Piper virgin

[DrPappy]

I was trained in Cessnas (150/152/172), and I know absolutely zero about Pipers. However, now that I am considering purchasing my own, I am trying to expand my horizons a bit. Does anyone know if there is a Piper buyer's guide similar to the one for Cessnas? Something that will tell me things like to watch out for a certain year, engine, etc. I feel a long-time PC user thinking about going Mac.

 

[Pilawt]

Other than the Turbo Arrows and Turbo "Dakotas", all PA-28s have tried-and-true Lycomings, so it's hard to say there are engines to avoid. Piper didn't use anything like the O-320-H2AD.

Aviation Consumer's two-volume Used Aircraft Guide (edited by our own Ken Ibold) is a little dated now, but gives a good overview of the pros and cons of the various models.

PA-28s have been in production for 54 years and there have been scads of different models, so there are a lot of choices. What are you looking for? An old Cherokee 140 or a newer Arrow or something inbetween? Narrow it down some, and we can make some suggestions.

 

[Henning]

The are three basic forms of a Cherokee, short fuselage Hershey Bar wing, long fuselage Hershey Bar wing, and long fuselage taped wing. In fixed gear they range in horsepower from 150, 160, 180, to 235, and there retractables with 180 and 200 hp as well as turbo charged fixed and retractable gear ones with I think 220hp.

How much horsepower you want depends on how much weight you want to fly with.

If you see a designator with Horsepower +1, (161, 181, 201, 236) that designates the taper wing.

 

[Pilawt]

The are three basic forms of a Cherokee, short fuselage Hershey Bar wing, long fuselage Hershey Bar wing, and long fuselage taped wing. In fixed gear they range in horsepower from 150, 160, 180, to 235, and there retractables with 180 and 200 hp as well as turbo charged fixed and retractable gear ones with I think 220hp.

If you see a designator with Horsepower +1, (161, 181, 201, 236) that designates the taper wing.

Good summary.

The turbo models (Turbo Arrow and Turbo Dakota) have the Continental TSIO-360 rated at 200 hp; similar engines in the Seneca and Mooney 252 were rated up to 220 hp.

 

[Pilawt]

I forgot to mention ... my friend Ron Smith in England has written a comprehensive, well-illustrated guide to the Cherokee line. It's called Piper Cherokee - A Family History, and is available from Amazon.

 

[Tom-D]

Good summary.

The turbo models (Turbo Arrow and Turbo Dakota) have the Continental TSIO-360 rated at 200 hp; similar engines in the Seneca and Mooney 252 were rated up to 220 hp.

With the TSIO-360 You'll ruin it if you run at the rated take off power, you not get many hours from it.

 

[dans2992]

Are you suggesting a reduced power takeoff, or simply transitioning to "climb power" as soon as possible?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Henning]

Are you suggesting a reduced power takeoff, or simply transitioning to "climb power" as soon as possible?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you have runway and climb space available (almost always) restricting T/O power to 32" isn't a big deal.

 

[poadeleted21]

I was trained in Cessnas (150/152/172), and I know absolutely zero about Pipers. However, now that I am considering purchasing my own, I am trying to expand my horizons a bit. Does anyone know if there is a Piper buyer's guide similar to the one for Cessnas? Something that will tell me things like to watch out for a certain year, engine, etc. I feel a long-time PC user thinking about going Mac.

Assuming you're talking about Cherokees. They were designed to be simple planes, and they are. I'd look at a C model or better. Cheap to own and operate.

 

[Arrow115]

Cherokee 140's and warriors are great budget birds. I like the stretch fuselage, so I would aim for 72 or newer. I also would look at an archer so you have more options with the 180 hp engine.

I am out at Hooks most Fridays and randomly throughout the weekends. Feel free to stop on by if you want to see an Arrow and talk Cherokees. Check your PM for my info.

 

[James331]

Go rent one for a while, see if you like it. For not a huge amount more you can get a PA24 with a basic radio stack, I'd rather have a more basic PA24 then a decked out PA28.

You can get quite a bit of info on Wikipedia too.

