Can I get some input on a Cherokee 140/160?

Fatherof2

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
28
Display Name

Display name:
Fatherof2
Hi Gang,

Can someone give me a feel for performance numbers on a 140 that is now a 160?

The plane has a Powerflow exhaust and wheel pants as well.

Just wondering about the useful load, cruise speed at various settings, rate of climb etc.

Has anyone owned a 140 that is now a 160? Love to hear any input.

Thanks All.
 
useful load doesn't change

performance will depend on the prop pitch as well.

When I upgraded my 140 to 160hp I also changed the prop pitch so that it matched the standard prop on a 160 (and warrior II). Performance (speed, fuel usage) was consistent with the pa-28-160 and about the same as the warrior II.

and, remember, the max gross weight doesn't change.
 
Thanks Bob.........good to know.
 
I found this quote in an AOPA article.

Shop for a 140 with an upgraded engine. Originally certified with a 140-horsepower Lycoming O-320, supplemental type certificates boost the horsepower to 160—providing extra performance and useful load.

Here is the link to the article:
My First Airplane: Cherokee 140 - AOPA

Kind of threw me off.
 
not many 140hp cherokees out there. not many produced.

and that article is wrong or at best misleading. At least I'm not aware of ANY STC that increases the max gross weight of the pa-28-140
 
Shop for a 140 with an upgraded engine. Originally certified with a 140-horsepower Lycoming O-320, supplemental type certificates boost the horsepower to 160—providing extra performance and useful load.

The confusion stems from the fact that the AOPA article refers specifically to the 1964 year model of the Cherokee 140, which as built had lower horsepower and lower gross weight than the 1965 and all subsequent models.

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 in early 1964 took the full four-seat Cherokee 150, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward, removed the rear seats, baggage compartment and baggage door, moved the tachometer redline down to 2450 rpm and repitched the prop to produce only 140 hp, and called it the “Cherokee 140”. The -140 was intended for fleet sales to flight schools, unlike the Cherokee 150, which was marketed as a family airplane for private buyers, competing head-to-head against the Cessna 172. 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 150’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. In 1965 power was re-upped to 150 hp (simply by re-pitching the prop and changing the redline on the tachometer back to 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 early Cherokee 140s can be converted to 150 hp and 2150 lb MGW, per Note 6 in the Type Certificate Data Sheet:

Screen Shot 2023-01-23 at 8.21.48 PM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Are you already eyeing a 140/160? If not I'd seriously consider the 180. You will be happier.
 
You didn’t get direct answers to your question, but expect a 160 to cruise around 100-110 kts, depending on how hard you want to run it. Climb should be 700-1000 depending on density altitude.

I have had a Warrior II (160 hp) at 175 kts ground speed, but that was going down hill with a very nice tailwind.
4B59CE5A-8E99-4AE1-9062-8365AE491884.jpeg
 
Thanks for all the valuable input everyone!

Can anyone tell me what the useful load is on a 1966 140? I am reading conflicting reports online.

Thanks All.
 
Hi Gang,

Can someone give me a feel for performance numbers on a 140 that is now a 160?

The plane has a Powerflow exhaust and wheel pants as well.

Just wondering about the useful load, cruise speed at various settings, rate of climb etc.

Has anyone owned a 140 that is now a 160? Love to hear any input.

Thanks All.

with that set up you can expect about 20# decreased useful load due to the added weight of the exhaust and about 120 knot cruse and 800 fpm climb at gross.
 
Can anyone tell me what the useful load is on a 1966 140? I am reading conflicting reports online.
I had a 1977 Cherokee 140 back in the 1980s. Its useful load was 730 lb. Newer models like this tended to be heavier, and this one had a panel-full of old boat-anchor avionics. So all else being equal, a '66 model would likely have a better useful load.
 
Last edited:
You didn’t get direct answers to your question, but expect a 160 to cruise around 100-110 kts, depending on how hard you want to run it. Climb should be 700-1000 depending on density altitude.

I have had a Warrior II (160 hp) at 175 kts ground speed, but that was going down hill with a very nice tailwind.

Man, nice panel! Nicer than the jet I fly!
 
useful load can be increased by removing the rear seats (some insurance companies will give a slightly lower rate if the seats are logged as removed).

useful load can also be increased by removing the wheel pants.
 
Hi Gang,

Can someone give me a feel for performance numbers on a 140 that is now a 160?

The plane has a Powerflow exhaust and wheel pants as well.

Just wondering about the useful load, cruise speed at various settings, rate of climb etc.

