PA-28 Sizing

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,036
Location
Near DC
Display Name

Display name:
Jaybird180
I have only a few hours in the type and as such I do not know it well. My experience is in the -140 model of 150HP. I recently heard about a 180 Cherokee that may be a good buy. Are the cabins the same between the -140 and -180 models? I didn’t think the -140 was a good fit for me and I wouldn’t want to sit for a long time in one.
 
I flew as Pax in an Arrow once and thought it was OK. But I didn't like the 28-140 I flew. Maybe just that one?
 
The Arrow received a 5" stretch in 1972. The 180 line ended in 1972 and the Challenger came into being in 1973, and it also had the 5" stretch. In 1974 they changed the name from Challenger to Archer.

I am not certain when or if this ever happened to the 140, but that probably doesn't matter.

I used to fly a 180D and the rear seat was only good for my 2 and 3 year old children.
 
I have only a few hours in the type and as such I do not know it well. My experience is in the -140 model of 150HP. I recently heard about a 180 Cherokee that may be a good buy. Are the cabins the same between the -140 and -180 models? I didn’t think the -140 was a good fit for me and I wouldn’t want to sit for a long time in one.

The post-stretch (archers/warriors) are pretty comfortable. I like our club's warrior II's more than the 172SP's. Lighter control feel, easy to fly, 75lb better useful load, lower fuel burn.

They are noticeably bigger than a 140-180.
 
Last edited:
Check the year on the Cherokee line. The early models are cramped.
 
Are the cabins the same between the -140 and -180 models? I didn’t think the -140 was a good fit for me and I wouldn’t want to sit for a long time in one.
They are the same in the front seat area; but -180s and all other PA-28 variants have more room in the back than the -140.

The Cherokee 150, 160 and 180 were originally all the same cabin, with a full-size bench rear seat and large baggage area behind, with an external baggage door. The Cherokee 140 was introduced in 1964 as a two-seat trainer version with a 1950-pound gross weight (200 less than the otherwise-similar Cherokee 150). A rear cabin bulkhead was put in the -140 just about where the back seat went in the 150/160/180, and the -140 had no outside baggage door.

In 1965 Piper introduced a "2+2 Cruiser" option for the Cherokee 140 with 2150 lb gross weight, with small, snap-in seats right up against that rear bulkhead. With the back seats snapped in, there was no (zip, nada) baggage room.

The 1969 "Cherokee 140B" featured a restyled, molded plastic rear bulkhead that offered just a tiny bit of baggage room and a hat shelf behind the snap-in rear seats (still no outside baggage door), and that's the way the -140 was until the end of production in 1977.* The back of a Cherokee 140 was never as roomy or comfortable as any other Cherokee model. It was intended that way, as it was marketed as a loss-leader trainer, and Piper didn't want it to compete head-on with the more expensive models.

[*You'll occasionally find a '71-'73 Cherokee 140 with the old-style, flat rear cabin bulkhead. These were mostly the stripped-down, fleet-spec "Flite Liner" model marketed to Piper Flite Centers. A registration number ending in "FL" is a reliable clue that the airplane was originally a Flite Liner.]

The Cherokee 180, meanwhile, switched from rear bench seats to full-size individual rear seats in 1971. The fuselage was stretched about five inches for the 1973 model year, nearly all of it going to rear-seat leg room. The Warrior (1974) and Archer II (1976) also inherited this same stretched cabin.

I am not certain when or if this ever happened to the 140, but that probably doesn't matter.
The 140 never got the cabin stretch, or wing or tail extensions (or baggage door). The last Cherokee 140 was built at the end of the 1977 model year, and its exterior dimensions were still exactly the same as those of the first 1961 Cherokee 160.
 
Last edited:
A 67" 140 is going to fit the same as a 67' 180 as others have said the year makes the difference. 1973 is the year that the stretch was made for most except the Arrow which was 72' as someone else said.
 
A 67" 140 is going to fit the same as a 67' 180
In front, yes; in back, no.

1967 Cherokee 140:

PA-28-140_1967_int1_zps5adf42a6.jpeg



1967 Cherokee 180:

PA-28-180_1967_int1_zps55d45c58.jpeg
 
The one the OP flew is a 140B with the baggage compartment and hat-rack area (I train in it).

I think it's a 69' or 70'.
 
So cabin width is the same. No reason to see the -180 then.
 
I think the Cherokees are all 42" wide.

A 172 is only 40" wide, a Tiger 41.5", for comparison.
Those numbers are a little misleading.

The Cherokee's 42" width is at elbow level. Like most low-wing airplanes the upper cabin has a rounded cross-section above the bottom window line. The slab-sided 172 is a constant width all the way up. I haven't measured them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 172 might be a skosh wider than a Cherokee at eye level. The Tiger's canopy doesn't start to taper until a bit further up than most, which gives the airplane something of a bug-eyed look. And those big canopy windows make the Tiger seem more spacious.
 
Those numbers are a little misleading.

The Cherokee's 42" width is at elbow level. Like most low-wing airplanes the upper cabin has a rounded cross-section above the bottom window line. The slab-sided 172 is a constant width all the way up. I haven't measured them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 172 might be a skosh wider than a Cherokee at eye level. The Tiger's canopy doesn't start to taper until a bit further up than most, which gives the airplane something of a bug-eyed look. And those big canopy windows make the Tiger seem more spacious.

Probably is. Seating position is totally different in the Cherokee as well. I could see someone used to sitting up in a Cessna not liking the Cherokee and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Grown women sitting comfortably in the back of a Cherokee? Marketing genius or flat out lies?
 
Grown women sitting comfortably in the back of a Cherokee? Marketing genius or flat out lies?