Ether way, go fly one before you even debate buying one, shouldnt be too hard PA28s are a dime a dozen at FBOs.

 

[Henning]

Good summary.

The turbo models (Turbo Arrow and Turbo Dakota) have the Continental TSIO-360 rated at 200 hp; similar engines in the Seneca and Mooney 252 were rated up to 220 hp.

I wondered about the Arrow, but I thought the Turbo Dakota was 220? Perhaps Clark will chime in.

 

[EppyGA]

The are three basic forms of a Cherokee, short fuselage Hershey Bar wing, long fuselage Hershey Bar wing, and long fuselage taped wing. In fixed gear they range in horsepower from 150, 160, 180, to 235, and there retractables with 180 and 200 hp as well as turbo charged fixed and retractable gear ones with I think 220hp.

How much horsepower you want depends on how much weight you want to fly with.

If you see a designator with Horsepower +1, (161, 181, 201, 236) that designates the taper wing.

You left out the 151

 

[EppyGA]

You would have to learn fuel management as there is no Both setting.

 

[Henning]

You left out the 151

That's why I tried to keep as generic and basic as possible, no way I can remember all the freakin different variants and little changes in features.

 

[Pilawt]

Cherokee 140's and warriors are great budget birds. I like the stretch fuselage, so I would aim for 72 or newer.

Arrow got the stretch fuselage in 1972; 180 and 235 hp fixed-gear models got it in 1973 (called "Cherokee Challenger" and "Cherokee Charger" in 1973 but changed to "Cherokee Archer" and "Cherokee Pathfinder" in 1974). All Warriors have the stretch; but all Cherokee 140s have the original short-body fuselage and wing dimensions. If you see a reference to "Cherokee 150" or "Cherokee 160", those are the original short-body models with 150 and 160 hp respectively, that went out of production in 1968.

I wondered about the Arrow, but I thought the Turbo Dakota was 220? Perhaps Clark will chime in.

Nope, 200 hp TSIO-360-FB for both, at least as they came from the factory. The "Turbo Dakota" was less a turbocharged version of the Dakota than it was just a fixed-gear Turbo Arrow III.

You would have to learn fuel management as there is no Both setting.

And switching on the aux fuel pump for takeoff and landing.

Other points of comparison ...

C-172 has two cabin doors; PA-28 only one.

C-172 has one landing gear oleo strut to maintain; PA-28 has three. Cabin visibility in a PA-28 is light-years better than from a C-172.

Some pilots transitioning from Cessnas think that PA-28s are twitchy in pitch and require more trim adjustment in cruise. The stabilator might be a little more sensitive, but you get used to it quickly.

PA-28 is more stable on the ground, especially in high winds; but C-172 requires less effort to steer and can make sharper turns.

Short-wing ("Hershey-bar" wing) PA-28s are lethargic climbers to higher altitudes, but they seem to plow through turbulence better. Those with the tapered wings (which are almost a copy of Cessna wings in area and planform) climb better.

 

[Clark1961]

I wondered about the Arrow, but I thought the Turbo Dakota was 220? Perhaps Clark will chime in.

The turbo Dakota has the TSIO-360-FB from the factory which is a 200 hp variant. There is an STC to use the -K fuel system which takes it to 220 hp.

 

[rbridges]

As long as you like the way it feels, you can't go wrong with a piper. Personal preferences such as the high wing vs. low wing and one door vs. two door can be kicked around all day. I was always partial to the handling in the low wing pipers vs the 172, but that's something you need to decide for yourself.

 

[Henning]

The turbo Dakota has the TSIO-360-FB from the factory which is a 200 hp variant. There is an STC to use the -K fuel system which takes it to 220 hp.

Can't you just add more throttle as long as you're below critical altitude?

 

[Sac Arrow]

With the TSIO-360 You'll ruin it if you run at the rated take off power, you not get many hours from it.

Are you suggesting a reduced power takeoff, or simply transitioning to "climb power" as soon as possible?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you have runway and climb space available (almost always) restricting T/O power to 32" isn't a big deal.

