172 vs Cherokee

[Pilawt]

... trying to figure out why Piper named them all "Cherokee" when they're quite distinctively different aircraft, and mulling over which one is which...

They all derived from the original PA-28 Cherokee. In the early days they were barely distinguishable unless you opened the cowl.

The Cherokee 150 and 160 were first, in 1961. Actually the 150 was the first to fly, while the 160 was certified and marketed first. Today it would seem odd to market both a 150 and 160 simultaneously, but in the early '60s it made sense. The 160 had somewhat better performance and a higher gross weight, but the 150 could run on the cheaper 80 octane fuel. So they were both in the catalog through 1967.

Then at the end of 1962 the Cherokee 180 came out, identical to the others except for the engine and nameplate. A year later the Cherokee 235 appeared.

The same airframe -- N2800W -- served as the pre-production prototype for the 160, 180 and 235.

Reacting to competition from the Cessna 150 for the trainer market, Piper pulled the back seats, baggage compartment and baggage door out of the Cherokee 150, de-rated the engine to 140 hp at 2400 rpm, lowered the gross weight by 200 pounds, and the Cherokee 140 trainer was born. A year later the 140's horsepower rating and gross weight were increased to equal that of the Cherokee 150, and snap-in "2+2" back seats were offered as an option.

Then there were the Cherokee Six, Cherokee Arrow, Cherokee Warrior, and so on. They even flew a tri-motor Cherokee prototype. It seemed to be the ultimate mix'n'match design, and the family tree is confusing.

There will be a quiz.

Well... Not really. Remember, there's 145hp, 160hp, and 180hp versions of the 172 as well (though they never produced more than one of them at the factory at any given time)

Actually they did:

1963: 172D (145 hp) and P172D Powermatic (175 hp, carryover of the earlier Model 175);

1983-85: 172P (160 hp) and 172Q Cutlass (180 hp, fixed gear);

1999-present: 172R (160 hp) and 172S (180 hp).

and the 172XP (195hp, c/s prop). Some of the XP's also had 210hp engines.

The 210 hp R172 was the military T-41B and was also manufactured in France and sold on the European civilian market as "Reims Rocket" beginning in 1968. When the Cardinal was on its way out the R172 was "Americanized" to replace it and introduced here as the R172K "Hawk XP" (1977-81). In deference to sensitive American ears the 210 hp (at 2800 rpm) IO-360 was de-rated to 195 hp. There is an STC available to restore it to 210 hp.

Hell, the variants of Arrows are pretty easy to tell apart except the I and II (which only differed in engine hp)

"Arrow I" (though the factory never called it that) was originally 180 hp, and a 200 hp option was added in 1969. The two were produced together until the 180 hp version was quietly dropped in 1971. The "Cherokee Arrow II" (1972-1976) had 200 hp, stretch cabin, and longer wings and stabilator.

 

[Tom-D]

Things I like and dislike about the two aircraft in question.. = personal opinion.

the early 172 has the Continental 0-300- they run much smoother than the later versions and the PA 28 - 4 bangers.

the PA 28 has hydraulic gear and lands smoother, but the spring gear of the 172 does off runway better because it sets higher.

The 172 has 2 doors giving a better ability to get stuff in and out, and has a back seat that really will hold stuff, along with a bigger baggage compartment behind.

I like to be able to see straight down with out rolling the aircraft too high. It is easier to take pictures.

I like manual flaps on either aircraft, there is no motor/wires/switches to fail, but the PA 28 does have a AD on the handle.

The 172 has seats that are easier to remove, to inspect under the floor, but they have a AD too.
The early 172 has 2 mufflers, the later versions have the lycoming H-2AD and 1 muffler that has a habit of dropping the inner baffles as does the Piper rear mounted muffler.

just some simple stuff I like or not.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Well... Not really. Remember, there's 145hp, 160hp, and 180hp versions of the 172 as well (though they never produced more than one of them at the factory at any given time), the 172RG, and the 172XP (195hp, c/s prop). Some of the XP's also had 210hp engines.

Wow. I didn't know there was a 210 HP 172. I'll bet that sucker climbs!

Thing is, AFAICT, they all look practically the same starting in the mid-60's except the RG. The PA28's are easier to distinguish - Obviously the Arrows have gear doors visible. The 180's have a hump on top of the cowl, the 235's have the triple exhaust pipe

The Pathfinder (235) has ONE (really big) exhaust pipe. Go figure.

