Piper 28/180 model question

Btw... id also like to add..


There is two ferraris on the front row at monaco this weekend :)
 
murphey said:
Or more practical to keep the original equipment fixed pitch prop. The ROI may not be worth it.
Click to expand...

If it saves me a few gallons a fuel, gets me to my destination quicker, puts e at the top of the desired rental list, and sells for 10k more when its all said and done. ..is very worth it to me. 8 knots an hour for 400 flight hours per year is 3600 miles that you don't have to pay for. (Ok there is addition maintenance cost but that should be covered by the efficiency increase) And that's just one year. That's my thinking anyways
 
JC565 said:
The crank and prop are negligible since you have to buy them anyway. The rest of the cost is the block mod (blocking off oil pressure relief hole) and the other prop parts and install labor.

It may be cheaper to get a 235 (or at least competitive) but the difference is that i can buy a archer this year. I can't a 235. Well...i could. ..i just don't want to.

Im working on cost next and I'll post a thorough break down. I think it's doable at this point but i still need to prove it to myself.
Click to expand...


Wait are you buying with the intention of having to rebuild/replace the engine right away? I mean I guess if you're going to do that I can see how the crank wouldn't be a big deal but it's a heck of a lot more cost effective to buy a plane with a low-mid time engine and just fly it than go to all that trouble and huge expense.
 
No not immediately. I want an engine with about 600 hours on it so i can save upgrade cost per hour. Id do the prop at overhaul.
 
JC565 said:
If it saves me a few gallons a fuel, gets me to my destination quicker, puts e at the top of the desired rental list, and sells for 10k more when its all said and done. ..is very worth it to me. 8 knots an hour for 400 flight hours per year is 3600 miles that you don't have to pay for. (Ok there is addition maintenance cost but that should be covered by the efficiency increase) And that's just one year. That's my thinking anyways
Click to expand...
Have you previously owned an airplane? If so, which one?
You've said you're buying this to rent out to low-end pilots, possibly students. 400 hrs in a year is 33 hrs month, average.
Have you looked at other flight schools to see what utilization is for the low end aircraft in your area?
Are you a CFI who will be doing the instruction? Or are you expecting to put the airplane into a lease agreement at an existing school?
Have you contacted the school and asked if they want a trainer with a CS prop?
As an initial student, very few CFIs want to start students with a more complicated aircraft. With only the CS prop it still doesn't qualify as a complex for the commercial and so on.....So you're locked into primary training and possibly IFR depending on the panel.

Contact a shop and ask what a 100 hour inspection will cost with a CS prop. Run the numbers,best case, worst case.
 
Is there an STC for an electric prop?
 
An Arrow can be had for around the same money, already has a CS prop, and it might work out well for commercial students or others needing time in a complex aircraft to rent.

What everyone is basically trying to say over and over is it's almost always cheaper to buy what you want up front than to buy and upgrade.
 
murphey said:
Have you previously owned an airplane? If so, which one?
You've said you're buying this to rent out to low-end pilots, possibly students. 400 hrs in a year is 33 hrs month, average.
Have you looked at other flight schools to see what utilization is for the low end aircraft in your area?
Are you a CFI who will be doing the instruction? Or are you expecting to put the airplane into a lease agreement at an existing school?
Have you contacted the school and asked if they want a trainer with a CS prop?
As an initial student, very few CFIs want to start students with a more complicated aircraft. With only the CS prop it still doesn't qualify as a complex for the commercial and so on.....So you're locked into primary training and possibly IFR depending on the panel.

Contact a shop and ask what a 100 hour inspection will cost with a CS prop. Run the numbers,best case, worst case.
Click to expand...

First plane. I'm intending on catering to a very specific group of folks that are intertested in a slightly more capable short hop airplane. But yes i do intend to get my cfi, and I'll rent to anyone who checks out in it, or wants to fly it. Many students are business people who will pay an extra 10 bucks an hour for a few knots, and are combining solo time with personal business purposes. (I know i will be) my goal is to eventually own 3 or 4 planes that are known as solid, well maintained, fast, and 'priced the same' as the other guys. Most important i want to try and get more people into flying. Like i said earlier. .i have a plan. One step at a time.


asicer said:
Is there an STC for an electric prop?
Click to expand...

