Talk me in or out of buying a Cherokee 235 (described below)

R

Robert Michaels

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Robert Michaels
I am unable to post a link as a new user, but have been reading posts here recently. It is N1963H (google it and you will see the ad), 1977 Cherokee 235 (Pathfinder), over 10,000 ttaf over 1750 smoh it is in Cali, asking price 55k. I have 2000 hours, instrument rated, asel, amel, have been out of aviation for about 20 years, just got back in and completed BFR. Considering only a Cherokee 180 or 235. This one is on the outer edge of my budget. Appreciate anything I can learn here!
 
What’s your mission? For that much money and with your experience you could get an early Mooney, and go way farther and faster I would think... but the mission is the question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
What’s your mission? For that much money and with your experience you could get an early Mooney, and go way farther and faster I would think... but the mission is the question


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Mission is something powerful enough for the mountains (I was an East Coast flyer) for overnights in Cali, etc (I am in Las Vegas VGT), but I have done many trips to the Bahamas and beyond in the past and plan to do them again. I would be doing at least 1, maybe 2 very long trips a year and that is my number 1 mission. The cruising is exceptional with the 235. Speed doesn't bother me. I like the way the Cherokees fly. And with fixed gear my hope is that this will keep the maintenance costs down.
 
Robert Michaels said:
Mission is something powerful enough for the mountains (I was an East Coast flyer) for overnights in Cali, etc (I am in Las Vegas VGT), but I have done many trips to the Bahamas and beyond in the past and plan to do them again. I would be doing at least 1, maybe 2 very long trips a year and that is my number 1 mission. The cruising range is exceptional with the 235. Speed doesn't bother me. I like the way the Cherokees fly. And with fixed gear my hope is that this will keep the maintenance costs down.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds a bit much to me. With that engines TBO of 2000, you looking at a $50K overhaul from what I have read. Needs work in the interior and could use some avionics upgrades. I have a Commander 112 with new leather interior, carpet, upgraded avionics/radios/ ADSB in and out. Huge cabin compared to the 235 and I was going to ask $59K for it because the IO-360 had about the same hours SMOH and its rebuild cost is about $25K.

BTW: I owned 2 1965 Cherokee 180's before this one and loved them. I just like the Commander even better so much more room inside. The gear is not much of a Maint issue on this one. (Knock on wood).
I do a flight from TN to Or almost every year and love the trip over the mountains.
 
Well, it sure is cheap. It's also super high-time with an engine that is basically run out and worth very little. It minimally meets the ADS-B mandate and has dated radios and GPS, so the panel is worth very little.

Unless your budget also includes the money to overhaul the engine in the next couple of years, I'd pass.

I also think your budget is on the very low side for the airplanes you're looking at. I'd suggest seeing if you can find a partner looking for the same things so you can afford an airplane with better avionics and more life left in the engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Robert Michaels said:
Mission is something powerful enough for the mountains (I was an East Coast flyer) for overnights in Cali, etc (I am in Las Vegas VGT), but I have done many trips to the Bahamas and beyond in the past and plan to do them again. I would be doing at least 1, maybe 2 very long trips a year and that is my number 1 mission. The cruising is exceptional with the 235. Speed doesn't bother me. I like the way the Cherokees fly. And with fixed gear my hope is that this will keep the maintenance costs down.
Click to expand...
Kansas Flyer said:
Why?

They're good planes, but why limit yourself.
Click to expand...
 
Nice looking plane, but the high time engine and basic panel might be things to think about if you’re already pushing the upper limits of your budget.
 
Good point! Any alernative suggestions? A lot of range something I really like. And low maintenance.
 
kayoh190 said:
Nice looking plane, but the high time engine and basic panel might be things to think about if you’re already pushing the upper limits of your budget.
Click to expand...
I do worry about that because those things make it hard to sell down the road. Is the 430 considered pretty basic now? I'm from the old school ifr days lol
 
I'm confused now. you clearly stated you're only considering 2 planes, but then happily accepted any other plane suggestion. my concern was going to be what kayoh mentioned, and that goes for ANY plane u buy. if the purchase price is at the top of your budget, you're not leaving yourself wiggle room for repairs, ESPECIALLY with a close-to-runout engine. that would be my concern over what plane u got.
 
Robert Michaels said:
I do worry about that because those things make it hard to sell down the road. Is the 430 considered pretty basic now? I'm from the old school ifr days lol
Click to expand...

Heh - you and me both! The 430 is still fine, but as I understand it (someone here can give you a better answer) the lack of WAAS will make your ADS-B install more expensive.
 
Robert Michaels said:
I do worry about that because those things make it hard to sell down the road. Is the 430 considered pretty basic now? I'm from the old school ifr days lol
Click to expand...

The 430 is capable, but obsolete. I think you can still get parts, service, and database updates, but that won't last forever. Garmin replaced the GNS line with the GTN line several years ago.