 

[Jay Honeck]

... trying to figure out why Piper named them all "Cherokee" when they're quite distinctively different aircraft, and mulling over which one is which...



I did like the Cherokee 180 I have a few hours in the book in, and always wanted to hop a ride in a Dakota to see how it flies.

Our Pathfinder became the Dakota. It is (IMHO) the best plane Piper ever built.

By that, I mean it can do the most things, with the least hassle. We never worry about useful load (1460 pounds -- its own empty weight!), we never worry about CG, and (thanks to some nice mods, made by a previous owner) it will cruise at 140 knots all day long.

To put that in perspective, I can carry four 200-pound men, 150 pounds of luggage, and full fuel (84 gallons) -- at 140 knots, which means I am faster than an early Mooney or Arrow. (Of course, I'm burning more gas than they are to do it, thanks to fixed gear.) There are VERY few planes that can do that.

There are faster planes. There are bigger planes. There are planes that can fly higher, and haul more weight. But I have never found a single plane that could do everything the Pathfinder can do, at a lower cost. The 182 comes close, but not quite.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Oh, and don't ever take a ride in a Dakota 'cause you'll hate the 182 afterwords...

Uh, I don't think so. I did my HP endorsement and some other stuff in the Dakota, and to me it was simply an over-powered Cherokee. The 182, on the other hand, has a larger, more comfortable cabin which made it my traveling machine of choice for several years, and it's still tied for the title of my favorite airplane.

 

[EdFred]

Except maybe if it's a Turbo Dakota.

(just to be even more confusing)

Do those actually fly, or do they just taxi to and from the maintenance hangar?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There are faster planes. There are bigger planes. There are planes that can fly higher, and haul more weight. But I have never found a single plane that could do everything the Pathfinder can do, at a lower cost. The 182 comes close, but not quite.

Hmmm... What does the Dakota/Pathfinder do that the 182 doesn't?

 

[Clark1961]

Do those actually fly, or do they just taxi to and from the maintenance hangar?

Well they do get test flights between trips!

 

[EdFred]

Hmmm... What does the Dakota/Pathfinder do that the 182 doesn't?

Look cool.

 

[Clark1961]

Hmmm... What does the Dakota/Pathfinder do that the 182 doesn't?

Everything! Flys higher, faster, further, costs less, and looks better. Plus ya got struts not those spring things. And the nose strut doesn't tear off the firewall.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Everything! Flys higher, faster, further, costs less, and looks better. Plus ya got struts not those spring things. And the nose strut doesn't tear off the firewall.

Higher? Nope - I know you have a Turbo Dakota, but for the normally aspirated birds, the 182 flies higher. (I've been to 17,500 in N271G.)

Faster? Barely. Two knots. So, basically negligible considering that there's generally a bigger difference than that between individual airframes. They're pretty much tied.

Further? Nope. With the ones I've flown, the Dakota carried 72 gallons and burned 14+ gph, the 182 carries 79 gallons and burns 13. And the 182 in this case is actually a smidge faster.

Costs less? To purchase, yes, but you get less for it when you sell too. In terms of operating costs, the insurance might be a bit higher on the 182 due to the higher hull value, but I don't think it has any other cost advantages. Our Archers cost every bit as much to maintain as the 182 does, so I can't imagine the Dakota would be any cheaper.

Looks better? Purely subjective, and honestly neither one is particularly sexy.

And if you know how to fly, it doesn't matter if you have spring steel gear or that your nose gear can wrinkle a firewall.

The Dakota isn't a bad bird by any means, but while I tend to prefer Piper products over the equivalent Cessnas (I'd take an Archer over a 172 any day), Piper never made a plane quite like the 182 - And the big difference is cabin comfort.

 

[Clark1961]

Higher? Nope - I know you have a Turbo Dakota, but for the normally aspirated birds, the 182 flies higher. (I've been to 17,500 in N271G.)

Faster? Barely. Two knots. So, basically negligible considering that there's generally a bigger difference than that between individual airframes. They're pretty much tied.

Further? Nope. With the ones I've flown, the Dakota carried 72 gallons and burned 14+ gph, the 182 carries 79 gallons and burns 13. And the 182 in this case is actually a smidge faster.

Costs less? To purchase, yes, but you get less for it when you sell too. In terms of operating costs, the insurance might be a bit higher on the 182 due to the higher hull value, but I don't think it has any other cost advantages. Our Archers cost every bit as much to maintain as the 182 does, so I can't imagine the Dakota would be any cheaper.