Has anyone owned a 140 that is now a 160? Love to hear any input.

Thanks All.
As most of us know, the POH numbers vs reality are different for every airplane. I wish I’d recorded my reality performance numbers prior to adding the RAM STC making my O-320 160 hp. I had the new Power Flow exhaust already on order before things happened which forced my hand to add the RAM STC. I’m still in the process of installing the exhaust together with an annual inspection. I should be back in the air soon to experience what the two new changes offer as far as performance.
 
Last edited:
The Cherokee 140/160 is a nice airplane ,won’t get you there fast and might be a little cramped but overall it’s not expensive to maintain and insurance won’t run you dry. It’s a good starter airplane or a retirement bird when your not in a hurry.
 
Being slower than the 180, the 140 has a lighter control feel.

and being so slow, it's hard to get behind the airplane...

If you are in a hurry to get somewhere, the 140 probably isn't a good choice. But, be aware, the thirst for speed is never sated.
 
My buddy had a Cherokee 140 with the 160 stc. I got to fly it quite a bit with him with me. One day we/I took it up to 13K ft just to see if it would do it and it did.
He put a garmin 175 in it and had 2 255 radios and 335. It was a nice panel. We flew both of our planes together to many airports just for kicks. We flew good together my 172 and his cherokee, had a lot of fun.
Then one day he was flying to St Louis into a headwind and saw 75mph GS. That was it for the Cherokee. He bought an arrow last spring and now we haven't been able to fly together mainly because he is so busy at Love field being a check airmen for SW.
That is his cherokee in my signature picture someplace in West Virginia if I remember right.
His 160 0-320 motor had stock exhaust and my 172 has 160 hp with powerflow exhaust. My 172 was just a little faster than his cherokee. I am not saying because of the PF exhaust but it was faster. It was noticeable when we flew IFR together and the controllers would have to put us at different altitudes.
Good luck on your purchase they are fine planes to fly.
 
Last edited:
I have a 1966 Cherokee 140 which is now a 160. It's the perfect plane for two (not very heavy) adults, a dog, a cat and enough baggage for a week. Our useful load is around 700 lbs. I rarely have the tanks filled up all the way - who can sit for 5 hours without using the bathroom, so not filling the tanks helps with being able to fill up the plane with people, pets and stuff. Performance wise, I went from an Ercoupe to a Cessna 150 to now the Cherokee so it's a real speed devil to me. I flight plan with 100 knots and 9 GPH. In flight, I usually get better for both. I usually cruise between 5,000 and 9,000 feet and have the RPM set to 2,400 to 2,500 rpm. Climb will heavily depend on density altitude. In the winter up north (10F or colder), even at max gross I climb 1,000+ ft/m. In the summer (90F) at max gross, I wouldn't even try taking off. The highest density altitude I've taken off from was around 6,000 ft. and I was at or near max weight - I climbed out at like 200 ft/m. All in all, I really like the plane. It's my first plane that I would consider x-country capable although the Cherokee 6, Malibu or turbofan pilots will probably disagree with that statement haha. I fly 300+ NM long x-countries on a monthly basis and it's comfortable enough. In addition to my regular monthly trips, once I year (this year being the second year), I fly the plane from our Canadian lake cottage in the Prairies all the way down to the southern states, this year it's Florida. Took us a good 20 hours with some weather diversions (otherwise it would be around 12-15 hours) but it still beats 30+ hours of driving any day of the week. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. After flying the plane, talking about it is my second favorite aviation activity ;-)
 
As most of us know, the POH numbers vs reality are different for every airplane. I wish I’d recorded my reality performance numbers prior to adding the RAM STC making my O-320 160 hp. I had the new Power Flow exhaust already on order before things happened which forced my hand to add the RAM STC. I’m still in the process of installing the exhaust together with an annual inspection. I should be back in the air soon to experience what the two new changes offer as far as performance.
Exciting!!! Hope it fly's great for you.
 
After I sold my V-Tail Bonanza, I paid off debt and used what was left to buy a 1969 Cherokee 140/160. I thought I would use it for weekend fun. I made two trips from my home base in central Wisconsin - one to Traverse City, and one to central Iowa. Oh, yeah, another one to central Illinois. It's not much for cross-country trips, but very economical and fun to fly locally. Because I am a CFI, the itch to fly gets scratched on the job. So after a couple of years, I sold the Cherokee.

Just because there are four seats, doesn't mean you can fly with four adults.
 
This isn't intended to be insulting.
Are you aware that Useful load varies from plane to plane even the same make and model?
There are probably ones that close in on 1000 lbs and others that have about 600.