Yes.. the m *something" prop. I can't remember the name but most of the cherokees were on the stc list.
 
cowman said:
What everyone is basically trying to say over and over is it's almost always cheaper to buy what you want up front than to buy and upgrade.
Click to expand...
Insurance and maintenance will drive up the cost in my specific use case. I dont disagree with you, and for an airplane only i would fly, id op for a money 201 or something...but that's not my plan for now.
 
Clip4 said:
Do you ever bother to drain the fuel selector drain to get all the gunk on your Cessna? It is the lowest part of those fuel systems? If so, how do you do it with out crawling on the ground?

Is 4 less that 3? A Piper has left, right and off. A Cessna has left right off and both. Cessna never built one that drains evenly from both tanks.

Do you use self serve fuel? How is dragging that hose up the ladder working for you?
Click to expand...

1. I'm old. I make the line monkey do it.
2. It's one-upmanship. Cessna actually only has 1 position, "Both". The other switch positions are just painted on so you think you have more than Piper. On planes where they actually work, no one has ever used them.
3. I'm old. I make the line money do it.

And this is why we need a satire indicator for the forum.
 
JC565 said:
Im trying to get actually verified numbers from an owner, but other planes sold in both variants show an 8-12 knot increase at cruise. To me that's worth the cost of the swap.
Click to expand...

Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge too?!
There is no way in heaven you'll see that kind of increase..........not even close.
 
kgruber said:
Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge too?!
There is no way in heaven you'll see that kind of increase..........not even close.
Click to expand...

Thats possisble and a reasonable assumption. but what are the cons? A bit of money and some extra annual cost. ..for that you get better climb, options for max range or max performance at cruise....and you most certainly won't lose speed. Probably pick up at least 2 or 3...so why not?
 
JC565 said:
Im trying to get actually verified numbers from an owner, but other planes sold in both variants show an 8-12 knot increase at cruise. To me that's worth the cost of the swap.
Click to expand...
I would be very surprised if there's that big a difference between fixed-pitch and CS on an Archer. Maybe a couple of knots in cruise if that, and somewhat better acceleration at the start of the takeoff roll and rate of climb.

Check the specs on the '69 C-177A and '70 C-177B Cardinals. Same 180 hp engine, but the 'A' was FP and the 'B' was CS. Cessna claimed only a 4-mph improvement in cruise, about 100-foot improvement in takeoff roll, and about 80 fpm better rate of climb. Surprisingly, service ceiling was even down a little bit.

Nice, but IMO the Archer II is a fine airplane right out of the box not and worth the surgery to change it. Also, the CS prop will cost you some useful load. The 180 hp PA-28 has been one of the most popular airplanes on the planet for over half a century, and if the prop conversion were worthwhile a bunch of people would have done it by now.

And for a rental -- simpler is better.
 
Last edited:
JC565 said:
Im trying to get actually verified numbers from an owner, but other planes sold in both variants show an 8-12 knot increase at cruise. To me that's worth the cost of the swap.

Ive pretty much settled on an archer ii. It seems to have all the requirements I'm interested in. Cs prop upgrade would require a crank swamp , but that's not a big deal.
Click to expand...

I have never found an STC to convert an Archer II to a constant speed prop. There's always the field approval path; possible but not simple or guaranteed. I own an Archer II with an A3A hung on it. Several years ago, I entertained the idea of installing a cs prop on it. Over the years, the perceived need for a cs prop faded. Think about added weight up front (don't need that in a cherokee)and the maintenance complexities. The cruise prop does just fine. At ~10k ft, 120-125 ktas, 8-8.5 gph. Yes, I wish I had the A4A or A4M solid crank on it since I have an avoid continuous operation rpm zone. The only advantage was the A3A was about 10 lbs lighter factory new.
 
The key phrase is "other planes sold in both variants". Unless you have the actual numbers from an archer with CS, your assumptions are fantasyland. The entire cherokee line (cherokee, archer, etc) are flying bricks. Even with all the physical improvement such as the knots 2 u, etc, it's still a less-than-wonderful-aerodynamic aircraft. Which is why it and the cessna 172 have been the most popular primary trainers.
 
It's possible the original poster might have found my plane. It's a '64 140, and has lived nearly all its life in the Seattle area.

