1974 Piper Pathfinder for Sale

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name

Display name:
Jay Honeck
It's with a heavy heart that I put our beloved Atlas up for sale. After 11 years of hauling our family from coast to coast, Canada to Mexico, and never once letting us down, that phase of our lives is complete and we're downsizing to a Van's RV-8A.

Here is the Barnstormer's ad: https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_784170_1974+Piper+Pathfinder.html

Here is the detail page I put together on our hotel website:
http://ameliaslanding.com/1974_pathfinder_for_sale.htm

*sigh* He's sure been a good plane. We have waxed every leading edge after EVERY flight, for 11 years! I know that someone with a young family will love him just as much.

PM me if you're interested.
 
You're sure it's a him?? :dunno:

Yep. Any aircraft that can lift its own empty weight in payload deserves the name "Atlas" -- and that's a him. :lol:

It really is a remarkable plane. I've taken off with four 200 pound guys, 84 gallons of gas, and luggage, and not been out of CG or overweight. There just aren't very many airplanes that can do that.
 
Going to make someone a good ship. Good luck on the sale.

I will shed many tears, when it flies away. When we bought Atlas, I still had to help buckle my kids into the back seats. And break up the inevitable fights on long trips. Man, we've been EVERYWHERE in that plane.

Now, they are grown. Hell, my son is getting married.

Eleven years is a long time with an airplane. He's sure been good to us. :sad:

And we've been good to him. New leather interior. New ceiling. Engine analyzer, CD/intercom, panel-docked 496, XM music, power ports everywhere, digital fuel flow, blah blah blah.

'Bout the only thing he doesn't have is a glass panel. He'd be a great candidate for one, though, if you flew hard IFR. I'd put three Aspens in that panel...
 
So, with all those speed mods (and waxed leading edges ;) ) what sort of performance and fuel burn?
 
I know what that's like after 4 years and 1,000 hours with my Aztec, which I took all over the continent and had a number of firsts and adventures with.

But while I was sad to look at it one last time when I left it in south Texas (KHRL, where it will spend the rest of its days), I have also since gotten over that sadness and am happy now flying one plane (instead of 7) that's nice, faster, more efficient, better panel, more fun, etc. I think you'll find the same.
 
Did you buy the RV-8 yet?

Maybe the guy with the POS cherokee is ready to upgrade?
 
So, with all those speed mods (and waxed leading edges ;) ) what sort of performance and fuel burn?

We flight plan 140 knots, at 2300 RPM, and 23 inches of manifold pressure.

At 6500', that's about 11.5 gallons per hour.

Obviously you can pull it back to Archer speeds, and Archer fuel burns -- but in practice we rarely do. It's fun outrunning Arrows and early Mooneys!
:D
 
Does this mean you've got a deal on the RV-8A, Jay?

Good luck!

Not yet -- we shall know on Sunday. It's looking good, though. As long as there are no deal-breakers found at the prebuy inspection tomorrow, methinks this will be The One.
 
We flight plan 140 knots, at 2300 RPM, and 23 inches of manifold pressure.

At 6500', that's about 11.5 gallons per hour.

What percent of power is that?
At higher alts (say, 8000-9000), if you go to WOT what TAS do you get?
 
What percent of power is that?
At higher alts (say, 8000-9000), if you go to WOT what TAS do you get?

Mmmmm, mumble, grumble, I'll hafta look in the POH to tell you that. You know -- that book that's been on the hat shelf in the luggage compartment since 2002. :D

We live at sea level. Before that, we lived in Iowa. 8000+' is an altitude we rarely see, simply because there's rarely a reason to go so high around these parts.

I can tell you that horsepower drops off noticeably at altitudes above 7000'. Being normally aspirated, Atlas' "sweet spot" is 4500' - 6500'. It's our favorite block of altitude, because (a) Atlas is fastest, there, (b) we're way above the local pattern busters, and (c) we're way below commercial flights.

Will he go high? Sure. We've done 13,500' in the Pathfinder.