Looks better? Purely subjective, and honestly neither one is particularly sexy.

And if you know how to fly, it doesn't matter if you have spring steel gear or that your nose gear can wrinkle a firewall.

The Dakota isn't a bad bird by any means, but while I tend to prefer Piper products over the equivalent Cessnas (I'd take an Archer over a 172 any day), Piper never made a plane quite like the 182 - And the big difference is cabin comfort.

There you go again, trying to use facts and be persuasive. Won't work, the Dakota is sooooo much better. I go higher, faster, further, cost less, look better, smell better, and get more dates 'cause I fly a Piper! I've also never run into the wing strut on the Piper! It's all true 'cause I say so. In the future, keep that end mind.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There you go again, trying to use facts and be persuasive. Won't work, the Dakota is sooooo much better. I go higher, faster, further, cost less, look better, smell better, and get more dates 'cause I fly a Piper! I've also never run into the wing strut on the Piper! It's all true 'cause I say so. In the future, keep that end mind.

 

[EppyGA]

What is always so complex to a new buyer is that the Cherokee line consists of a whole slew of different aircraft, while the 172 is, well, the 172, with very minor variations over the years. (Exception: The up-tick to 180 HP. That was a "big deal".)

The Cherokee is the 140, the 160, the 180, the Challenger, the Archer, the 235, the Charger, the Pathfinder, the Dakota, and the Arrow. Each of these birds fits a very different mission.

The 140 is a 2-seat plane, or 2+2 kids. I've been subjected to the back seat of a 140, and had to be lifted out after a 90-minute flight.

The 180 and 235, prior to the fuselage stretch in '73-ish, are also both 2-seat planes, but with more horsepower than they know what to do with. Only after the fuselage stretch did they have airframes that matched their engine's capabilities.

The difference between the hershey bar and tapered wings is...marketing. Ask Karl Bergey, one of the designers of the Cherokee, and he will tell you that there is no discernible difference in handling. The tapered wing, like the T-tail in some models, was done to make them look nicer.

The Cherokee 235/236 is equivalent to a Cessna 182, and probably shouldn't be considered in this thread -- but keeping the name the same (and offering the plane as a natural step up) was part of Piper's marketing plan.

Here we are, 40 years later, still discussing this. It really is amazing. These planes, built to last just a few years, have really stood the test of time.

Geez, you left out the warrior.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Hmmm... What does the Dakota/Pathfinder do that the 182 doesn't?

Greater speed, higher useful load, wing on proper side.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Geez, you left out the warrior.

Crikey! My poor "Baby" (our first plane, a '75 Warrior) is probably hunched over in her hangar, somewhere, crying. I'm sorry I forgot you!

 

[Jay Honeck]

Further? Nope. With the ones I've flown, the Dakota carried 72 gallons and burned 14+ gph, the 182 carries 79 gallons and burns 13. And the 182 in this case is actually a smidge faster.

My Pathfinder has 84 gallons, and cruises at 142 knots burning 12 GPH.

That sucker can fly a helluva lot farther than *I* can. Our longest leg has been 5.4 hours, non-stop.

 

[Jim_R]

For everything you do on the ground (preflighting, getting in and out of the plane) I find the 172 to be easier.

Question out of ignorance: Why does no one ever mention refueling a high-wing as an issue? I don't currently know anyone who flies one, but back when I used to go up with a buddy in a 172, I remember him hauling the ladder over to the plane to fill the tanks, which seemed like a hassle. Am I misremembering that?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Question out of ignorance: Why does no one ever mention refueling a high-wing as an issue? I don't currently know anyone who flies one, but back when I used to go up with a buddy in a 172, I remember him hauling the ladder over to the plane to fill the tanks, which seemed like a hassle. Am I misremembering that?

For those of us who used to fly in the winter, in the Upper Midwest, we have blanked that memory from our minds as simply too horrible to contemplate...

 

[Tom-D]

Question out of ignorance: Why does no one ever mention refueling a high-wing as an issue? I don't currently know anyone who flies one, but back when I used to go up with a buddy in a 172, I remember him hauling the ladder over to the plane to fill the tanks, which seemed like a hassle. Am I misremembering that?

That's what gas boys are for..

Oh I forgot. its now line personnel..

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Greater speed, higher useful load, wing on proper side.

Already addressed.

My Pathfinder has 84 gallons, and cruises at 142 knots burning 12 GPH.