Since many ILS approaches are being decommissioned, you'll probably want the WAAS version of a GPS (i.e. GNS 430W) if you plan on serious IFR work.

I think all the GTN series GPS/Nav/Coms are WAAS, but I could be wrong about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am horribly biased, but I recommend a short bodied Mooney. Manual gear and flaps are relatively maintenance free, and two less cylinders to feed, take care of and break. What that Cherokee is selling for buys a whole lot of Mooney. Fly faster and burn less gas. Downsides are smaller inside than the Cherokee with a diminutive back seat. If you expect to fill your back seat often then something else might work better, but if not why pay for it and pay to schlep it around. Of course, if our intrepid OP is plus size his own self than the Mooney might not be such a hot idea.
 
Robert Michaels said:
I do worry about that because those things make it hard to sell down the road. Is the 430 considered pretty basic now? I'm from the old school ifr days lol
Click to expand...
The 430 WAAS will be around for a while. If it is not was more $ to get it upgraded or buy new. I had to go the cheaper route on my upgrades and bought used. My package is a bit different, but still WAAS. Mind you I had to wheel and deal pretty hard to get what I got over a 1 1/2 years. But I did manage to get my cost down to $7K installed after selling my old items. Below are the before and after pics.
View attachment 64036 View attachment 64036
 

Attachments

  • New panel (2).jpg
    New panel (2).jpg
    229.4 KB · Views: 62
  • InstPanel.jpg
    InstPanel.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 58
Your looking at high time airframe and engine. At that price you could end up stretching your budget on an overhaul.
 
That is going to be a tight budget to get a plane that fits your mission / wants that is also unlikely to have any significant need for maintenance / repairs / upgrades within the first couple years. I bought my Saratoga with TBO engine at a price that reflected having no engine. One of my first upgrades was a JPI 830 and I'm approaching 200 hours in the plane without a hiccup and producing great power. However, I knew going in that I could be paying for a MOH at any time.

Although I'm not a big mooney fan myself I think some of the above posters have it correct that with your budget you may be able to get more bang for your buck?

Or if you don't care to be really slow a PA28-180 is really hard to beat and you'll get more for your $ with that model.
 
I like my Cherokee-235, but how well it fits your situation is up to you. I'll give you a few of my numbers just for comparison for you.

Mine is a 1973, and I paid $62k for it. This is my first airplane, and my first airplane-buying experience, so I would not be at all surprised to find that I overpaid for it a bit---them's the breaks.

But, it was only about 3200 TTAF, and the engine was about 600 SMOH, so I won't have to worry about that for quite a while. Also, my panel was fairly basic, but I think maybe a little better than this one---same transponder, two KX-155 radios (one with glideslope), DME, KMD-150 GPS (not as functional as the 430, but bigger screen).

For my mission, carrying more weight was more important than cruising fast, so that was a significant factor.
 
deyoung said:
I like my Cherokee-235, but how well it fits your situation is up to you. I'll give you a few of my numbers just for comparison for you.

Mine is a 1973, and I paid $62k for it. This is my first airplane, and my first airplane-buying experience, so I would not be at all surprised to find that I overpaid for it a bit---them's the breaks.

But, it was only about 3200 TTAF, and the engine was about 600 SMOH, so I won't have to worry about that for quite a while. Also, my panel was fairly basic, but I think maybe a little better than this one---same transponder, two KX-155 radios (one with glideslope), DME, KMD-150 GPS (not as functional as the 430, but bigger screen).

For my mission, carrying more weight was more important than cruising fast, so that was a significant factor.
Click to expand...
I see them for more money in that with the low time you have. T
deyoung said:
I like my Cherokee-235, but how well it fits your situation is up to you. I'll give you a few of my numbers just for comparison for you.

Mine is a 1973, and I paid $62k for it. This is my first airplane, and my first airplane-buying experience, so I would not be at all surprised to find that I overpaid for it a bit---them's the breaks.

But, it was only about 3200 TTAF, and the engine was about 600 SMOH, so I won't have to worry about that for quite a while. Also, my panel was fairly basic, but I think maybe a little better than this one---same transponder, two KX-155 radios (one with glideslope), DME, KMD-150 GPS (not as functional as the 430, but bigger screen).

For my mission, carrying more weight was more important than cruising fast, so that was a significant factor.
Click to expand...
I think you did well. I see them for a lot more than $62k. If you think about it, this is only $7k less but with 7000 more airframe hours and an almost timed-out engine. I like the long cruising range with the 4 tanks. Any other information would be invaluable. Any surprises after your purchase?
 
Nope, no major surprises at all. It wasn't completely clear from the logs whether the Piper SB 1006 had been done---I thought it had but it wasn't completely clear---so I had that done at the next inspection; it was fine. (Make sure that one's done or be willing to do it yourself though; it's not an AD but it's important IMO.) Especially if the airplane has lived someplace humid; mine was in Long Beach.