The best part of the O-540 is climb rate. At over 1000 FPM, it doesn't take long to get to cruising altitude. I remember climbing to 8500' in our first plane (a 150 HP Warrior), and taking an agonizingly long time to get there, in summer.

Then, we bought Atlas. Suddenly, climbing was a fun, non-issue!

And you should see the stuff we hauled to OSH! lol
 
We live at sea level. Before that, we lived in Iowa. 8000+' is an altitude we rarely see, simply because there's rarely a reason to go so high around these parts.

Wait until you get the RV. I rarely cruise at altitudes lower than 8-10k for trips over 1hr in either the -7A or -10. Air is cooler, generally smoother, doesn't take long to get up there, and you get above what the CFI that did my RV transition training calls "Indian territory - those lower altitudes where the Cherokees like to fly". ;)
 
Wait until you get the RV. I rarely cruise at altitudes lower than 8-10k for trips over 1hr in either the -7A or -10. Air is cooler, generally smoother, doesn't take long to get up there, and you get above what the CFI that did my RV transition training calls "Indian territory - those lower altitudes where the Cherokees like to fly". ;)

The only reason I fly high(er) is to get above the haze layer. Along the coast, the air is usually smooth all the way down to the deck.

If we fly inland, we will go high(er) to get out of the bumps. But around here that's still rarely higher than 6500'. Even in July, it's normally nice and cool at anything above 5000'.

Above 8K, you just lose too much horsepower in a normally aspirated plane.
 
Looks like those are the post-78 wheel pants installed. That right there is good for 8 knots from pre-78 book values. So essentially these pants are good for 10knots.

I didn't know there was an STC in order to retrofit them. That probably is the best ROI in terms of speed mods any pre-78 Piper owner can do on their bird. The old style pants (uncovered brake assembly) simply leave too much parasite drag out there. I believe they only get 2 knots from bare wheels!

Clean bird. I'm sure it'll move in reasonable time.
 
Looks like those are the post-78 wheel pants installed. That right there is good for 8 knots from pre-78 book values. So essentially these pants are good for 10knots.

I didn't know there was an STC in order to retrofit them. That probably is the best ROI in terms of speed mods any pre-78 Piper owner can do on their bird. The old style pants (uncovered brake assembly) simply leave too much parasite drag out there. I believe they only get 2 knots from bare wheels!

Clean bird. I'm sure it'll move in reasonable time.

Yeah, two owners before me put all the speed mods on. I know him well (he now flies a real hot rod -- the Comanche 400), and he lavished attention on Atlas like none other.

I've got a picture of the panel with a late-90s version of "glass". It was a CRT, like a Beech Starship! I can't imagine what he spent on that, and it was obsolete and removed by the time we bought the plane -- but it's indicative of the kind of money he spent on this plane. He prolly spent $25K eking every last knot out of the Pathfinder's airframe.

Not worth it, IMHO, and he never recouped the expense -- but I've always been very happy to have them. Cruising at 142 knots is always better than going 130 knots.
:D
 
Hey -- someone just contacted me off of Barnstormers, and offered to trade me a RANCH for my airplane!

If it were in Texas, maybe. But it's in (of all places!) Illinois. :rolleyes:
 
Wait until you get the RV. I rarely cruise at altitudes lower than 8-10k for trips over 1hr in either the -7A or -10. Air is cooler, generally smoother, doesn't take long to get up there, and you get above what the CFI that did my RV transition training calls "Indian territory - those lower altitudes where the Cherokees like to fly". ;)

Our "Cherokee" well really Archer but might as well be a Cherokee loves to fly 9k to 13k and we rarely fly lower on a flight more than an hour. Yeah it takes a little longer to get there, oh well. Still never felt the need to crap on ac's with less performance. If it makes you feel better........
 
Last edited:
Above 8K, you just lose too much horsepower in a normally aspirated plane.

Check your book numbers, in mine it's not a bad trade-off. Climbing from 7500 to 10000 reduces HP by 12%, fuel burn by 10% and cruise speed by 3%.
 