Depends on equipment and how many coats of paint.

These 2 claim 810 and 850 respectively so that's probably your ballpark. Personally, I would get the one with curtains in back. I have always wanted curtains in my plane.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=PIPER&model=CHEROKEE+140/160&listing_id=2413981&s-type=aircraft

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=PIPER&model=CHEROKEE+140/160&listing_id=2413258&s-type=aircraft
 
How do you fly with a cat???
Real question. I have considered it but thought it was not feasible.

I just flew home from Saint Louis (CPS) to Phoenix (GYR) with my wife and I, mother-in-law, two dogs, and a cat. (and enough luggage to make you believe we were moving.)

The cat was in a FAA-airliner-approved cat carrier (supersmall, fits under the seat in front of you), and we drugged it with an Acepromezine half-tablet.

The Ace allows the cat to be put in the carrier (he resists quite vigorously, without it) and lasts for several hours. As he awakened from the Ace, he was pretty much resigned to his fate, and was quiet for the remaining couple of hours.
 
How do you fly with a cat???
Real question. I have considered it but thought it was not feasible.

The cat goes in a hard shell carrier. Both of our pets, the dog and the cat, travel well. Usually awake until cruising altitude and then they doze off until they notice the power change for descend and slowly wake up. No drugs or anything needed for them but we took them on trips ever since they were little. I always joke, the cat has seen more places than most humans. He's seen everything from Ireland to Spain, France, Portugal, 9 out 10 Canadian provinces and around 30 U.S. States haha. The dog is seven years younger so he has some catching up to do.
 
My favorite Cherokee 140 story ...

Back when I owned that '77 Cherokee 140 at Van Nuys, CA, a pilot friend asked me to help out. He was soon to be married (although we had counseled him), and asked me to fly him and his bride the 12 nautical miles from Van Nuys to Santa Monica after the wedding so they could evade rowdy well-wishers. They planned to have a car waiting for them at SMO.

On the appointed day I decked out the airplane's interior with paper wedding bells and ribbon and waited for them, certain that they would have changed clothes before coming to the airport.

Nope.

She showed up in full wedding gown and he in tux. I'll let those of you with Cherokee 140 experience visualize the two of them squeezing into the back seats, while her brother took the shotgun seat (fortunately there was minimal fuel aboard).

PICT0943.jpg PICT0946.jpg PICT0956.jpg PICT0957.jpg
 
My favorite Cherokee 140 story ... I'll let those of you with Cherokee 140 experience visualize the two of them squeezing into the back seats,

Just married? No problem! 35 years later? Nah ... :D
 
Seems like bumping up to the 180 is double what a 160 goes for.
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.

The Cherokee 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. 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 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 180 hp version came out in late 1962, and quickly became the most popular of the three. 180 hp is the sweet spot for the brick-like PA-28 airframe and stubby Hershey-bar wings, with decent performance and load-carrying capability. A C-172 could get by with 145 hp, thanks to its longer, higher-aspect-ratio wings with a better low-speed airfoil. That fact was not lost on Piper, who later made an honest four-seater out of the 150-hp PA-28 by putting a very 172-like wing on it (the 1974 PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior).
 
Then one day he was flying to St Louis into a headwind and saw 75mph GS.

My friend was in a partnership on a Cherokee 180D. We were flying to ATL area along the Blue Ridge. I was watching the trucks on I-81 pass us.
 
My friend was in a partnership on a Cherokee 180D. We were flying to ATL area along the Blue Ridge. I was watching the trucks on I-81 pass us.

But flying the airplane is waaaaaaay more enjoyable than driving a rig, especially with some of the nuts on the road.
 
But MUCH better to be flying my 252 and even with a 25 knot headwind, I am going 150 knots over the ground. :D
 
I used to rent a Cherokee 140 shortly after getting my PPL. Aside from the funky bow tie yokes and weird six pack layout, it was a really fun little plane to fly. In fact, I liked flying the Arrow II better than I liked flying the TA III because it handled more like the Cherokee.
 
Since the OP was looking for performance stats on the 140 I thought I'd borrow this authoritative data from the Joke Day thread. I think it's from the Cherokee 140 POH.

294500801_441665024639092_4645486424968942556_n.jpg
 
If you’re going Cherokee a 235 is really the best of both worlds. Faster cruise, better ceiling, great climb rate and it can haul its own weight around. I have one and couldn’t be happier. All the great flying characteristics of a Cherokee with some oomph. Plus 84 gallons means a good XC flyer.
 
Back
Top