Lets talk Pipers

James331 said:
As long as you have that step, you should be good, skid strip is easy if you don't already have one.

NEEDING a ladder to fuel is not a situation I'd want to get myself in
Click to expand...

But you don't have anything to hold onto climbing up unless you grab the cabin air vent or are a chinese acrobat. Once you get up you can stabilize yourself by leaning on the wing and grabbing the fuel cap if needed. Getting from the ground to the top of the strut without a handhold has from time to time made me look very silly. (as falling off a motionless airplane can do...)
 
labbadabba said:
But you don't have anything to hold onto climbing up unless you grab the cabin air vent or are a chinese acrobat. Once you get up you can stabilize yourself by leaning on the wing and grabbing the fuel cap if needed. Getting from the ground to the top of the strut without a handhold has from time to time made me look very silly. (as falling off a motionless airplane can do...)
Click to expand...

One foot on the cowl step, grab the strut, one foot on the strut, lean towards the wing, it's not that hard unless maybe you have really short legs or really bad balance :dunno:
 
James331 said:
One foot on the cowl step, grab the strut, one foot on the strut, lean towards the wing, it's not that hard unless maybe you have really short legs or really bad balance :dunno:
Click to expand...

I don't have the cowl step and can just get up on the strut to fuel if no ladder is available. Not that big of a deal.
 
cowman said:
All of the PA-28 series have the same single door arrangement. You get used to getting in them in time, just gotta swing your legs and body the right way. Yeah it's one of the airplanes disadvantages, the 172 and Archers have similar performance and different advantages/disadvantages. It comes down to personal preference for most pilots. I personally own a 78 Archer II and have always preferred flying it over the 172s I trained in initially.

The flap handle is called a johnson bar... a lot of airplanes use them including some early model 172s. What I don't know is why someone would exit the aircraft and leave the flaps in the down position....that just seems weird. Normally you'd raise them after landing and leave them down until shutdown. You're not supposed to step in the flaps while getting out unless they're up and locked.
Click to expand...

I'm a student flying a Warrior II and though I felt the same, it is in the preflight check. We lower the flaps and have to gingerly avoid stepping on them for inspection of the hinges, etc.

I have never liked the single door deal also, according to our flight club pre check it makes me have to climb in and out a few times, even one extra when I can take it out alone to check the lights and stall warning.

But I do like flying it.

Pet peeves though for me are
1) position of the fuel selector. I have a really hard time, like I'm only able to use fingertips to switch tanks. The seat belt holds me back from reaching it well.
2) hand brake is weird, but I do like the mechanical flap bar.
3) not really liking the tachometer being down so low on the right bottom of the instrument panel

One thing I get a kick out of from the POH...they refer to the cigarette lighter as a "Cigar lighter" heh...picture Texas businessmen in cowboy hats out checking out their oil fields lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills.
 
Last edited:
LongRoadBob said:
I have never liked the single door deal also, according to our flight club pre check it makes me have to climb in and out a few times, even one extra when I can take it out alone to check the lights and stall warning.
. . .
Pet peeves though for me are
. . . .
3) not really liking the tachometer being down so low on the right bottom of the instrument panel.
Click to expand...

Reach in and open the storm window, you should be able to reach the switches to check the lights, master, etc., while standing outside.

Can't help all of your peeves, but with a constant speed prop, you won't be referencing the tach very often, so having it off on the right will be less of an issue.
 
UngaWunga said:
I don't have the cowl step and can just get up on the strut to fuel if no ladder is available. Not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

Huh. Haven't seen many cessnas without those steps.
 
Hank S said:
Reach in and open the storm window, you should be able to reach the switches to check the lights, master, etc., while standing outside.
Click to expand...

Not all of us have arms that are long enough to do this

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
James331 said:
Huh. Haven't seen many cessnas without those steps.
Click to expand...

162 doesn't have them. The bottom of the strut attaches to the fuselage behind the door, so it'd be useless anyway.

177 and 210 don't either (no struts).

And of course, there's also the TTx, 310, 414, Citation, etc :D
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
162 doesn't have them. The bottom of the strut attaches to the fuselage behind the door, so it'd be useless anyway.

177 and 210 don't either (no struts).

And of course, there's also the TTx, 310, 414, Citation, etc :D
Click to expand...

Well you don't need one of he low wings now do you :)
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
That depends a lot on the particular aircraft. My RV-9A has two drains total (one per tank), nearish to the leading edge, so getting a sample requires an easy crouch. [snip]
Never got the diamond-shaped wound on my forehead while renting 172s, but I came very close!!! Badge of honor for 172 pilots? :)
Click to expand...

Which aircraft matters, true, but we are talking a Cherokee here. I've got relatively long arms and I can't reach to sump without getting down on one knee and leaning under the wing. And it's a lot closer to the back than the front. Again, on a Cherokee.

I've never (so far) gotten the diamond shaped wound. I probably am more conscious of it than some because I fly both a C-172C, which sits much higher off the ground) and a C-172N. The first few years (don't know where the cutoff is) of Skyhawks sat up higher.

