Piper as a newbie owner?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
Hello!

I live in Florida and I have my eyes on a Piper but I'm not too sure which one. Here is my mission objectives.

#1. My wife and I will just be flying.

#2. Would like to have a reasonable payload to bring a bag or two.

#3. No retracts, I would like to keep airplane maintenance reasonable.

#4. Under 75k.

#5. I would like to take a trip to New York and back with my Wife once a year. (I understand that it will take a long time to get there)

#6. Speed is not really important at this time because I'm still fairly new to flying.

#7. I'm open to other brands too but I was just at the Piper Warehouse at Vero Beach and I'm really impressed by them.

#8. Overall annual is not very expensive (Under 3k a year).

#9. Good CG

#10. Good Nautical Nile Range (Over 450nm)

Thanks always for your input!

FP
 
For $75K you can get an Archer, but I think I'd buy a really nice Cherokee 180 and use the difference in purchase price on flying.
 
I got an arrow 180 for ~35k with ~500 hrs smoh... The recent annual was $650. Insurance on hull value of 30k is ~650/yr (250 hrs 120 retract and ir) last year it was about 800/yr (no ir and 25 hrs retract). I wish it were faster... You're going to it's just going to happen. A headwind of 25 kts eats into 135 kts bad enough...it's only worse at 120.

If you're set on a piper non-retract I'd say try to find a Cherokee 235... But a Cherokee 180 is really the minimum. I understand your like for pipers, I prefer them myself.
 
Get the nicest one in the best shape you can find. It will be less trouble and easier to maintain. You will pay a little more for it, yes. Get a compression check by an independent mechanic and have him look for corrosion. Verify everything works yourself when you fly in it. Good luck. You should be able to find a good one on that budget.
 
Cherokee 180/Archer or a Cherokee 235 might fit your criteria. The latter tend to have better avionics upgrades (Garmin GNS-430 GPS navigators for example) than the former as they are better cross-country cruisers. You will even find a few 235s with 2-axis STEC autopilots.

I don't think you'll find a good Dakota for under $75k, but I would check availability.
 
Now I did say no retracts and that is because I'm worried that maintenance will get out of hand but I have seen some Mooney's that fit the profile perfectly. It is probably wise to get it checked yearly but how expensive is the overall cost to maintain retracts?
 
Grumman Tiger? It'll be about 10-15kts faster than an Archer on the same fuel burn. If you're going places, I would imagine the improved MPG would be attractive.
 
A retract is more complex, will cost more to maintain (how much more depends a lot on the type of system - electric, hydraulic, manual - and the particular airplane - some gear systems are just more robust than others). Your insurance for a retract may be higher as well if you are a low time pilot.

I have owned and flown a number of Pipers. The Arrow is a fine airplane (I owned one) but flies too slow for the retractable landing gear to give you much of an advantage. The useful load of a Cherokee 235 will be greater, the climb rate higher, the cruise speed roughly comparable - and the gear is fixed.
 
I myself have been doing HOURS of research on these very aircraft.

The Cherokee 180 looks like the best fit across the board.

No retracts rules out the Arrow... but an additional 20-25 knots in cruise seems totally worth it.

There's also the Warrior II you can pick up in the same price range, but at the expense of 20 HP.

All of the above I've seen listed for 32-75k.
 
@FloridaPilot, definitely consider an older Cherokee 180 or 140. You can get a well-equipped version of either for around 60K, or less. And when I say well-equipped I'm talking WAAS gps, autopilot, etc. Basically a TAA. There's plenty of them out there.

I just sold my 180 and the guy who got it got the deal of a lifetime. But I was in the same boat you were about a year ago. My 180 had a useful of about 929 lbs, but even the 140 models can carry about 800+ useful and that's more than enough for two people and luggage.

I would take a well-equipped 1960-1970 Cherokee 180 over a newer Archer for the same price ANY day. All of the Archers or Warriors I've seen have been "pretty" looking, but with minimal VFR radios, etc. Unless you go closer to 80-90K. And at that point, why bother with a Piper?