Check your book numbers, in mine it's not a bad trade-off. Climbing from 7500 to 10000 reduces HP by 12%, fuel burn by 10% and cruise speed by 3%.

Exactly. At ~8,000', your engine can still produce right at 75% power. In the day of expensive fuel, not many folks cruise at 75%, which means you can fly even higher and maintain your desired cruise power setting. I typically cruise at between 60 and 65%, regardless of altitude, and can maintain that power setting to somewhere between 10 and 12k feet, depending on density altitude.

Up at those altitudes, you go faster at a given power setting, so your economy is better. Also, you are typically in clearer, smoother air, and you're above most of the traffic. I see it as a win all the way around.
 
Exactly. At ~8,000', your engine can still produce right at 75% power. In the day of expensive fuel, not many folks cruise at 75%, which means you can fly even higher and maintain your desired cruise power setting. I typically cruise at between 60 and 65%, regardless of altitude, and can maintain that power setting to somewhere between 10 and 12k feet, depending on density altitude.

Up at those altitudes, you go faster at a given power setting, so your economy is better. Also, you are typically in clearer, smoother air, and you're above most of the traffic. I see it as a win all the way around.

True in every regard, but we've found that on long cross country flights (for example: Flying to OSH), sitting at 8500' or 10500' all day makes for a very fatiguing day due to mild hypoxia.

I guess we're getting old.

Arriving with a headache, tired, is no fun. Down at 6500', it's better.
 
So noted. Please instruct the clerk to enter OP's response to his "loss of horsepower above 8k assertion" as "yahbut.":smilewinkgrin:

True in every regard, but we've found that on long cross country flights (for example: Flying to OSH), sitting at 8500' or 10500' all day makes for a very fatiguing day due to mild hypoxia.

I guess we're getting old.

Arriving with a headache, tired, is no fun. Down at 6500', it's better.
 
So noted. Please instruct the clerk to enter OP's response to his "loss of horsepower above 8k assertion" as "yahbut.":smilewinkgrin:

I don't believe my comment about mild hypoxia had anything to do with my earlier assertion, which is also true. But whatever... :dunno:
 
Our "Cherokee" well really Archer but might as well be a Cherokee loves to fly 9k to 13k and we rarely fly lower on a flight more than an hour. Yeah it takes a little longer to get there, oh well. Still never felt the need to crap on ac's with less performance. If it makes you feel better........

I have a decent amount of time in a PA28-180 as well as a PA28-181. I did get the -181 up to 10k on a long XC once, but it took a long time to do it and it just didn't feel 'comfortable' there to me. Maybe differences in model years, engine setup, etc. Dunno...

Based on my personal experience in both the PA28-181 AND the RV-7A AND the RV-10, it is my personal opinion that the RV-7A and RV-10 perform better at higher altitudes than the PA28-181. Not 'crapping on less performance to make myself feel better', just stating an observation based on personal experience.
 
Good luck with the sale Jay! I've seen Atlas a few times, and it is an impeccably clean and well maintained airplane. Whoever ends up with it will have many trouble-free hours of flying methinks.
 
I have a decent amount of time in a PA28-180 as well as a PA28-181. I did get the -181 up to 10k on a long XC once, but it took a long time to do it and it just didn't feel 'comfortable' there to me. Maybe differences in model years, engine setup, etc. Dunno...

Based on my personal experience in both the PA28-181 AND the RV-7A AND the RV-10, it is my personal opinion that the RV-7A and RV-10 perform better at higher altitudes than the PA28-181. Not 'crapping on less performance to make myself feel better', just stating an observation based on personal experience.

I flew my PA28-150 above 10,000 more than below. 12,500 wasn't an issue.
 
Atlas' "sweet spot" is 4500' - 6500'. It's our favorite block of altitude, because (a) Atlas is fastest, there, (b) we're way above the local pattern busters, and (c) we're way below commercial flights.

