1963 Piper Cherokee - Any thoughts on this one?

CC268

CC268

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
5,532
Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Dad and I are thinking about going to take a look at this guy: https://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/for/5605958001.html

What do you guys think? We are just looking for a nice plane to build some hours in and possibly something I can do my instrument rating in. Would love something with an autopilot for those longer cross countries...but its not a huge deal
 
get the N number, order the CD from the FAA with all the mantenance reports and records, costs about $5. Then do a search on the N mumber online for anything and wverything. Next, the only way this carries 4 people with full fuel is if one or 2 are small or children.

Third, if your serious go get the articles from the AOPA website about buying an airplane, including escrow, pre-buy inspections, etc.

Call and ask why they are selling. And what the price is....I didn't notice it on the ad. The seller is in Scottsdale, you be able to find his phone number without much effort. Check the FAAs N number registry.

Last - don't rush.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
... Next, the only way this carries 4 people with full fuel is if one or 2 are small or children.
Click to expand...

How did you figure that? 1090 useful load. Likely 50 gal total fuel capacity (typical for that vintage of Cherokee) = 300 lbs. Leaves 790 full fuel payload, or just under 200 lbs per passenger. Seems pretty decent to me, unless you're carrying Green Bay Packers.

These older Cherokees are a LOT lighter empty weights than the later versions and have decent useful loads.
 
GRG55 said:
How did you figure that? 1090 useful load. Likely 50 gal total fuel capacity (typical for that vintage of Cherokee) = 300 lbs. Leaves 790 full fuel payload, or just under 200 lbs per passenger. Seems pretty decent to me, unless you're carrying Green Bay Packers.

These older Cherokees are a LOT lighter empty weights than the later versions and have decent useful loads.
Click to expand...
No, not really. Most 180s are empty around 1400#, Aircraft weight, max weight is 2400, the 300# for fuel, leaving 700# but the kicker is the CG. Now consider the impact of density altitude in the summer anywhere, wven more critical in Arizona. I used to live in Phoenix, and most of the time in the summer, even the commercial airlines won't fill an airplane due to the temps.
 
States it's 1090 useful load in the OP's ad link; not surprising given the vintage. My '61 Cherokee 160 w/Hershey bar wing had a gross of 2200 (the later semi-tapered wing Warriors had a 2400 lb gross) and a useful load of 940 lbs.
I don't know the location of the OP, but I fly out of a 4000 ft ASL airport and because of that my attitude towards my airplanes is useful load is very important. That's one reason I thought this candidate looked interesting.

As for CG, it's pretty difficult (but certainly not impossible) to go out the back limit of a Cherokee, and the main problem with them is with only front seat passengers they tend to be a bit too much forward CG and thump the nose wheel after touchdown with flaps, when one runs out of stabilator authority. I always carried tools and other weight in the rear baggage compartment if only the two front seats were occupied in mine.

However, if the OP (or anyone else) wishes to carry full fuel and 4 large, adult passengers out of high density altitude airports I recommend an Aztec :D ;)
 
Last edited:
Off the add, looks good to me
 
I had a 1965 180C and it was a good load hauler and cruised almost as fast as a 182. Flew it in the hot desert several times and it performed fine. You won't get 1000fpm but you'll always get a positive rate of climb.
 
Odd thing in the ad... no demo ride before deposit? Not sure if that's a craigs-list artifact or an indication of PITA seller.

Plane looks worthy of consideration.
 
Looks like it's been pretty well cared for by just looking at the photos. Mid time engine doesn't mean too much, it could well exceed recommended tbo, however, there are a lot of variables when he says it can carry 4 people AND full fuel.
 
rolivi said:
Odd thing in the ad... no demo ride before deposit? Not sure if that's a craigs-list artifact or an indication of PITA seller.

Plane looks worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...
I saw that, too. I figured he would take someone for a ride if it looked serious surely no one gives a deposit without flying in it.
Anyway, panel is dated but functional. I flew a 180 for a year or so. Back seat space was tight. Overall it's a great plane.
As to the OP's comment about autopilot, it's not necessary but very nice to have. If you want one, get a plane that already has it because it's a 10k+ option to add later.
 