John
 
James331 said:
As long as you have that step, you should be good, skid strip is easy if you don't already have one.

NEEDING a ladder to fuel is not a situation I'd want to get myself in
Click to expand...

I'm an old fart and use a ladder. Even when I was instructing in my younger days I used a ladder to refuel, dip the tanks, and ensure the cap was on. A lot safer than that little step on the strut, if it even had one.
 
James331 said:
Huh. Haven't seen many cessnas without those steps.
Click to expand...

The steps and handles weren't standard equipment on the '86 and older Cessna singles. Optional. Some buyers didn't opt for them.

A good thing to check on the annual is the skin that the step is attached to. Got to take off the kick panels in the airplane and a couple of floor panels and look inside. The weight of a person (a 2016-sized person, much bigger than a 1956-sized person) pulls hard on the light structure in there and it eventually cracks. It should get a doubler. Cessna has an SB on it. Don't remember the number.

Cessna isn't the only one with step issues. The Piper Cherokee/Seneca step is steel and is attached to the aluminum structure. Water and contaminants get between the two, both steel and alumium rot, and it can eventually rip off and take a chunk of the fuselage with it.
 
Okay guys so let me ask you this:

"What is the difference between a Piper Archer and a Piper Cherokee 180. Which one is better for a person just starting out?"
 
The mostly the wing. The Archer is the more modern semi-tapered wing, while the Cherokee 180 is the original "hershey bar" wing. They both throw air downward with sufficient authority to get the plane off the ground. ;)

You'll also notice that the Archer has the stretched fuselage, and the more modern panel layout, probably some other small differences. The airframe will be newer due to the production years of each model.
 
Last edited:
FloridaPilot said:
Okay guys so let me ask you this:

"What is the difference between a Piper Archer and a Piper Cherokee 180. Which one is better for a person just starting out?"
Click to expand...

The 180 has the constant chord "Hershey bar" wing, the Archer has the newer semi-tapered wing. There are small differences in how they handle in certain parts of the flight envelope, but as the George Mohr noted they both get off the ground just fine.

Both airplanes are suitable for a person starting out. Stop worrying about the small differences in how the different planes fly, or look, or glide, and concentrate on becoming proficient at making the airplane (whatever one you are flying) do exactly what you want it to do (within its design envelope, of course) with confidence. You can become a good pilot in a Cessna 140, and most everything else too. You can become a lousy pilot in just about anything too.
 
GRG55 said:
The 180 has the constant chord "Hershey bar" wing, the Archer has the newer semi-tapered wing.
Click to expand...
Close -- the PA-28-181 Archer II and III have the semi-tapered wing.

The 1974 and 1975 versions of the PA-28-180 were called "Cherokee Archer" but still had the 32-foot-span constant-chord wing. The 35-foot-span tapered wing, which first appeared on the PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior for the 1974 model year, was added to the 180 hp model for 1976, renamed "Cherokee Archer II". The "Cherokee" name was dropped after the 1977 model year.

pa-28-180_1974.jpg

pa-28-181_1977.jpg

George Mohr said:
You'll also notice that the Archer has the stretched fuselage, and the more modern panel layout, probably some other small differences.
Click to expand...

The Cherokee 180 got the stretched cabin for the 1973 model year (called "Cherokee Challenger" that one year only). The modern six-pack panel and throttle lever quadrant were on the Cherokee 180 since 1968 ("Cherokee 180 D").
 
Last edited:
Plus the Cherokee 180 will be nicely priced versus an archer if budget is an issue. Just with all things get a careful pre buy inspection so you know what you're getting....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The main difference between a PA-28-180 & -181 is the same as between a PA-28-160 & -161 as well as between a PA-28R-200 & -201. That being the "1" in the series number which indicates the tapered wing.
 
So how many pounds can a Cherokee 180 carry with full fuel?
 
FloridaPilot said:
So how many pounds can a Cherokee 180 carry with full fuel?
Click to expand...

That depends on its empty weight, which in turn depends on what equipment is in the plane - few of these will be as they came from the factory, radios and other equipment gets changed out, they get repainted, new (sometimes heavier) interiors, soundproofing, and the W&B has to be redone.

Generally the older Cherokees were lighter than the newer models, but some them also have lower gross weight limits as well. The Cherokee 160 I used to own had a 2200 lb gross and 948 lbs useful load, of which 648 was payload when the tanks were full with 300 lbs of fuel. At the time our club had a couple of MUCH newer Piper Warriors with 2400 lb gross but they each had empty weights about 400 lbs more than my old Cherokee, so they actually carried less than I could at full fuel load.

A Cherokee 180 has (I believe) a 2400 lb gross and an older one should have an empty weight not much more than 1300 - 1350 lbs, with the same 50 gallons (300 lbs) of max fuel weight.

My rule of thumb with single engine planes is it should have close to 1000 lbs useful load if you plan to actually use the plane to go anywhere cross country.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
...My rule of thumb with single engine planes is it should have close to 1000 lbs useful load if you plan to actually use the plane to go anywhere cross country.
Click to expand...

