Talk me out of a Cherokee 160

[Will Kumley]

My search for a good plane has gone much longer than I would have liked. I was stuck on the idea of something with a 180 hp engine but the more I see prices doing what they are doing I'm now considering a couple Cherokee 160's. As a realist I understand my flights will likely be me and one of my family members for most flights as well as a healthy smattering of solo flights. My kids are mostly grown with a 21 year old son and a 17 year old girl. There may be the occasional flight with two passengers and even less often would be all 4 of us. I understand all 4 of us would mean the fuel tanks won't be full. I'm on the coast of California and may take the occasional flight up to Kern Valley or other higher elevation airports but would have to be aware of DA and how the 160 does or doesn't perform.

A good friend that has flown for many years and owned a few different planes is hard pressed against anything less than a 180, primarily as he thinks a 160 or less is just too slow. However, I'm not sure if the speed gain is enough to cancel out the 160. I'd be more concerned about climb performance but again, with the flying I will do most of the time, I feel like it would work for my needs.

Of the two I'm currently considering, one is a Cherokee 160 from the factory, the other is a 140 that has the 160 hp upgrade complete. Other than the fact that one started as a 140 it looks like the real only difference is that it doesn't have a baggage door, but it does have space behind the backseat for some luggage.

 

[Joe_B1]

Any plane you get is going to be too small. Its like shop space, you can never have enough. Planes are like that too, so go big or go home. In my case, I thought an Archer would be enough for me and the wife but now we have the dog, scooters, baggage, covers chocks, tools... You get where I am going? Most of the time we are right at gross weight and just inside of the envelope. 180 hp gets us going but it's the useful load that's the issue most of the time.

No matter what you end up with, you will fill it up. So stick with a 180 or bigger, whatever your budget will tolerate.

 

[kgruber]

You'll just be kicking yourself later.........do what is needed for the 180.

 

[Bob Noel]

otoh - I wanted an Archer, but the budget said 140.

I was happy with the 140... nicer feel on the controls vs the 180. About 5-6 years after I bought the 140, it was down for a few weeks. I borrowed a friend's '72 180. A very sweet 180. I discovered that I liked the way my 140 flew vs the heavier feel of the 180. This was reinforced when I flew a Lancair ES.

You might like the feel of the 140 more than the 180. And most of my flying was solo anyway.

 

[frfly172]

As you get older speed doesn’t matter as much,I always liked the 140 with the 160 engine. Of course I’m old and fly a Cessna 150.

 

[Shaun Dawson]

Have you considered an experimental 180 HP, like an RV-7?

 

[RyanB]

The Cherokee 160 is a great flying airplane, though I do prefer the 180hp engine. I do believe you’d be happier if you sprung for something with the extra ponies under the hood, but either way, it’s hard to go wrong with a Cherokee of any sort.

 

[Pilawt]

Other than the fact that one started as a 140 it looks like the real only difference is that it doesn't have a baggage door, but it does have space behind the backseat for some luggage.

The difference is a little more than that. The aft cabin bulkhead is one station further aft on the as-built Cherokee 160 (1961-67), with a full-size baggage compartment and aft bench seat. It's identical to the interior of the contemporary Cherokee 180. In the Cherokee 140 (1964-77) the optional snap-in rear seats are smaller, less supportive and mounted a bit further forward than the 150/160/180's permanent bench seat, giving the 140 less rear-seat leg room. Some 140s have the molded plastic rear bulkhead (an option beginning with the 1969 Cherokee 140B) that provides a modest cargo area behind the rear seats and a small hat shelf, but getting to it is awkward with no baggage door. Other 140s have a flat aft cabin bulkhead with zero room behind the rear seats.



Above: Early Cherokee 140 "2+2 Cruiser" cabin.



Above: My '77 Cherokee 140, decked out ready to haul newlyweds to their car waiting at an airport a few miles away, to avoid rowdy well-wishers. It was a tight squeeze getting the bride and her wedding gown into that back seat!



Above: 1961-67 Cherokee 150/160/180 cabin.

 

[Half Fast]

Consider a Beech Musketeer B23 or Sundowner. Both have the 180hp Lycoming and large cabins and luggage areas. Performance is similar to a Cherokee 180 but with more room and more fuel capacity for less money. IMHO the build quality is better, too.