In around 1969 (need to look up the paperwork), Pacific Propeller brought the plane up from California and used it to work up the STC to put a CS prop on it, then sold it to the family I grew up working for. As a kid, I flew a lot of hours on it with that owner and when he passed, we bought it from the family.

The end result of the STC looks suspiciously like the engine and prop were modeled from the Apache. The muffler had to be lowered a bit to clear the regulator, using a process involving the use of elbow grease and a 2X4 (yes, the procedure in the STC specifies lumber!). Also, a custom bulkhead and spinner had to be worked up. The originals eventually wore out (metal fatigue on the bulkhead), so we had carbon fiber replacements made.

On a flight line, the plane draws attention, due to its oversized spinner. Few pilots connect what that must mean, because the brain doesn't expect a CS prop on a 140-series aircraft.

In informal searches over the years, I've only found one or two other 140s that were modified in this way, probably because once you've put the money into doing this, you could have bought a larger plane that already had one.

Otherwise, I'm completely spoiled on this thing. We get up to 1,400 fpm on takeoff on a cool day. Otherwise, once you reach altitude, it's pretty much a normal aircraft. The prop pushes the CG forward a bit, which has made working W&B challenging, but usually manageable with heavier passengers.

Since we acquired it, we've put in a new engine, upped it to 160 hp, and added dual Garmin nav-coms, (one a 530), intercom, auto pilot, strobes & a new panel.

A couple of years ago, Hartzell announced they were discontinuing support for the prop's hub. That grounded the plane for nearly a year, while I looked for a comparable replacement.

I'm waaaaay past the point where the money I've put into the plane makes any sense... except that it has everything I'll probably ever need and very little that I won't... Except ADS-B, which is on the way (does it ever end?).

Flying brick? Well, it doesn't float like a 172, but it's a lot better than the space shuttle was! :)
 
Last edited:
Shepherd said:
They are all death traps, because:
They only have one door.
The wing is in the wrong place.
The fuel tanks fill up with gunk because you never get on the ground to sump them.
They have too many positions on the fuel switch.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is. I have too much brain damage from walking into the wing on the Cessna.
Click to expand...
I traded the star on the forehead for a knot on the back of the head from standing up while sumping under the wing.
 
JC565 said:
I got this info from hartzell today. Apparently the a3a hollow crank is just plugged. Converting it (allowing for installation of prop governor) changes the engine designation to a1a

JC:



Lqooks like there are a couple of STC’s that will allow for this on a PA-28-180.



They are:



SA2213WE (this one might be your best bet – I’ll get to that later)

SA556SW



SA556SW is a little vague, and if I remember correctly, the STC holder is difficult/impossible to get ahold of. Sometimes these older STC’s go “inactive” and the people are hard to find.



SA2213WE, on the other hand, looks like it’s still active, and appears to allow for the “conversion” of the existing O-360-A3A engine to an O-360-A1A, and then installing a CS prop. It appears that the O-360-A3A has a hollow crank.
Click to expand...

Actually the stc allows the change to the engine. It still remains an a3a. Only lycoming can change the designation and re-data plate the engine.

Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
Actually the stc allows the change to the engine. It still remains an a3a. Only lycoming can change the designation and re-data plate the engine.

Bob
Click to expand...
That's interesting. A third party STC can modify the dataplate on the engine and/or add a supplemental dataplate.
 
I owned a very nice 1971 Cherokee 140/180 for many years. I bought it with the Avcon STC for the Lycoming O-360 A1D and c/s prop. Although it makes a great little airplane, the STC doesn't allow the airplane to legally carry the load it is capable of. The biggest advantage was climb performance. Top speed was a little better than it's fixed brothers, but this airplane also had nearly every speed mod available for a Cherokee. There are a few 180's out there with the c/s conversion. My advice would be to look for a good one already converted. The expense and hassle to convert one is not worth it. And don't go looking for my old one, it now lives in Argentina.
 
I can’t see how putting a CS prop on an Archer makes any sense whatsoever, especially financially. Picking up another 8-10 knots, if in fact that’s what you get, won’t get you there any faster—depending on the winds, in most cases we are talking single-digit minutes. And the prop + governor will shave off some useful load. You might be able to get close to that number with aerodynamic speed mods.

