Ron Levy said:
Here are the baseline Vref prices for 1976 models:

AA-5B Tiger: $43,000
PA28-181 Archer: $46,000

Of course, if you buy a much older 140 Cherokee with virtually no back seat and 30 less HP, yes, you can spend a lot less money compared to a Grumman AA-5x, but you'd have real trouble putting two 160 lb adults in the back as the OP wanted.

To be fair, the differential goes the other way comparing a 1976 Warrior to a 1976 Cheetah, but I think my point is made -- Grummans don't cost much different than comparable Pipers of similar vintage. The problem for the buyer of limited means is there is no 1964 Grumman Tiger to compare to a 1964 Cherokee.
Click to expand...

Cherokees from the sixties of all stripes often sell in the thirties. Grummans don't. Yes, they are faster, but the cost differential of a 60's Cherokee, which works just as well, and a Grumman like I said will buy a boatload of avgas.

Now for the good question. What percentage of flights do you actually use that big back seat? I've had occasion to use mine several times on Young Eagles flights, once for family, and a couple times for friends. I admit to being restricted from a mission by it, but it's a mission I would as soon not take on anyway. Still, the number of times I've actually needed a back seat in the decade I've been flying I could easily count on the fingers of both hands. If that occasional trip was that important, I'd probably rent a Skyhawk or get the checkout in the Bo.

Unless you plan on taking family with, predicating your purchase on the capacious back seat is just silly.
 
steingar said:
Cherokees from the sixties of all stripes often sell in the thirties. Grummans don't. Yes, they are faster, but the cost differential of a 60's Cherokee, which works just as well, and a Grumman like I said will buy a boatload of avgas.
Click to expand...
I agree that if you compare apples to oranges (e.g., a 1960's Cherokee to a 1970's Grumman), you will find there are significant differences. You may also find that the cheaper apple won't provide the scurvy protection for which you were originally looking.

Now for the good question. What percentage of flights do you actually use that big back seat?
Click to expand...
Since the original question was the ability of the aircraft to carry four 160 lb people, I'd say the back seat is a make-or-break issue for the OP. But if your mission does not include carrying four adults, a Cherokee 140 may well provide for your needs at a lower cost than a Grumman Cheetah or Tiger, and a Cessna 150 may do equally well for even less. But that wasn't the question asked, so I didn't get into a listing of the capabilities of every light plane ever built, just those that met the OP's mission statement.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the original question was the ability of the aircraft to carry four 160 lb people, I'd say the back seat is a make-or-break issue for the OP. But if your mission does not include carrying four adults, a Cherokee 140 may well provide for your needs at a lower cost than a Grumman Cheetah or Tiger, and a Cessna 150 may do equally well for even less. But that wasn't the question asked, so I didn't get into a listing of the capabilities of every light plane ever built, just those that met the OP's mission statement.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is my original airplane partner really wanted the Cherokee or a Skyhawk for the back seat, and favored the Skyhawk because of it. The Cherokee came, and we were glad of it. I spent a substantial portion of an AMU putting in headset jacks so we could plug in headsets for that back seat. He did use it a number of times when the airplane was new to us, for friends and neighbors and whatnot. That dropped off to virtually zero within 6 months.

The OP might define his mission as four 160 lb guys, but I'll bet money that unless he has 160 lb kids, the vast majority of his flights will be him and the Mrs. with the luggage in the back.
 
steingar said:
The OP might define his mission as four 160 lb guys, but I'll bet money that unless he has 160 lb kids, the vast majority of his flights will be him and the Mrs. with the luggage in the back.
Click to expand...
You may be right. However, he said he wanted a straight answer to a straight question, and that's what I've been trying to provide, not trying to guess what his "real" loads will be most of the time.
 
Ron Levy said:
You may be right. However, he said he wanted a straight answer to a straight question, and that's what I've been trying to provide, not trying to guess what his "real" loads will be most of the time.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. On the other hand, he has received viewpoints from experienced pilots and aircraft owners which may give him (or her) novel insights unavailable through other avenues. More information is always a good thing. My buddy would have initially designated his mission similarly, despite the outcome.
 
steingar said:
Fair enough. On the other hand, he has received viewpoints from experienced pilots and aircraft owners which may give him (or her) novel insights unavailable through other avenues. More information is always a good thing. My buddy would have initially designated his mission similarly, despite the outcome.
Click to expand...

otoh - I bought a cherokee 140 in part because at the time I could afford the 140 purchase but not the 180 purchase price. There have been more than a few times I would have taken more than one person flying, but couldn't because of my 140's ahem limited useful load.

Something to note is that the 140 and 180 cost about the same to operate and maintain. The only real difference is the purchase price.
 
Look for a Skyhawk with the 180 conversion: Limit the flap travel to 30* and you have around 2550 max weight, which gives you about 1000 lbs useful load, two doors, lots of room for the type and about an average 8.0 gph fuel burn. Not fancy and not fast, but it gets the job done well, and the prices for mid time engines (1000hrs) and airframes (3000-4000hrs for a late 70's plane) make them a real good deal right now.
 
DutchessFlier said:
Look for a Skyhawk with the 180 conversion: Limit the flap travel to 30* and you have around 2550 max weight, which gives you about 1000 lbs useful load, two doors, lots of room for the type and about an average 8.0 gph fuel burn. Not fancy and not fast, but it gets the job done well, and the prices for mid time engines (1000hrs) and airframes (3000-4000hrs for a late 70's plane) make them a real good deal right now.
Click to expand...

I believe that the fuel burn will be more like 10 gph if you run the 180hp engine at 75%
 
Bob Noel said:
I believe that the fuel burn will be more like 10 gph if you run the 180hp engine at 75%
Click to expand...

Looking at a newer 172 POH, it shows a range of fuel burn of about 6.1 to 11.1 gph, depending on how fast or slow one desires to compromise. So, both the 8 and 10 gph numbers are withing the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top