 

[Domenick]

I've had a Warrior (PA-28-161) for over 20 years and have flown it all over the country. It is not a family hauler or for folks who travel with the kitchen sink, but for one or two I've never found it insufficient. Once I even flew 4 rather small adults to a few days in Oregon. Each passenger was allowed 5 pounds of baggage, except the pilot, me, who got 10 for luggage and flight bag. I weighed everything and we were just barely under MGW.

 

[AKBill]

Consider a Beech Musketeer B23 or Sundowner. Both have the 180hp Lycoming and large cabins and luggage areas. Performance is similar to a Cherokee 180 but with more room and more fuel capacity for less money. IMHO the build quality is better, too.

You forgot to mention the Sundowner has 2 doors. That is a big plus in my mind

 

[William Pete Hodges]

I owned and flew a Cherokee 140 with 160 horsepower engine for 14 years. If the 140 you are looking at has the hat shelf addition behind the rear seat, that will give you just about as much room as you're gonna get in anything that small. The only disadvantages you have to load it from the inside. My old airplane had about 1400 pound empty weight, gross weight of 2150, and useful load of about 750 pounds. It has 2 25 gal tanks and will handle 4-hour legs with acceptable reserve, giving reasonable range without wind of 400-420 NM. The airplane handles short and grass fields well but it is a bit under-powered in hot weather or high density altitude. These restrictions vanish in cool to cold weather, and the heater works good too.

Since you have considered an arrow I will mention this... the Mooney M20C and M20E are nearly the same inside as a Cherokee 140 with the rear hat shelf installed, although a bit narrower. They will also handle small and grass airstrips but are not as forgiving on landing as the Cherokees. The short bodied Mooneys will fly faster and burn less fuel. My 4-hour leg went down to 3 hours and fuel burn dropped from 34 to 27 gallons.

The Cherokee wing will give you a lot more low envelope performance than the Mooney especially if you add a Lift Indicator and spend time practicing low speed maneuvers. I actually climbed my Cherokee at 40 MPH IAS with 2 people on a 65 degree day using the Lift indicator as a reference. My Mooney won't even get close to that. The Cherokee will handle larger crosswinds better and stops flying when all three wheels are on the ground. The Mooney will hit the aileron stops before the Cherokee, and wants to keep flying with 3 wheels on the ground, so it's crosswind performance is not as good.

With the cost of avgas going up airplane prices are likely to drop. Keep looking for a good plane with a mid time SMOH engine. You might be surprised at what you can find if you keep looking. I love my Mooney, it does everything my Cherokee did better, except extreme slow flight and crosswind landings. The Hershey Bar Cherokees really shine in those areas. I would buy another one if I was in the market.

 

[RussR]

I wanted to point out that @Pilawt 's advertising brochure pictures are intentionally pretty misleading as to rear seat legroom.

In the first picture, that copilot's is as far forward as it will go, leaving no room for any human to sit in it. See the bracket ahead of the right seat passenger's feet? That's the seatbelt attach bracket for the front seat. Usually the seat is right on top of that.

The third picture is better but it's still a pretty short pilot to have that much legroom in the rear seat.

In either case, rear seat legroom is extremely limited in all of these airplanes, especially with any front seaters who are taller than 1960's-average.

 

[Timbeck2]

Maam, can you please put out that cigarette?

 

[kayoh190]

Maam, can you please put out that cigarette?

Sheesh...look at that battle axe. YOU can tell her!

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

Can’t talk you out of it. I’m a fan of the 140/160 and it does what I need it to do very well. It easily hauls me, my wife, our rather large dog and enough luggage for a week away, plus full fuel which gives it an endurance that outlasts any of the occupants’ endurance. Since I know I will never fly with more than one human passenger, I took the backseats out, plus I have the hat rack installed, space isn’t an issue. Sometimes, we even take our cat on trips, hence flying with a bulky cat box, a 60 lbs Samoyed dog, two travel bags, one backpack, a computer bag and still have space to spare.

 

[Timbeck2]

Sheesh...look at that battle axe. YOU can tell her!

She may look fierce but she has to be tiny. In that picture you could almost fit three of her on that bench seat and those of us who fly Cherokees know that most people are shoulder to shoulder without space for a box of Chiclets in between.