The Cherokee 180/140s can definitely go about 500 nm properly leaned, if not more. I made a flight to North Carolina from Florida in my 180 and while I did make a fuel stop, I probably didn't need to, but I'm cautious like that :).

The CG on a Cherokee 180/140 will be nose heavy. Plan to carry some ballast in the baggage compartment (about 100 lbs worth) especially if you have full fuel and heavier people up front. Also, if you can, do some research on the Cherokee to make sure it's got the reinforced oleo on the nose gear. If it does you'll have a much larger CG front range then the light one. Mine didn't so, I had to use the ballast.
 
Dakota which is the taper wing version of the 235's is also a good little plane. Not as fuel friendly but much quicker, and generally have great useful loads. May be pushing things on the price you have mentioned however.
 
I'm partnered in a 76 Warrior. It is upgraded to 160HP, has a 430W in it and is a nice bird. It will carry 590lbs of people and luggage with full tanks. Cruises along at 105 knots @ 2400 RPM and burns 8 GPH when leaned properly.
 
Before you ignore the Piper retracts, consider that the Piper gear system is stone simple. The mechanism to lower the gear is.... gravity! Hydraulic pressure holds the gear up... release the pressure and the gear falls down and locks. Gravity hasn't failed since the Big Bang.

Yes, it still makes the cost of an annual a bit more, and should the hydraulic power pack that raises the gear fail or require overhaul, that is expensive! My point is that this system is much simpler than that found on Brand B and Brand C.

Good luck with the search. Keep us posted! -Skip (700 hours in a PA-28-181)
 
Last edited:
Skip Miller said:
Before you ignore the Piper retracts, consider that the Piper gear system is stone simple. The mechanism to lower the gear is.... gravity! Hydraulic pressure holds the gear up... release the pressure and the gear falls down and locks. Gravity hasn't failed since the Big Bang.

Yes, it still makes the cost of an annual a bit more, and should the hydraulic power pack that raises the gear fail or require overhead, that is expensive! My point is that this system is much simpler than that found on Brand B and Brand C.

Good luck with the search. Keep us posted! -Skip (700 hours in a PA-28-181)
Click to expand...

Not only is it stone simple, it's pretty tough too. I think more so than Piper's fixed gear.
 
For your budget an early archer,or a later model 180 would more than meet your requirements.I have a two seat liberty,that would work,might be a little cramped,but would fit your budget on the used market.
 
Archer or Cherokee 180 fits your requirements and you can get a very nicely equipped one for that price range.
 
asicer said:
Grumman Tiger? It'll be about 10-15kts faster than an Archer on the same fuel burn. If you're going places, I would imagine the improved MPG would be attractive.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was about to say too.

Much better handling, better crosswind control, sliding canopy, faster, etc


If you could change your mind on retracts, I'd say most any flavor of PA-24 Comanche would be a no brainer based on your requirements, and as someone with a complex RG, it's really not that bad MX wise as long as you get a good prebuy and don't buy a turd, in flying a 300HP complex plane and my annuals are normally just over 1k, last one was about $800 more but that wasn't manadatory airworthy stuff, more James is OCD about his plane stuff ;)
 
68 or newer Cherokee D 180 is my vote. In 68 I believe you get the throttle quadrant and the 3rd window which were both a must in my search. I'm biased as that's what I have though haha. Useful load is just under 1100 and I true at 8k @ 140mph. Not the fastest but I like to fly and it's still way faster than a car. My last annual owner assisted cost me around 600 bucks. I think it would have been 1200 if I wasn't involved.
 
I like the Grumman tiger too! I looked at them before I got my cherokee. What I love about my cherokee is it is very roomy. Are the Tigers smaller in the cabin than a cherokee?
 
It's been a while,but maybe a smidge smaller, big seller is the sliding canopy that you can crash in flight and makes boarding a easy just step in thing, compared to the piper climbing over seats process, which is especially fun if someone doesn't notice they have dirty shoes.
 