Note that the pictures are cropped so you can't see that the front seats are compressing the yokes.
 
Grown women sitting comfortably in the back of a Cherokee? Marketing genius or flat out lies?
It can be done, maybe not comfortably, and at least for short hops.

Back in the 1980s when I owned a '77 Cherokee 140, a pilot friend was planning his wedding day. He asked if I would fly him and his bride after the wedding from Van Nuys to Santa Monica, where they would have a car waiting, to evade rowdy well-wishers.

I decorated the airplane's interior with paper streamers and bells and waited, expecting the newlyweds to have changed clothes before coming to the airport.

Nope.

They showed up, he in tux and she in full wedding gown. Somehow they squeezed into the back, while her brother took the shotgun seat. Fortunately the flight was only 12 nm, and we had limited fuel aboard.

Flying-1980s-3028.jpg


Flying-1980s-3030.jpg
 
I think the Cherokees are all 42" wide.

A 172 is only 40" wide, a Tiger 41.5", for comparison.

I didn't like the flying position. The guy that flew right seat is very small about 5'5" and 140. I am 6' 210 wide shouldered. There was a point in that flight where I decided I was no longer having fun and the cramped feeling began to assert itself to the forefront of my consciousness.

I am OK with other 6' men beside me in my Skyhawk. No doubt, Skylanes offer better comfort.

I think I'm satisfied that the Cherokee type is not for me. And yes, I've also piloted a Mooney - no problem there either.
 
I think you have to get into the six seaters of that lineage before they get wider.
 
Seating position is totally different in the Cherokee as well. I could see someone used to sitting up in a Cessna not liking the Cherokee and vice versa.

I went from Cherokee to Cessna after checkride and honestly I hate the one-door arrangement. At least Beech made some models of B23/B19 with two doors (Gary's is one).
 
Then sell it and buy an RV-10.

I'm looking at their website now. What kind of aviation manufacturer publishes performance data in Statute Miles:nono::sigh:. Although not a HUGE deal, seems a bit distrustful.
 
I went from Cherokee to Cessna after checkride and honestly I hate the one-door arrangement. At least Beech made some models of B23/B19 with two doors (Gary's is one).

On the upside, there's half the wind noise from leaky door seals.
 
I am 5' 8" at 170 (ok maybe 180 now) and always felt pretty comfortable in my Cherokee. The back seat is cramped, but I have had my 20 year old son back there a number of times (5' 10" and 150). I am sure he wasn't totally comfortable, but we have done close to 3 hour flights that way. He just kind of stretches his feet across the other side.
 
Same here I'm 5'9" 180.. My rt side pax was 5'6" 225.. Wife is 5'4" 160 and we fit comfortably in my 140.. She had plenty of leg room in the rear.. No complaints on the 1.5 hr flight from the coast
 
I didn't like the flying position. The guy that flew right seat is very small about 5'5" and 140. I am 6' 210 wide shouldered. There was a point in that flight where I decided I was no longer having fun and the cramped feeling began to assert itself to the forefront of my consciousness.

I am OK with other 6' men beside me in my Skyhawk. No doubt, Skylanes offer better comfort.

I think I'm satisfied that the Cherokee type is not for me. And yes, I've also piloted a Mooney - no problem there either.

I've primarily flown PA28 variants for 14 years or so, also have time in 172, TB9, some others. Don't like the Cessnas- the high top of the instrument panel blocks my forward view.

I'm about same height/weight and also broad shouldered and very comfy, like a pair of old shoes, in my 140B. Are you long torso-ed or long legged (like me)?

Two guys of similar dimensions is tight in anything short of a PA32.

You might like a Tampico, very roomy overall, twin gull-wing entry.

Obviously dimensional numbers don't tell the whole story, kind of like buying off the rack clothes. How it's "cut" defines your comfort.
 
I've primarily flown PA28 variants for 14 years or so, also have time in 172, TB9, some others. Don't like the Cessnas- the high top of the instrument panel blocks my forward view.

I'm about same height/weight and also broad shouldered and very comfy, like a pair of old shoes, in my 140B. Are you long torso-ed or long legged (like me)?

Two guys of similar dimensions is tight in anything short of a PA32.

You might like a Tampico, very roomy overall, twin gull-wing entry.

Obviously dimensional numbers don't tell the whole story, kind of like buying off the rack clothes. How it's "cut" defines your comfort.

In a C-182 with the seat down - understandable.

I learned a trick on this board for consistent sight picture that works for me: top of window at eye level height. C-182 panel is still high, but it's workable.
 
One of the only things I don't like about my 1966 pa-28 140 is the non adjustable (height/recline) seats up front.. :(
 
One of the only things I don't like about my 1966 pa-28 140 is the non adjustable (height/recline) seats up front.. :(

Not just the 140's this is an issue on. The planes that my school owns are mainly Warriors. Some have the ajustable seat, and some do not. Most of the CFI's are fairly big, and more or less refuse to fly in the planes withou the ajustable seats.
 
I'm looking at their website now. What kind of aviation manufacturer publishes performance data in Statute Miles:nono::sigh:. Although not a HUGE deal, seems a bit distrustful.

Pretty standard back then. The ASI is in MPH, too.
 
I'm looking at their website now. What kind of aviation manufacturer publishes performance data in Statute Miles:nono::sigh:. Although not a HUGE deal, seems a bit distrustful.
They all did until 1976-77 when the GAMA members agreed to switch to knots. Several manufacturers of -- um -- slower aircraft still use mph, such as American Champion, American Legend, CubCrafters, and so on. 100 mph sounds so much more encouraging than 87 knots.
 
Back
Top