 

[Bonchie]

To small inside, no baggage door, and too slow.

The Warrior at least has the stretched cabin and baggage door, though it’s still slow. And any 140/160 is going to likely have dog doo for avionics. Many were trainers and are beat.

Get something that won’t leave you lacking for a few hundred extra a month on the note. Especially with the plane market likely headed down, don’t get locked into a plane that doesn’t check most every box.

For me, it’d be an Archer or better. Otherwise look at other types.

 

[Pilawt]

I wanted to point out that @Pilawt 's advertising brochure pictures are intentionally pretty misleading as to rear seat legroom.

In the first picture, that copilot's is as far forward as it will go, leaving no room for any human to sit in it.

In both of those photos, the co-pilot seat and cabin door were removed altogether.

 

[Will Kumley]

Consider a Beech Musketeer B23 or Sundowner. Both have the 180hp Lycoming and large cabins and luggage areas. Performance is similar to a Cherokee 180 but with more room and more fuel capacity for less money. IMHO the build quality is better, too.

I almost pulled the trigger on a Musketeer. Looked great, engine was mid-high time but still had about 400 hours to published TBO. In the end, the seller wanted the Cherokee price and wasn't willing to come down. The bank refused to give me the amount of money he was asking for that specific plane. Flew nice too, it was a real bummer.

 

[Half Fast]

I almost pulled the trigger on a Musketeer. Looked great, engine was mid-high time but still had about 400 hours to published TBO. In the end, the seller wanted the Cherokee price and wasn't willing to come down. The bank refused to give me the amount of money he was asking for that specific plane. Flew nice too, it was a real bummer.

During my plane search I became convinced that some “sellers” had little interest in actually selling their planes.

 

[Will Kumley]

During my plane search I became convinced that some “sellers” had little interest in actually selling their planes.

I saw the plane on TAP about 3 months after we talked. He recently took it off but I doubt it sold.

 

[machkhatib]

The Cherokee 140/150/160 is a very capable 2+2 airplane. Mine has a useful load around 860 pounds. Carry two adults and two kids with full tanks easily. It’s great for my current stage of life. If you want to carry four adults, you’ll want the average weight per adult to be 160 lbs and below, and you’ll have to fill to the tabs (36 instead of 50 gallons of fuel). I typically see Cherokee 180’s with around 1000 lbs of useful load. That makes a big difference if you want to carry four adults. Depending on the weight of those adults, you might be able to fully fill up your tanks.

Don’t expect much of a cruising speed difference though. The real advantages of the Cherokee 180 over its lower-HP Cherokee siblings is greater useful load and greater climb performance.

If you live out West and have to contend with high elevations, or if you intend to carry four adults, go with the 180. If you live in the East and don’t need to carry four adults, you’ll be fine with the 160.

One more thing. A factory 160 has a max weight that is 50 pounds greater than a 140 converted to a 160 (2,150 vs 2,200 lbs).

 

[L J Donelson]

Talk me out of a Cherokee 160

Don't do it!

Well, I tried.

 

[StikRudr]

My search for a good plane has gone much longer than I would have liked. I was stuck on the idea of something with a 180 hp engine but the more I see prices doing what they are doing I'm now considering a couple Cherokee 160's. As a realist I understand my flights will likely be me and one of my family members for most flights as well as a healthy smattering of solo flights...

I'm new here, but I've bought and sold four planes and have to take the opposite viewpoint of some others. You being a realist, I think you hit the nail on the head and answered your own question. My first plane was an old Cherokee 180 with Hershey bar wings, but after flying with two empty seats in the back 99.68% of the time, I realized I had made a mistake. I guess it depends on what kind of flying you want to do. Now my philosophy is to buy as much fun as you can afford and if you want a station wagon or an SUV to haul people/cargo around occasionally, rent something for the job when it's needed. My last plane was a RV-4, but there was always something available at my FBO on the rare occasions when I needed something more utilitarian.

You might want to consider a 180hp two place. You ride a bike, but wouldn't a car be more practical?

 

[Pinecone]

During my plane search I became convinced that some “sellers” had little interest in actually selling their planes.

Agreed

 

[wheaties]

If it's you 90% of the time, go small. You're being smart. I went big, cause it's 4-5 people 50-60% of the time. When the kids grow up and move out, I'm finding a 2 seater experimental.