(b) Wouldn't be true here. Heh. Pattern is 6885'. ;) ;) ;)
 
Very nice looking plane! Wish I had the money for it, gotta finish getting my PPL first. :(
 
I have a decent amount of time in a PA28-180 as well as a PA28-181. I did get the -181 up to 10k on a long XC once, but it took a long time to do it and it just didn't feel 'comfortable' there to me. Maybe differences in model years, engine setup, etc. Dunno...

Based on my personal experience in both the PA28-181 AND the RV-7A AND the RV-10, it is my personal opinion that the RV-7A and RV-10 perform better at higher altitudes than the PA28-181. Not 'crapping on less performance to make myself feel better', just stating an observation based on personal experience.

But this isn't an equal comparison. The RV7 is a small aircraft with an engine that in comparison to the cherokee, larger. yes, I know the "average" engine installed in the 7 is O-320 and the cherokee is O-360, but when you consider weight to HP, it has a larger weight to HP ratio than the cherokee/archer. The RV10 is similar in size to the archer/cherokee with a substantially bigger engine.
 
I have a decent amount of time in a PA28-180 as well as a PA28-181. I did get the -181 up to 10k on a long XC once, but it took a long time to do it and it just didn't feel 'comfortable' there to me. Maybe differences in model years, engine setup, etc. Dunno...

Based on my personal experience in both the PA28-181 AND the RV-7A AND the RV-10, it is my personal opinion that the RV-7A and RV-10 perform better at higher altitudes than the PA28-181. Not 'crapping on less performance to make myself feel better', just stating an observation based on personal experience.

Not withstanding the "Indian Country" comment, I understand the point. No comparison in pa28 to rv performance. The areas we fly regularly, mountainous areas, like higher cruise altitudes, it's more comfy there especially during summer, and makes it much easier to transition across/over busy airspace like phoenix. We accept that it takes a little longer to get to cruise altitude and destination than an ac with higher performance. Someday we may look at upgrading but right now we're ok.

Jay, I hope you're sale goes well, we're going to get to your hotel, it's on the list, looking forward to meeting your new rv.
 
Last edited:
Jay, I hope you're sale goes well, we're going to get to your hotel, it's on the list, looking forward to meeting your new rv.

^^ What he said, Jay. Sorry to hijack your sale thread.

Good luck!
 
Check your book numbers, in mine it's not a bad trade-off. Climbing from 7500 to 10000 reduces HP by 12%, fuel burn by 10% and cruise speed by 3%.

Depends on the engine. The 310 I have found does reduce fuel burn with altitude (which is basically the same engine as your plane), but the Aztec (which is basically the same engine as Jay's) stayed pretty constant from 6-12k on fuel burn.

The past year we haven't spent much time above 8-9k first because of pregnant wife concerns, followed by engine break-in concerns, followed by baby concerns. I used to be able to get 168 KTAS @ 20 GPH combined at 13k, and I'd like to see what it does with the new engines. Maybe my upcoming mega-run to Canada will provide me with cause to go up there (pun intended).
 
So the magic-mini-turbo on the Aztec somehow produces thicker air above 8k? Those Lyc engineers must really be smarter than we've been led to believe.:D

Depends on the engine. The 310 I have found does reduce fuel burn with altitude (which is basically the same engine as your plane), but the Aztec (which is basically the same engine as Jay's) stayed pretty constant from 6-12k on fuel burn.

The past year we haven't spent much time above 8-9k first because of pregnant wife concerns, followed by engine break-in concerns, followed by baby concerns. I used to be able to get 168 KTAS @ 20 GPH combined at 13k, and I'd like to see what it does with the new engines. Maybe my upcoming mega-run to Canada will provide me with cause to go up there (pun intended).
 
So the magic-mini-turbo on the Aztec somehow produces thicker air above 8k? Those Lyc engineers must really be smarter than we've been led to believe.:D

Trust me, they wouldn't have won any awards for intellect.

I couldn't figure out why it worked that way, but it's how it was. 1,000 hours of operation and it didn't change any. I'm also not going to bother devoting any brain cells to figuring out why since the airplane is gone. ;)
 
Back
Top