I used to take off at 34" (full TO power was 38" due to the intercooler, normal is 41") and the difference between 34" and 38" isn't even noticeable, power wise.

Still these are expensive, problematic engines. Turbochargers generally last about half the engine TBO, and they are five grand to replace. And they tend to puke oil at times. I used to worry if I had enough oil for a long return trip when I had my Turbo Arrow. I do not with the current Arrow II.

 

[Henning]

I used to take off at 34" (full TO power was 38" due to the intercooler, normal is 41") and the difference between 34" and 38" isn't even noticeable, power wise.

Still these are expensive, problematic engines. Turbochargers generally last about half the engine TBO, and they are five grand to replace. And they tend to puke oil at times. I used to worry if I had enough oil for a long return trip when I had my Turbo Arrow. I do not with the current Arrow II.

There are far more economical ways to deal with a turbo. They are very simple, and common. I just never figured out why they didn't use a properly compensated wastegate on it. It's baffling to me.

 

[Sac Arrow]

There are far more economical ways to deal with a turbo. They are very simple, and common. I just never figured out why they didn't use a properly compensated wastegate on it. It's baffling to me.

Cost I imagine. But there are STC replacements available for the fixed wastegate.

 

[Henning]

Cost I imagine. But there are STC replacements available for the fixed wastegate.

The Merlyn is half a proper controller, that is another one I never figured out, why not fully referenced? It's not difficult. The cost difference between any of them is negligible in the cost of an airplane. If it was done to save a couple hundred bucks, it was a **** poor value.

 

[DrPappy]

Other than the Turbo Arrows and Turbo "Dakotas", all PA-28s have tried-and-true Lycomings, so it's hard to say there are engines to avoid. Piper didn't use anything like the O-320-H2AD.

Aviation Consumer's two-volume Used Aircraft Guide (edited by our own Ken Ibold) is a little dated now, but gives a good overview of the pros and cons of the various models.

PA-28s have been in production for 54 years and there have been scads of different models, so there are a lot of choices. What are you looking for? An old Cherokee 140 or a newer Arrow or something inbetween? Narrow it down some, and we can make some suggestions.

Thanks to all for the great info so far! I was initially considering a 172 (or possibly 182), though depending on the year a 172 might be pushing it on useful, unless it has the 180 conversion. My wife and I are reasonably slender (about 300 lbs. combined) but we have 2 sons that are growing like weeds. I would like to fly with luggage for an overnight stay and full fuel, mainly around Texas and adjoining states. Probably something like a Warrior or Archer?

 

[MAKG1]

PA28s are easy to fly, and a LOT easier to see out of in turns than a Cessna. The only drawbacks I see are the lack of a second door, and the only window that opens is barely big enough to stick your hand out of.

A 172 M or N with a 180 HP conversion will do your mission just fine. Those are surprisingly capable machines, even in the mountains (on a nice and not very windy day), up to about 11,000 feet DA. Most of them can carry over 1000 lb useful load, or 750+ lb of passengers and cargo with full fuel. That's more than an Archer (PA28-181), which is it's most direct competition.

A 182 will do it, too, but at 12 GPH instead of 8.5, and it's only a tiny bit faster. With four adults and full fuel, a forward CG can become a problem.

Naturally aspirated PA28s suck at high altitude. I don't know about the turbos, as I haven't flown one.

 

[RyanB]

My wife and I are reasonably slender (about 300 lbs. combined) but we have 2 sons that are growing like weeds. I would like to fly with luggage for an overnight stay and full fuel, mainly around Texas and adjoining states. Probably something like a Warrior or Archer?

The warrior as far as I know is 160hp and the archer is 180hp, which translates to the same BHP as a 172N or 172S. Depending on what your TOW would be with your family, luggage and fuel a Warrior or Archer may or may not have enough power. You may have to even look into a Cherokee 235 or Comanche that have 235- 250hp.

 

[Pilawt]

The warrior as far as I know is 160hp and the archer is 180hp, which translates to the same BHP as a 172N or 172S.

1974-76 Warriors were built with the same 150 hp engine as the Cherokee 140. Economical but barely adequate for low-level operations. 10 hp added in 1977 helps climb some, but no real effect on cruising speed.