 

[RussR]

Now my philosophy is to buy as much fun as you can afford and if you want a station wagon or an SUV to haul people/cargo around occasionally, rent something for the job when it's needed. My last plane was a RV-4, but there was always something available at my FBO on the rare occasions when I needed something more utilitarian.

That's fine in theory, but in lots of places it's hard or impossible to rent anything more than a basic 4-seat airplane like a PA-28 or 172. And even if it is possible, FBO policies may make it cost prohibitive if you just need it a couple of times a year (I'm thinking of policies that require currency in that specific airplane, refresher flights with a CFI if you haven't flown that specific airplane for a few months, etc.)

 

[RussR]

In both of those photos, the co-pilot seat and cabin door were removed altogether.

Yeah, you're probably right. In the first picture, I took it that the seat back you see is the copilot's seat but run all the way forward. Hard to tell with the perspective, but I guess it probably doesn't go quite that far forward.

Still, there is very little legroom in the back seats of any of the Cherokees. In some I've flown, with me in front, the front seatback actually touches the rear seat cushion. And I'm only 6'2" with normal proportion legs.

 

[Rich Holt]

When the kids grow up and move out, I'm finding a 2 seater experimental.

This is why I sold my 4-seat plane. It was just me most of the time. I flew 3 times with a (1) passenger. Also, the experimental part intrigues me.

 

[Pilawt]

The first Cherokee to be certified and go on the market was the PA-28-160, in mid 1961. The PA-28-150, identical except for the lower-compression engine, arrived a few months later. The -150 and -160 were built side-by-side until both were discontinued in 1967, leaving the Cherokee 140 trainer (also 150 hp, despite the name), the Cherokee 180D, the 235B, and the new 180 hp Cherokee Arrow retractable.

The -160 had a max gross weight of 50 pounds more than the -150, all but five pounds of that went to improved useful load. It was a skosh faster and climbed better than the -150, and only cost $510 more -- less than a 5% difference. (This 150/160 hp option was also available in the last couple of years of the Tri-Pacer production run.) So why two so similar models on the production line at the same time?

Those were the days when there were three grades of avgas -- 80/87 octane, 91/96 and 100/115. The Cherokee 150 could use the less expensive -- and still plentiful -- 80/87, while the -160 required at least the 91/96 grade. If your airport was one of those that didn't happen to have a 91/96 pump, you had to use the even costlier 100 octane. This made direct operating costs of the -160 significantly more than the -150.

So for a lot of new airplane buyers in the 1960s, the small step-up in performance in the PA-28-160 wasn’t worth the added operating cost over the -150. Higher-compression 160 hp engines made a comeback in the mid 1970s on the Warrior II and C-172N, when 80 octane fuel was no longer available, and there was no longer an economic advantage to lower-compression engines (other than ability to use mogas). The higher-compression cylinders were also less prone to plug fouling when run on the new 100LL fuel.



A little historical perspective on the Cherokee 140 ... In the early 1960s, Piper’s only two-seat trainers, the tube-and-fabric Super Cub and Colt, didn’t offer much competition to Cessna’s "modern", all-metal 150. Piper was developing a new trainer, the attractive low-wing, two-seat PA-29 Papoose, which featured a new-technology, plastic-composite construction. Before certification, however, it became painfully apparent that the plastic airframe was not ready for prime-time — or even direct sunlight — and the project was abandoned.

So to supply their dealers with a ”modern” trainer as quickly as possible, Piper took the full four-seat Cherokee 150, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward, removed the rear seats, baggage compartment and baggage door, redlined rpm down and repitched the prop to produce only 140 hp (2450 rpm), and called it the “Cherokee 140”, introduced early in 1964. The -140 was intended for fleet sales to flight schools, unlike the Cherokee 150, which was a family airplane for private buyers. The -140’s gross weight was also initially limited to 1950 lb, so that, like the C-150, it could be operated in the utility category at full gross weight. The 140 hp limitation made it more palatable to flight school bean counters, in comparison to the Cessna’s frugal 100 hp. Piper also quoted performance at an “instructional cruise” power setting of 50%. Cherokee 140 base price was $8500, only $1000 more than the smaller, lighter ‘64 Cessna 150D.