Okay, you win... Maybe. The 13gph is the average based on gallons added divided by tach time. Cruise fuel burn is more like 11.5, depending on altitude of course. (The 11.5 is what I saw at 5500 the other day, and it's commonly right in that zone, though I've seen 10.7 up at 7500... Wish we'd had the JPI in it when I took it up to 17,500!)

That sucker can fly a helluva lot farther than *I* can. Our longest leg has been 5.4 hours, non-stop.

I've done 5.3 in the 182. Agreed, that's probably too long... But after dinner and refueling, I hopped in and flew another 3.5. KEFD (Houston, TX) to KMSN (Madison, WI) in one day.

Question out of ignorance: Why does no one ever mention refueling a high-wing as an issue? I don't currently know anyone who flies one, but back when I used to go up with a buddy in a 172, I remember him hauling the ladder over to the plane to fill the tanks, which seemed like a hassle. Am I misremembering that?

Maybe because it's really not that big of an issue? Every airport I've ever refueled at supplies a ladder, and of course if the fuel's coming off the truck someone else gets to worry about it. It also means I don't have to go crawling on the ground during preflight to get a fuel sample, check control linkages, etc.

Actually, on the 152/172 there's usually a little "step" near the back of the cowl toward the bottom of the fuselage and another one on the wing strut so that you don't need a ladder to refuel. I never used a ladder on the flight school 172's when I worked as a lineman...

 

[Jay Honeck]

That's what gas boys are for..

Oh I forgot. its now line personnel..

Despite having ten times the GA traffic of Iowa, I have yet to see a "line guy" in Texas.

 

[denverpilot]

Blasphemy. You never hate your first love.

 

[flightmedic]

Gentlemen, and I assume Ladies too, thank you for all your info. i have been busy at work since my last post but certainly love all the info you have all given me. I am getting a base knowledge of these planes and will certainly look at others as well. I am in no rush so I am trying to educate myself. Thanks again.

 

[denverpilot]

It took my co-owners three years to find 79M. I got off easy, joining the party late!

 

[Jim_R]

Despite having ten times the GA traffic of Iowa, I have yet to see a "line guy" in Texas.

Do you not fly into CRP? I was met by a line guy there on my instrument XC just two days ago. Off the top of my head, I've had line guys meet me on the ramp at Nacogdoches, and Galveston, and McKinnie, and during the day there's always someone who'll meet me at the "self serve" pump at Baytown....

 

[Gmaper]

Maybe because it's really not that big of an issue? Every airport I've ever refueled at supplies a ladder, and of course if the fuel's coming off the truck someone else gets to worry about it. It also means I don't have to go crawling on the ground during preflight to get a fuel sample, check control linkages, etc.

But of course you always climb up on the strut or a ladder to visually check the fuel level and caps, right? :wink2:

 

[Bob Noel]

But of course you always climb up on the strut or a ladder to visually check the fuel level and caps, right? :wink2:

When I flew 172's, yes I always did visually check the fuel level and caps.

This task is much easier with my Cherokee 140.

 

[PilotAlan]

When I flew 172's, yes I always did visually check the fuel level and caps.
This task is much easier with my Cherokee 140.

Yes. I blew out my knee in a line of duty injury, and cannot do the funky monkey climb to Cessna caps anymore. That was a factor in choosing a Cherokee.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Do you not fly into CRP? I was met by a line guy there on my instrument XC just two days ago. Off the top of my head, I've had line guys meet me on the ramp at Nacogdoches, and Galveston, and McKinnie, and during the day there's always someone who'll meet me at the "self serve" pump at Baytown....

Nope, we've never flown into CRP. Being Class C, just 20 miles away, with nothing there to see, there just hasn't been any reason to fly there. (Although God knows I've picked up enough family and friends there!)

I've been to Galveston a brazillon times, but we always park at the museum. The one time I tried to buy oil there at the FBO, it was $10 (!) a quart. I said "Nope" and never went back to THAT FBO again.

We've been to maybe 20 other Texas airports in our 15 months here, from Lockhart to Sinton to Weiser Airpark, and everything in between. Never seen a line guy yet. Heck, we've rarely found an open FBO. All the airports down here look they were hit with neutron bombs, with everything unchanged and unmoved since the last WWII guy sold his plane.

Now, of course, remember we rarely get to fly on weekends. Maybe they come back to life on Saturdays?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Gentlemen, and I assume Ladies too, thank you for all your info. i have been busy at work since my last post but certainly love all the info you have all given me. I am getting a base knowledge of these planes and will certainly look at others as well. I am in no rush so I am trying to educate myself. Thanks again.