Depending on what your TOW would be with your family, luggage and fuel a Warrior or Archer may or may not have enough power. You may have to even look into a Cherokee 235 or Comanche that have 235- 250hp.

235 hp Cherokees are capable, long-range (84 gallon) machines.

 

[Henning]

Thanks to all for the great info so far! I was initially considering a 172 (or possibly 182), though depending on the year a 172 might be pushing it on useful, unless it has the 180 conversion. My wife and I are reasonably slender (about 300 lbs. combined) but we have 2 sons that are growing like weeds. I would like to fly with luggage for an overnight stay and full fuel, mainly around Texas and adjoining states. Probably something like a Warrior or Archer?

I would be looking at the 235 hp models with that load. Excess horsepower is you best friend when in trouble because it's what buys you altitude, the more excess hp you have, the faster you climb. A 180hp will prove marginal for your load especially at summer DAs in TX. There's a 235hp in your neighborhood for sale that is listed in the Classifieds.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Naturally aspirated PA28s suck at high altitude. I don't know about the turbos, as I haven't flown one.

Depending on the PA28. A 140 or 160 Cherokee yes, but a N/A Arrow II does fine at 12 - 13K. A III less so as it is heavier. I don't have experience with Cherokee 180's or Six's.

Turbo Arrows have a mediocre climb rate, but they can maintain the same mediocre climb rate at a DA of 10,000 feet and hum along nicely at 16K. But avoid the trap of "It has a 20,000 foot service ceiling so I should make a 16K MEA over the Sierras just fine." Practical limits are about 15K unless you go with pressurized mags, since mag arcing becomes an issue at about that altitude. I did not install pressurized mags but I did go with fine wire plugs, which gave me about another thousand feet (about 16K) before the mags would arc.

 

[Pilawt]

But avoid the trap of "It has a 20,000 foot service ceiling so I should make a 16K MEA over the Sierras just fine."

The 20K' is a maximum operating alitude, probably due to cooling issues and the spark plugs. Service ceiling is higher than 20K', but it's moot because it's higher than the max operating altitude.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The 20K' is a maximum operating alitude, probably due to cooling issues and the spark plugs. Service ceiling is higher than 20K', but it's moot because it's higher than the max operating altitude.

That sounds right. It's been a while since I've had that plane.

 

[deyoung]

I have a 1973 Charger, the 235-HP stretched fuselage Hershey bar wing version. You have to decide how much of this applies to your mission, but I chose the 235 over a 180 because I needed to carry more weight (my step-son is 350#; all three of us is 700 pounds just in people); useful load for mine is 1350 lbs.

Also, I need to be able to fly in the high desert of AZ and NM in the summer. DA in Flagstaff can be over 10,000 in the summer, and a 172 (or Cherokee-160) won't work for that, at least not with enough fuel to get you farther than Sedona.

Mine holds 84 gallons, and will go farther than I'll want to in one leg. I've flown from Colorado Springs to Tucson non-stop with at least an hour of fuel left; that was about 5 hours and 15 minutes.

Unless the people in front are short and have their seats pretty far forward, the back seats are not very useful unless you have the stretched fuselage. If you are looking at one of the early ones, have someone sit in the back behind you and make sure that works.

Operationally, differences from Cessnas are minor---fuel selector has no "both" position, so you can't just set it and forget it. Use fuel pump in critical phases of flight. Carb heat is used less, generally only if you have reason to think you need it. Fueling is easier, sumping tanks is slightly harder.

Shopping caveat: Piper has a service bulletin, SB-1006, which requires pulling the main fuel tanks to inspect the wing spar for corrosion. This is due every 7 years and can be expensive, so you'll want to make sure it has been done. It is not an AD and so is not mandatory, and may not be covered when the seller says "all ADs complied with."

 

[Clark1961]

Can't you just add more throttle as long as you're below critical altitude?

41" boost @ 2575 rpm is the -F limit - gotta go to 40" @ 2800 rpm to get 220 hp

 

[Henning]

41" boost @ 2575 rpm is the -F limit - gotta go to 40" @ 2800 rpm to get 220 hp

Ah, they limited it by RPM not pressure.