A year later, Piper re-thought the Cherokee 140’s role. Power was re-upped to 150 hp (2700 rpm), and gross weight increased to 2150 lb (equal to the Cherokee 150). Temporary snap-in rear-seats became an option (“2+2 Cruiser”), but those filled what had been the two-seat -140’s baggage area. Beginning with the 1969 Cherokee 140B, the options list included a molded plastic rear cabin bulkhead, which formed a tiny baggage area and hat shelf behind the snap-in seats, but there was still no exterior baggage door. The -140’s snap-in rear seats offered even less legroom than did the permanent rear bench seat of the Cherokee 150/160, which itself was not spacious.



The Cherokee 150 and 160 were discontinued in 1967, while the Cherokee 140 soldiered on, with the original short PA-28 fuselage and Hershey-bar wings, through 1977, when a new trainer, the PA-38 Tomahawk, was ready for market.

 

[Llewtrah381]

I was in the market for a Warrior when I bought mine 14 years ago because Archers were $30-50K more even back then. I ended up getting a Warrior with a 180hp in it at a Warrior price.

The extra 20hp does add a few knots but that’s not the biggest plus, to me: the climb performance is better, especially up higher. I routinely go to 13k when needed and have been to 15k several times. It’s slow enough doing that on a hot day with a 180hp - a 160 would probably limit me to 12 or even 11 on a hot day fully loaded. That extra few thousand feet very often gets me above summer afternoon buildup. Most years, going to OSH from TX, we spend at least a little time at 13k to get over buildup, so it’s even a help in flatland.

If I want 160hp fuel consumption, that’s easy: pull the throttle back and lean - and become a 160. But one can’t get 180hp from a 160hp engine.

It all depends on the mission, of course, but having the option of getting even a bit higher is a big plus to me. If something were to happen to my plane I’d get at least an Archer/180 now - and ideally a Dakota.

 

[Pinecone]

Those were the days when there were three grades of avgas -- 80/87 octane, 91/96 and 100/115.

The 4 grades of fuel (the top one used by airlines and military only) were:
80/87 (Red)
91/96 (Blue)
100/130 (Green)
115/145 (Purple)

91/96 was the first to go away and later replaced by 100LL (Blue).

115/145 is still made for Reno Air Races each year.

r

 

[Todd82]

With what seems to be several Cherokee aficionados here... What's the deal with the mythical Cherokee 140 baggage door add on? It's like Big Foot. Some have seen it but there's no proof I've ever found that it (still) exists.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

With what seems to be several Cherokee aficionados here... What's the deal with the mythical Cherokee 140 baggage door add on? It's like Big Foot. Some have seen it but there's no proof I've ever found that it (still) exists.

I think it's a myth. Heard from several people they've "seen" it but I never have first hand.When I was considering options to extend the space in mine, nobody could help with the baggage door or third window option, only with the hat rack which I ended up going with.

 

[Will Kumley]

You might want to consider a 180hp two place. You ride a bike, but wouldn't a car be more practical?

Hmm, that might work from a realist perspective, but I've got to convince the wife we won't ever want an extra seat...

As a realist I consider a 4 place to be a 3 place with some luggage.

 

[Will Kumley]

The first Cherokee to be certified and go on the market was the PA-28-160, in mid 1961. The PA-28-150, identical except for the lower-compression engine, arrived a few months later. The -150 and -160 were built side-by-side until both were discontinued in 1967, leaving the Cherokee 140 trainer (also 150 hp, despite the name), the Cherokee 180D, the 235B, and the new 180 hp Cherokee Arrow retractable.

The -160 had a max gross weight of 50 pounds more than the -150, all but five pounds of that went to improved useful load. It was a skosh faster and climbed better than the -150, and only cost $510 more -- less than a 5% difference. (This 150/160 hp option was also available in the last couple of years of the Tri-Pacer production run.) So why two so similar models on the production line at the same time?

Those were the days when there were three grades of avgas -- 80/87 octane, 91/96 and 100/115. The Cherokee 150 could use the less expensive -- and still plentiful -- 80/87, while the -160 required at least the 91/96 grade. If your airport was one of those that didn't happen to have a 91/96 pump, you had to use the even costlier 100 octane. This made direct operating costs of the -160 significantly more than the -150.