Your mission does seem to call for a Cherokee or similar. I did my PPL and am starting my IR in a 1962 Cherokee 180. It has 50 gallons usable fuel and 1,060 lbs useful load. It has a GTN 650 and a touchscreen VFR GPS/MFD, I forget the model number of that one. With 105 KTAS on 9 gph (I'm a little conservative on fuel planning compared to others above, perhaps), you can fly for 5 hours with VFR day reserves and go 525 nm without winds in the process. With full fuel, you have 760 lbs left for people and bags. The only time the cockpit felt the least bit crowded was on my dual cross-country while re-folding a sectional. I'm 6'2" and 215 lbs and it's a comfortable plane for me.

There are only three things I can find not to like about the Cherokee 180: speed (stated not to be a factor in your mission), seats for more than two (also stated not to be a factor), and lack of an autopilot (but once you get the aileron trim tab adjusted right you won't miss an autopilot at all--the Cherokee is easy to fly). If I had your mission, I would buy this exact plane. The owner says it's for sale and it's already set up for everything I really need except the speed. We are pretty remote (at S25 airport) so speed is a bigger factor for me. I'm going to keep flying this plane until a better fit comes along for me to buy into, though.
 
I think low wing pipers are great planes but there are two reasons why I like high wings in Florida: 1) Sun shade, and 2) shelter during rain showers that hit during your pre-flight, or just after you landed and are trying to unload the plane.

Not specific to florida, but 3) multiple doors, 4) not having to lie on ground during pre-flight (although no ladder necessary) and 5) room to walk under a wing in a hangar round out the other reasons why I'm resistant to go low wing for my next plane.
 
If I was looking for the planes mostly mentioned I would probably go with the arrow. My reasoning is that you will probably find a arrow with better avionics, decent gps, decent radios. Also good chance it will have a autopilot. Being a retract and having no wheel pants would make it better for grass fields if you are interested in those. They are usually newer. Easy to get parts for. As stated there probably isn't a safer plane as far as emergency extension of gear. In fact as I remember, thinking they have auto extend on gear. Probably fairly easy to resell as they are in pretty good demand. Easy to fly, economical and good usuable. Will build up your retract hours for future upgrades also. I can't really get on the Grumman bandwagon. I have flown and owned before. Lots of people like them. I'm probably an exception.
 
I'll catch hell for the recommendation but here goes....

I like an Archer, flew one in a 4 person club. Good payload and flew very nice. Annuals were pretty consistent but the owner always kept up on the little things, getting something new done every year. He was big into preventative maintenance. My Bride and I did plenty of traveling with that plane then eventually decided on ownership.

After climbing in and out of the archer (piper roll) we both decided we wanted two doors, no retract, pretty much for your same reasons. We decided on a Beech Sundowner. Two doors, plenty of room and since its just me and the Bride we take both back seats out for baggage and sometimes our American Mastiff. I flight plan for 110 kts, annuals are consistent and like the club owner I stay ahead every annual by updating something different. The end of 2015 I added ADS-B and this year a new autopilot is the plan.

Give the Beech line a look, it's worth the added comfort.
 
GMascelli said:
I'll catch hell for the recommendation but here goes....

I like an Archer, flew one in a 4 person club. Good payload and flew very nice. Annuals were pretty consistent but the owner always kept up on the little things, getting something new done every year. He was big into preventative maintenance. My Bride and I did plenty of traveling with that plane then eventually decided on ownership.

After climbing in and out of the archer (piper roll) we both decided we wanted two doors, no retract, pretty much for your same reasons. We decided on a Beech Sundowner. Two doors, plenty of room and since its just me and the Bride we take both back seats out for baggage and sometimes our American Mastiff. I flight plan for 110 kts, annuals are consistent and like the club owner I stay ahead every annual by updating something different. The end of 2015 I added ADS-B and this year a new autopilot is the plan.

Give the Beech line a look, it's worth the added comfort.
Click to expand...