 

[Bonchie]

Thanks to all for the great info so far! I was initially considering a 172 (or possibly 182), though depending on the year a 172 might be pushing it on useful, unless it has the 180 conversion. My wife and I are reasonably slender (about 300 lbs. combined) but we have 2 sons that are growing like weeds. I would like to fly with luggage for an overnight stay and full fuel, mainly around Texas and adjoining states. Probably something like a Warrior or Archer?

A Warrior is going to haul a lot more the a regular 172 for less purchase cost (typically). The one I used to fly had a useful load of about 850 pounds and climbed like a beast even under load. That's a lot for 160HP plane. If you get into an Archer, you will be above 900 pounds most likely unless it's a 90's III model.

Although the backseats aren't huge, they are workable for non-overweight adults. To me a 172 is really a 3 place plane but an Archer can legitimately carry 4 people if you need to because of it's high useful load.

Also, in this same price range is the Grumman Tiger. You'll get about the same room inside and useful load as an Archer but go 10 knots faster on the same fuel burn. Purchase price often mirrors an Archer or is lower as well.

Do not even entertain the older Cherokees without the stretched fuselage. The backseat is useless in them (I know from personal experience).

 

[Clark1961]

Ah, they limited it by RPM not pressure.

And the cranks, pistons, and cylinders are identical on all but the last model of the TSIO-360 series. Want a different engine? bolt on a different fuel system and maybe an intercooler and maybe a wastegate.

 

[MAKG1]

A Warrior is going to haul a lot more the a regular 172 for less purchase cost (typically). The one I used to fly had a useful load of about 850 pounds and climbed like a beast even under load.

Typical 160 HP 172 numbers are 850 lb useful load and 750 FPM climb at sea level at max gross on a standard day at Vy.

I find 160 HP 172s and Warriors to be nearly identical in performance, unless something is wrong with them. It won't haul more. It's the same.

No comment on the price, but I'd expect that's a much stronger function of the panel and condition than the model.

 

[bflynn]

Does anyone know if there is a Piper buyer's guide similar to the one for Cessnas? Something that will tell me things like to watch out for a certain year, engine, etc.

I don't know of one. I would recommend the type club(s?)

A couple of pages:
http://www.airbum.com/articles/CherokeesVsSkyhawks.html
http://www.airplanesecrets.com/piper/buying_a_piper.php

The airplanes are good and solid - I have flow Warrior IIs with 14k hours on them and they still are very good airplanes.

 

[Theboys]

I learned mostly on cessna's also. I have both cessna and piper now. I still don't like the system for steering on piper. I flew the piper yesterday nonstop from west Texas to the Tampa Florida area. When I left texas wind wasn't blowing to bad which is unusual there, but, florida had almost direct crosswind 18 gusting to 30 kts. I had bunch of rudder trim in and pedals were so stiff I could barely hold plane straight when nose wheel touched even though I was taking out trim as fast as I could. Love the plane but hate that part. Flew a warrior on ifr training and didn't seem to bother as much but I don't think I was in much wind. My experience in Texas is wind blows fairly hard often. Go fly few pipers and see if you even like them.

 

[Pilawt]

Probably something like a Warrior or Archer?

With loads like you described I don't think a Warrior would do it. Minimum 180 hp, I think, and 235 hp would work fine.

As others have suggested, look for the versions with the extended fuselage and cabin.

So these would be the candidates:

180 hp:
1973 PA-28-180 Cherokee Challenger
1974-75 PA-28-180 Cherokee Archer
1976-90 PA-28-181 Archer II (tapered wings)

235 hp:
1973 PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger
1974-77 PA-28-235 Cherokee Pathfinder

There was no 235 hp model for 1978. The taper-wing PA-28-236 Dakota came out in 1979, and it's a great airplane, but prices are considerably higher than for the earlier models. Earlier 235s can run on auto fuel; Dakotas cannot. Usable fuel capacity in the Dakota was reduced from 84 to 72 gallons.