Tachometer failed maybe 100 hours after I bought it. It has a standby vacuum system, and the control cable for it turned out to be corroded and in need of replacing. Had to have one of the fuel gauge senders replaced at my most recent annual. All pretty standard stuff, really; nothing major, no complaints.
 
The interior on this one is nicer than mine was though, FWIW.
 
A 182 or a PA-28-235/6 are great choices, in particular due to the climb and high DA performance you want. You'll find that overall 182's are more expensive, but roomier. Other than that, it's high-wing vs low-wing preference thing. I had a PA-28-161 and went to the 182 for passenger comfort reasons.

I agree in general about budget constraints with a high time engine. It might last forever... or blow up tomorrow. Consider what happens to you if that motor goes tango uniform in the near term. It would be a big help if they have good oil analysis history for you to see.
 
I'm looking at a Cherokee myself, although my budget is about half the cost of the 235.
The airplane you posted has too much time on the engine in my opinion. I saw a nicer 235 on Barnstormers for $49,500. Lower time on the engine, much nicer leather interior with glass panel. You might wanna take a look "N44617".

watermark.jpg

watermark.jpg

watermark.jpg
 
looks great-- I can't find it on barnstormers- do you have a link? Thank you!
 
Robert Michaels said:
I am unable to post a link as a new user, but have been reading posts here recently. It is N1963H (google it and you will see the ad), 1977 Cherokee 235 (Pathfinder), over 10,000 ttaf over 1750 smoh it is in Cali, asking price 55k. I have 2000 hours, instrument rated, asel, amel, have been out of aviation for about 20 years, just got back in and completed BFR. Considering only a Cherokee 180 or 235. This one is on the outer edge of my budget. Appreciate anything I can learn here!
Click to expand...

Before I bought the twin I owned four Cherokees in sequence, including a 180 and a Dakota. They were all great airplanes to own and fly, and each what I could "afford" at the time, but the 235 hp with the constant speed prop was hands down the best of the bunch. Decent useful load, good climb rates, easy to fly, reasonable short field performance, and simple enough it didn't break the bank to own and operate (on par with the costs of my Arrow, but noticeably more than a Cherokee 180 to operate & maintain).

But I would suggest you try to find one with 1/2 time engine.
 
Robert Michaels said:
looks great-- I can't find it on barnstormers- do you have a link? Thank you!
Click to expand...
The site is in iframe or something so not able to post a direct link. Here is how I found it:
Barnstormers.com ==> Browse Ads ==> Piper ==> Cherokee ==> It should be on the first page.
 
I flew that 235 up in Alaska for LAB flying service......might add an extra 1 in front of total time......just saying.....
 
Getonit said:
I flew that 235 up in Alaska for LAB flying service......might add an extra 1 in front of total time......just saying.....
Click to expand...


Seriously. The first picture is in front of the old LAB hangar in Juneau. You can see some derelict planes in the background. Having flown in Southeast Alaska, I can tell you planes get about 500-800 hrs per yr there. I flew a 207 through its 30,000th hour. It's still flying.

Also, those Chelton boxes are getting long in tooth and the only people with experience repairing will be in Alaska. Very capable, but the Cheltons are getting old. You'll have trouble finding CFIs with Chelton experience as well. As for maintenance on a former LAB plane, LAB was shut down by the FAA due to shady MX practices. Still a bunch of their old airframes sitting in Juneau and Haines.

One more note. That plane has only one comm radio. It is not really set up for IFR work. The Cheltons don't have integral comms like the Garmin boxes.
 
With that budget, why not look at a Twin Comanche? Or a single Comanche? Or the Mooneys mentioned. You can even get into M20Fs for that price, and with better equipment than that 235, all with more speed and less gas. Also, a Cherokee 180 is not going to be great for mountain flying - so you probably shouldn't be looking at that as your sole alternative. Great, great airplanes, but a 180 HP, non-turbo, carburated 4 banger isn't going to do much with high density altitudes. Their sweet spot is at 4500-8500 feet - max.

Also, Cali is a city in Colombia. Very, very few Californians call it California that. The ones that do live other places now.
 
Robert Michaels said:
..77 Cherokee 235 (Pathfinder), over 10,000 ttaf over 1750 smoh it is in Cali, asking price 55k...
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


That's a 30k plane top, presuming I wanted that long in the tooth slow POS, after overhaul and all, if I was going to buy it I wouldn't bother unless I could get it for 20k so I could be in the plane well after a overhaul and god know what else. Even if it's your last plane, buy it like you're going to sell it next week.


Dude, get a waaaaaay lower time Comanche or Galsair for the same price.
 
N1120A said:
a 180 HP, non-turbo, carburated 4 banger isn't going to do much with high density altitudes.
Click to expand...
'Cept maybe a 180 hp STC'd C-172. ;)

Also, Cali is a city in Colombia. Very, very few Californians call it California that. The ones that do live other places now.[/QUOTE]
"Cali" ... isn't that the state where "Frisco" is ... ? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top