This one looks pretty good:

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/Vi...l=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=23073261&dealerid=
 
Theboys said:
If I was looking for the planes mostly mentioned I would probably go with the arrow. My reasoning is that you will probably find a arrow with better avionics, decent gps, decent radios. Also good chance it will have a autopilot.
Click to expand...

I want an Arrow. An Arrow II would be awesome. But with a budget of <$40k, that means the only Arrows I can get are planes that are in need of 10-15k of work.
 
simtech said:
I like the Grumman tiger too! I looked at them before I got my cherokee. What I love about my cherokee is it is very roomy. Are the Tigers smaller in the cabin than a cherokee?
Click to expand...

They are noticeably smaller than a Cherokee - that is one reason they are faster. The glued on skins help a little too. Very nice airplanes, but a Tiger will be priced at a premium to a comparable condition Cherokee 180 I expect. A good Cheetah shouldn't be discarded as an option in this instance either imo.
 
ircphoenix said:
I want an Arrow. An Arrow II would be awesome. But with a budget of <$40k, that means the only Arrows I can get are planes that are in need of 10-15k of work.
Click to expand...

The original year introduction of the Arrow, 1968, was 180 hp. If you can live without 200 hp you will find these usually sell for a discount to the others because the hp difference. And asking prices are just that...asking. You may not find a $60k Arrow for <$40k, but I think you can find a good Arrow in your budget that won't break the bank if you are patient and take a disciplined approach. It took me a year to find just right Aztec, but I got exactly what I was looking for and for considerably less than I budgeted, or the typical asking at the time.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1106753_1968+Piper+PA28R-180+Arrow.html [Engine timed out, but if it passes scrutiny could run several hundred hours on condition, and he has already dropped the price since his March 1 number]

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1087267_1968+ARROW+PA-28R+180.html
 
FloridaPilot said:
This one looks pretty good:

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/Vi...l=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=23073261&dealerid=
Click to expand...

You are in a completely different category from Piper if you want to own and fly a Bonanza. And in a different maintenance cost bracket as well.

The Cherokee 235 on your previous post looks interesting. It'll take you anywhere, including grass strips in the back country, carry a lot, climb on a hot day, and won't kill the bank account at annual time.
 
Last edited:
Look at Socata TB-10s. It's in your price range, and they have a lot of room
 
GRG55 said:
https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1106753_1968+Piper+PA28R-180+Arrow.html [Engine timed out, but if it passes scrutiny could run several hundred hours on condition, and he has already dropped the price since his March 1 number]

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1087267_1968+ARROW+PA-28R+180.html
Click to expand...

I found these http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1407151/1973-piper-arrow-ii and http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1413223/1968-piper-arrow but I'm askeered at those low prices. That to me means an 18k bill is in my very near future.

Also... I HATE BARNSTORMERS. So, so ugly. =\
 
I have a 68 180 hp Arrow that outruns all the 200hp, has speed mods and a Smitar prop STC...999.48 useful load and 140Knts burning 9.5 at 6500-9500 ...has a mid time engine and only 2500 hrs total time, KLN94 GPS and dual Nav/Coms and paid 34K...spent some money over the last 3 years but on nice to have stuff. One of the few things I could sell for what I have in it. Don't discount it unless you need a real backseat. Fits one fine but not two...
 
GRG55 said:
They are noticeably smaller than a Cherokee - that is one reason they are faster. The glued on skins help a little too. Very nice airplanes, but a Tiger will be priced at a premium to a comparable condition Cherokee 180 I expect. A good Cheetah shouldn't be discarded as an option in this instance either imo.
Click to expand...

Not so much inside. I went through a similar process to the OP when I bought my plane and it felt like the interior of the Tiger was much more open than the Archer, except for rear headroom. Climbing into the Archer always felt like i was climbing into a cave. Particularly the rear seat. With its canopy back, stepping down into the rear seat of the Tiger was a cinch. Same with getting out. Getting into the front is even easier. Lift the front of the seat cushion with your toe, step on the seat pan, and then step down onto the floor.