That is a good approach. It took me six months to find my first plane, and I still ended up getting somewhat burned. It's not an easy dance to learn.

Right now, I'm starting the process of looking for our next plane. I'm not expecting to buy for two more years -- but I've started the education process now, knowing what is to come. It's just too big of a purchase to take lightly.

Seriously, if you buy either type of plane, you will be happy -- so long as you get a mechanically sound copy. The pre-buy inspection by a trusted mechanic is all-important.

Good luck!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But of course you always climb up on the strut or a ladder to visually check the fuel level and caps, right? :wink2:

Yes. No wink. We keep a mini-ladder (the three-step variety) in the baggage compartment for just that purpose. I sump and stick the tanks prior to every flight... And to me, it's easier to go up a three-step ladder to do so than it is to crawl around on the ground to get the sample in the first place. But, it's not so big of a difference as to make the choice between high wing and low wing, and I'm sure that people who are shorter than me (I'm 6'4") might feel differently about the ease of seeing into a 182 tank on a small stepladder.

 

[Jim_R]

I've been to Galveston a brazillon times, but we always park at the museum. The one time I tried to buy oil there at the FBO, it was $10 (!) a quart. I said "Nope" and never went back to THAT FBO again.

Dunno when you were there last. The current FBO's been in operation since Aug 2009, after Ike knocked the last one out. They'd been operating out of a temporary building, but the main terminal has just reopened (in March) after post-Ike reconstruction. I had very friendly service there yesterday.

Now, of course, remember we rarely get to fly on weekends. Maybe they come back to life on Saturdays?

I know the Baytown folks are there during daylight hours 7 days a week; I've been keeping them busy this week!

 

[Jay Honeck]

Dunno when you were there last. The current FBO's been in operation since Aug 2009, after Ike knocked the last one out. They'd been operating out of a temporary building, but the main terminal has just reopened (in March) after post-Ike reconstruction. I had very friendly service there yesterday.

That was our first trip to Galveston, so it would've been mid-to-late 2010. They were still in their temporary building.

They were friendly enough, once I found them. But $10 for a quart of oil was just a bit over the top, IMHO. Not what I call a warm "Glad to see ya!"

I know the Baytown folks are there during daylight hours 7 days a week; I've been keeping them busy this week!

Never been to that side of Houston yet. What's to see over that-away?

 

[Jim_R]

That was our first trip to Galveston, so it would've been mid-to-late 2010. They were still in their temporary building.

They were friendly enough, once I found them. But $10 for a quart of oil was just a bit over the top, IMHO. Not what I call a warm "Glad to see ya!"

Maybe not. I carry oil with me, so I haven't a clue what the going rate is for oil at "foreign" FBOs. I (and my 67-yo CFII) appreciated their cart ride to Moody Gardens, though.

Never been to that side of Houston yet. What's to see over that-away?

Aside from line guys running out to help you at a "Self Service" pump and reasonable gas prices? Honestly, not much! : ) You'll get a good aerial view of the ship channel, though, and there's a VFR corridor between IAH and HOU class B that goes just north of downtown that's a nice sightseeing flight. That's about all I can offer...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Dunno when you were there last. The current FBO's been in operation since Aug 2009, after Ike knocked the last one out. They'd been operating out of a temporary building, but the main terminal has just reopened (in March) after post-Ike reconstruction. I had very friendly service there yesterday.

At $10/qt for oil, they'd better be REALLY friendly!

 

[Jay Honeck]

Maybe not. I carry oil with me, so I haven't a clue what the going rate is for oil at "foreign" FBOs. I (and my 67-yo CFII) appreciated their cart ride to Moody Gardens, though.

Next time you go to Moody Gardens, park at the Lone Star museum. You can cut through the museum and walk to the restaurant.

Then, on the way back, you can either pay to see the museum, or just cut through again. We always try to buy something in their gift shop, regardless, just for letting us pass through.

Aside from line guys running out to help you at a "Self Service" pump and reasonable gas prices? Honestly, not much! : ) You'll get a good aerial view of the ship channel, though, and there's a VFR corridor between IAH and HOU class B that goes just north of downtown that's a nice sightseeing flight. That's about all I can offer...

No fud? No Jay and Mary. That's the way this works.

Next time you're in Houston area, land at Weiser Air Park. It's a little slice of Americana, very busy, and (best of all) Carl's BBQ right through the fence!