While the Archer is a great plane, it’s sort of a “tweener” in the sense that it’s right between a trainer and a traveler. It doesn’t do anything especially well, but it doesn’t do anything especially poorly, either. A CS prop isn’t going to change that situation.

I own a (very clean, low time) Archer and am debating whether to put money into the panel or sell it and upgrade. Since the paint still shines, the interior is like new, I know its condition inside and out, and it is “good enough” for most of my missions, I’m torn. If it was an older C172 or Warrior, or needed paint or interior, the decision would be easier.

As for resale, folks aren’t looking for Archers with CS props, which means that most folks aren’t going to pay more for an Archer with a CS prop. That’s similar to my dilemma with respect to adding an autopilot—most folks looking for autopilot-equipped planes aren’t looking for Archers, though I suspect that an autopilot would bring more value to the plane than a CS prop.
 
Last edited:
JC565 said:
my goal is to eventually own 3 or 4 planes that are known as solid, well maintained, fast, and 'priced the same' as the other guys.
Click to expand...
=
Pilawt said:
IMO the Archer II is a fine airplane right out of the box not and worth the surgery to change it. Also, the CS prop will cost you some useful load. The 180 hp PA-28 has been one of the most popular airplanes on the planet for over half a century, and if the prop conversion were worthwhile a bunch of people would have done it by now.
Click to expand...

Get an Archer II, have good avionics in it, such as gtn650 with flightstream (or at least 430), and keep the wheel pants on with other "speed mods" like gap seals, etc

I understand what you're trying to do, but the cs prop on an Archer is just going to be a pita

Or like someone else said, take a look at a TB10
 
kgruber said:
Cost, complexity, and mostly weight. A Cherokee 180 is JUST BARELY a 4 place airplane. Another 50 pounds is not what it needs.
Click to expand...

You can say the same about the 140, which is probably why so few were converted. My plane is a sentimental novelty; a part of a family I spent years with as a youngster. Emotionally, I couldn't stand someone else owning "my" plane, and I was fortunate to be able to purchase it from the owners widow. When I bought it, it had a timed-out engine and its original avionics compliment, including the tube-type Narco radios it came with... along with headsets for one. What I have today remains an emotional attachment and the tangible result of my personal insanity, though the interior bears little resemblance to the original panel.

It's a dang nice 140 and it's not for sale. But... what I've put into it would buy a REAL nice, larger, authentically 4-seat something else. It's the black hole which has vacuumed my mad money for the past 10 years. If you choose to do what I did, you may join an exclusive group of... maybe 2 or 3. Otherwise, I think there are much better ways to get my kind of performance out of a CS aircraft that would be much kinder to your wallet.
 
I don't know if anyone still cares but I have a cherokee 180 with the C/S STC
 
Shepherd said:
They are all death traps, because:
They only have one door.
The wing is in the wrong place.
The fuel tanks fill up with gunk because you never get on the ground to sump them.
They have too many positions on the fuel switch.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is. I have too much brain damage from walking into the wing on the Cessna.
Click to expand...
I whacked my head real good on a Cessna strut this evening!
 
cowman said:
An Arrow can be had for around the same money, already has a CS prop, and it might work out well for commercial students or others needing time in a complex aircraft to rent.

What everyone is basically trying to say over and over is it's almost always cheaper to buy what you want up front than to buy and upgrade.
Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts as well. I don't see the point of spending a lot of money to add a CS prop if you can't pick your feet up anyway.
 
I have a 1965 PA-140 converted to a 180 with a CS prop. Based at 8000 ft, performs great.
 
I just came across this. My 1968 Cherokee (D model) is the 180 HP with a CSP. I have the STCs if you still want them?
 
Cherokee Lover said:
I just came across this. My 1968 Cherokee (D model) is the 180 HP with a CSP. I have the STCs if you still want them?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it looks like the original poster hasn't been here in over two years, so he probably won't see your post unless he has an email alert set up.
 
yeah. BTW...would anybody know how to find STC SA2213WE with all the instructions to accomplish it? I can only find the title sheet.

My manifold pressure gauge is out of calibration. When I removed it I noticed it was a non-certified UMA brand. I was wondering if the STC would have allowed for a non-TSO MP gauge???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top