I'm only about 5'10" tall, so height wasn't an issue in either plane for me.

As for price, I don't know about the Tiger commanding a premium vs. the 180. When I was looking 4 years ago there was lots of overlap in the range of asking prices for the Tiger and Archer (I wasn't looking at pre-Archer 180's). I wouldn't be surprised if the Tiger got some premium. Fly both and I venture you'll recognize why it might. Premium or not, you can get a very well appointed AA5B Tiger for the OP's $75k limit (even including the cost of a pre-buy, purchase paperwork, and sales tax).

As for performance, I think the speed difference is more like 10 knots than 15 knots (in favor of the Tiger vs. the Archer). I don't know how the 180 compares to the Archer. What sold me on the Tiger, though, was the handling difference.

My Tiger has a useful load of 970 lbs. That was probably in about the 35th percentile of the range of the Archers I considered saw. 51 gallons of full fuel leaves 665 lbs of cabin load.

One other consideration is baggage room. The rear seat of the Tiger/Cheetah folds down flat with the baggage compartment floor giving a 2 seat plane with massive cargo volume and a large baggage door for external access.
 
ircphoenix said:
I found these http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1407151/1973-piper-arrow-ii and http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1413223/1968-piper-arrow but I'm askeered at those low prices. That to me means an 18k bill is in my very near future.

Also... I HATE BARNSTORMERS. So, so ugly. =\
Click to expand...

Not sure what your expectations are, but I would suggest putting the mechanicals first. Complete logs, damage history information if any, that sort of thing is more important than paint and interior. The latter sells airplanes, the former keeps them in the air. Not sure what you expect to spend $18k in one go on?

If you look carefully and patiently you're likely to find an Arrow that was not used for training, with a private owner that spent money on the right stuff.

Cosmetics can be brought up as budgets allow bit by bit, year by year. A lot of airplanes out there just need a good scrubbing inside and out. And in the meantime you have a plane that flies just as well as when the paint and interior were new.

Barnstormers is just one way to connect buyers and sellers. If it finds you the right airplane who cares?
 
Last edited:
I find that Tigers/Cheetahs are pretty generous with people space. Where they seem to me to be lacking a bit is knick-knack space. Between the front seats is a center console like the transmission tunnel on a rear-wheel drive car. Under the front seats is the main spar so there's no stashing stuff under there. The rear seats sit on an an enclosed area so there's no stashing stuff under there either. And while shoulder space in back is pretty generous, the armrests don't have cupholders.
 
+1 on the 180 or 235.

But also, don't fret the gear. if you're going 20kts faster your economy including any maintenance is a wash. And it's more fun to call out "Gear in motion, Gear up" and near the FAF or midfield on downwind "Gear in motion, Gear down"
 
GRG55 said:
Not sure what your expectations are, but I would suggest putting the mechanicals first. Complete logs, damage history information if any, that sort of thing is more important than paint and interior. The latter sells airplanes, the former keeps them in the air. Not sure what you expect to spend $18k in one go on?

If you look carefully and patiently you're likely to find an Arrow that was not used for training, with a private owner that spent money on the right stuff.

Cosmetics can be brought up as budgets allow bit by bit, year by year. A lot of airplanes out there just need a good scrubbing inside and out. And in the meantime you have a plane that flies just as well as when the paint and interior were new.

Barnstormers is just one way to connect buyers and sellers. If it finds you the right airplane who cares?
Click to expand...

No no no no. You're absolutely right. Cosmetics are secondary. I'm way more concerned about mechanical first, damage, then complete logs, then finally cosmetics. And I don't know. I just feel like if it's at that price, and the vast majority are around 50, it's going to cost me 15 to get from 35 to 50. What's a rebuild on an engine cost?

You're also right about the function of Barnstormers. The GUI on that website makes my eyes cross though. Tough for my brain to process the circa 1999 geocities-esque website. =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top