That's true only if you need to carry four people and bags. If your primary mission involves 3 or fewer (or a couple of little kids), you can get by with something in the 850 lb range.

Edit: Also, if you live around high DA areas performance might be the limiting factor instead of useful load.
 
Last edited:
George Mohr said:
That's true only if you need to carry four people and bags. If your primary mission involves 3 or fewer (or a couple of little kids), you can get by with something in the 850 lb range.

Edit: Also, if you live around high DA areas performance might be the limiting factor instead of useful load.
Click to expand...

I am not in the habit of loading to the max official useful load. For example, a Cherokee loaded to gross is not really all that much fun to fly, the handling degrades so much over that last 100 lbs. If one lives in a high DA area (as I do) having a healthy useful load becomes even more desirable. The plane can be "flown light" and still carry a reasonable travelling payload.
 
GRG55 said:
I am not in the habit of loading to the max official useful load. For example, a Cherokee loaded to gross is not really all that much fun to fly, the handling degrades so much over that last 100 lbs. If one lives in a high DA area (as I do) having a healthy useful load becomes even more desirable. The plane can be "flown light" and still carry a reasonable travelling payload.
Click to expand...

I'm a flatland flier, but I can imagine that in high DA areas you really need all the margins you can get. I have a 161, and when heavy on hot days it does feel lethargic, even at lower altitudes.
 
Different airplanes are different. My 280 hp Mooney does great at max gross, turns out the weak link is gear strength. And it takes up a lot of runway. But still climbs at 800 fpm. Know your airplane and respect it's limits. They are all different in subtle and not so subtle ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I took off from Santa Fe at around 7000ft DA on my 150 at max gross a while ago. That's the definition of lethargic. Pull it to the 500fpm climb that you're used to, and you stall and die. Just let the airplane do it's thing at it's own pace (in my case, 150-200fpm), and you'll be fine.
 
GRG55 said:
The 180 has the constant chord "Hershey bar" wing, the Archer has the newer semi-tapered wing. There are small differences in how they handle in certain parts of the flight envelope, but as the George Mohr noted they both get off the ground just fine.

Both airplanes are suitable for a person starting out. Stop worrying about the small differences in how the different planes fly, or look, or glide, and concentrate on becoming proficient at making the airplane (whatever one you are flying) do exactly what you want it to do (within its design envelope, of course) with confidence. You can become a good pilot in a Cessna 140, and most everything else too. You can become a lousy pilot in just about anything too.
Click to expand...

I agree,

Looks is not an important factor to me. Maintenance, How a plane flies, Safety, NM range, Fuel Burn, Price and useful load are all important factors. That is why I'm looking at the Piper Brand, it's really difficult to beat in price, Fuel Burn, useful load and overall maintenance. I don't think I'm going to be a lousy pilot because, I always look to improve. It's the pilots that "Think they know everything and learning stops" that turn out to be lousy pilots. Just my opinion!
 
What do you folks think about the Piper 235? I know the trade off is fuel burn for the slight extra speed? So here is the three:

Piper 180 Piper 235 Piper 6

All 3 are different but I noticed the fuel burn on a 6 is almost the same as a 235, (15-17GPH). I could use the extra seats for flying with my co-workers back and forth, (Unpaid of course). I would like to park the plane outside in a tie down. All 3 are almost identical in price.

What do you think?
 
FloridaPilot said:
What do you folks think about the Piper 235? I know the trade off is fuel burn for the slight extra speed? So here is the three:

Piper 180 Piper 235 Piper 6

All 3 are different but I noticed the fuel burn on a 6 is almost the same as a 235, (15-17GPH). I could use the extra seats for flying with my co-workers back and forth, (Unpaid of course). I would like to park the plane outside in a tie down. All 3 are almost identical in price.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Haven't flown one, but the folks here who've flown the 6, have all said consistently that the back two seats aren't usually usable for adults.
 
The speed advantage of a PA-28-235 over a -180 ain't much, considering the thirstier engine. But if you need to carry heavy (if not bulky) loads, the -235 is for you. Some early models had a useful load greater than the empty weight -- not a bad accomplishment.

It also has a huge fuel capacity, which might allow you to skip a fuel stop -- block-to-block on a long trip that can be better than a 25-knot speed increase.
 
Pilawt said:
The speed advantage of a PA-28-235 over a -180 ain't much, considering the thirstier engine. But if you need to carry heavy (if not bulky) loads, the -235 is for you. Some early models had a useful load greater than the empty weight -- not a bad accomplishment.

It also has a huge fuel capacity, which might allow you to skip a fuel stop -- block-to-block on a long trip that can be better than a 25-knot speed increase.
Click to expand...

I thought the Piper 235 has a 50 gallon fuel tank?
 
denverpilot said:
Haven't flown one, but the folks here who've flown the 6, have all said consistently that the back two seats aren't usually usable for adults.
Click to expand...
Na....that's not so. Those rear two seats in the Six are huge. Now, if you're talking about an A36 Beech....that's true. Those rear seats are tight and limited by CG/weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top