So for a lot of new airplane buyers in the 1960s, the small step-up in performance in the PA-28-160 wasn’t worth the added operating cost over the -150. Higher-compression 160 hp engines made a comeback in the mid 1970s on the Warrior II and C-172N, when 80 octane fuel was no longer available, and there was no longer an economic advantage to lower-compression engines (other than ability to use mogas). The higher-compression cylinders were also less prone to plug fouling when run on the new 100LL fuel.

View attachment 108558

A little historical perspective on the Cherokee 140 ... In the early 1960s, Piper’s only two-seat trainers, the tube-and-fabric Super Cub and Colt, didn’t offer much competition to Cessna’s "modern", all-metal 150. Piper was developing a new trainer, the attractive low-wing, two-seat PA-29 Papoose, which featured a new-technology, plastic-composite construction. Before certification, however, it became painfully apparent that the plastic airframe was not ready for prime-time — or even direct sunlight — and the project was abandoned.

So to supply their dealers with a ”modern” trainer as quickly as possible, Piper took the full four-seat Cherokee 150, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward, removed the rear seats, baggage compartment and baggage door, redlined rpm down and repitched the prop to produce only 140 hp (2450 rpm), and called it the “Cherokee 140”, introduced early in 1964. The -140 was intended for fleet sales to flight schools, unlike the Cherokee 150, which was a family airplane for private buyers. The -140’s gross weight was also initially limited to 1950 lb, so that, like the C-150, it could be operated in the utility category at full gross weight. The 140 hp limitation made it more palatable to flight school bean counters, in comparison to the Cessna’s frugal 100 hp. Piper also quoted performance at an “instructional cruise” power setting of 50%. Cherokee 140 base price was $8500, only $1000 more than the smaller, lighter ‘64 Cessna 150D.

View attachment 108559

A year later, Piper re-thought the Cherokee 140’s role. Power was re-upped to 150 hp (2700 rpm), and gross weight increased to 2150 lb (equal to the Cherokee 150). Temporary snap-in rear-seats became an option (“2+2 Cruiser”), but those filled what had been the two-seat -140’s baggage area. Beginning with the 1969 Cherokee 140B, the options list included a molded plastic rear cabin bulkhead, which formed a tiny baggage area and hat shelf behind the snap-in seats, but there was still no exterior baggage door. The -140’s snap-in rear seats offered even less legroom than did the permanent rear bench seat of the Cherokee 150/160, which itself was not spacious.

View attachment 108560

The Cherokee 150 and 160 were discontinued in 1967, while the Cherokee 140 soldiered on, with the original short PA-28 fuselage and Hershey-bar wings, through 1977, when a new trainer, the PA-38 Tomahawk, was ready for market.

Thats more information than I ever thought I wanted but I like that you posted it. Great perspective into how each model came about. Thanks!

 

[Will Kumley]

I was in the market for a Warrior when I bought mine 14 years ago because Archers were $30-50K more even back then. I ended up getting a Warrior with a 180hp in it at a Warrior price.

The extra 20hp does add a few knots but that’s not the biggest plus, to me: the climb performance is better, especially up higher. I routinely go to 13k when needed and have been to 15k several times. It’s slow enough doing that on a hot day with a 180hp - a 160 would probably limit me to 12 or even 11 on a hot day fully loaded. That extra few thousand feet very often gets me above summer afternoon buildup. Most years, going to OSH from TX, we spend at least a little time at 13k to get over buildup, so it’s even a help in flatland.

If I want 160hp fuel consumption, that’s easy: pull the throttle back and lean - and become a 160. But one can’t get 180hp from a 160hp engine.

It all depends on the mission, of course, but having the option of getting even a bit higher is a big plus to me. If something were to happen to my plane I’d get at least an Archer/180 now - and ideally a Dakota.

I've heard this for a while concerning both the Cherokee 180 as well as a Cessna 182. Part of the reason I'm struggling so much on this.

 

[Rich Holt]

Skip the Cherokee and get a Grumman. Top loaders are better. You can thank me later.

 

[Rgbeard]

Hmm, that might work from a realist perspective, but I've got to convince the wife we won't ever want an extra seat...

As a realist I consider a 4 place to be a 3 place with some luggage.

My Dad’s 140 was great for our family of three.

Dad and mom were both pretty slim and he later upgraded to a Turbo Lance due to other reasons.