Looks like a well priced aircraft for time building.
 
GRG55 said:
How did you figure that? 1090 useful load. Likely 50 gal total fuel capacity (typical for that vintage of Cherokee) = 300 lbs. Leaves 790 full fuel payload, or just under 200 lbs per passenger. Seems pretty decent to me, unless you're carrying Green Bay Packers.

These older Cherokees are a LOT lighter empty weights than the later versions and have decent useful loads.
Click to expand...

The only way you're getting full size people in those back seats is to cut them off at the knees. Otherwise, a Hershey bar 180 is a pretty nice airplane. Climbs good, easy to land, good in x-wind. Worth a look, imho.
As for panel upgrade, thisone is perfect for the DYNON stc. Might even get an autopilot out of it before long.

The GX is only enroute, but you've got a GSso IFR training is possible. You'll get used to the shotgun scan.
 
Last edited:
It looks good and take a look. Don't let the "Tire Kicker" in the ad intimidate you. This investment requires a full due diligence by you and a mechanic. Have him take you up in it and be willing to pay for fuel for 1 Hr or so. The seller should be flexible on that, you want to check initially to make sure things work like it's suppose to and you are comfortable in the airplane, if you are not then there is no reason to move forward.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
The only way you're getting full size people in those back seats is to cut them off at the knees. Otherwise, a Hershey bar 180 is a pretty nice airplane. Climbs good, easy to land, good in x-wind. Worth a look, imho.
...
Click to expand...

Correct if one is measuring it against Comanche standards.

But the rear seat in a Cherokee is a bit more useful than you imply. I am 6'-4" and was over 200lb when I owned a 160 and had no trouble carrying 3 adults in it - in that lower hp plane ran out of full fuel payload long before I ran out of cabin space.
 
I bet you were in the front seat.
I had a 66 for 20 years before I bought the Comanche, so I have a little experience with it. Any third adult in the back was generally a petite wife, with the right seat pulled way up.
 
Thanks guys! No need to get caught up in the 4 people thing...not a big deal for us...the panel does look quite old...those avionics look like they might be from around 1500 B.C. :D

Anyways carry on the useful load argument fellow pilots of America! Whoever wins the argument gets a free ride!

I thought the "no demo rides" was a bit odd too?

Thanks for the feedback though
 
Last edited:
I have similar Bendix/King navcoms in my '78 172. Good news is, they work great. Bad news is, if they ever stop working great, it can be difficult to get them fixed. Parts can be difficult to come by, and some shops just won't work on them at all.

Cherokee 180 is a nice choice. The cowl is a little less sleek than on the newer (1964 and later) models, but this one has the big clamshell doors that gives easy access to the engine for preflight inspection and maintenance.
 
I guess the big question for me is - can I do my instrument training in this plane? It says IFR capable in the ad...
 
Sure, why not? It has precision and non-precision approach capability. Do you good, flying the needles instead of the magenta line....
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Sure, why not? It has precision and non-precision approach capability. Do you good, flying the needles instead of the magenta line....
Click to expand...

Besides, he will have his essential iPad that he needed assistance buying a few weeks ago to supplement this capability. Hopefully he was able to make the hard decision on which iPad to purchase before he starts looking at airplanes.
 
KA550 said:
Besides, he will have his essential iPad that he needed assistance buying a few weeks ago to supplement this capability. Hopefully he was able to make the hard decision on which iPad to purchase before he starts looking at airplanes.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is a joke or...?
 
CC268 said:
Thanks guys! No need to get caught up in the 4 people thing...not a big deal for us...the panel does look quite old...those avionics look like they might be from around 1500 B.C. :D

Anyways carry on the useful load argument fellow pilots of America! Whoever wins the argument gets a free ride!

I thought the "no demo rides" was a bit odd too?

Thanks for the feedback though
Click to expand...

I can understand both sides. The seller doesn't want to fly everyone around on his dime who are not serious...(It doesn't make it right or wrong) that is why offering to pay for 1 hour of gas will probably be the cheapest investment you can make in this situation. You can hear how the engine sounds, How the plane handles in the air, If the instruments work..etc If something doesn't work how much will it cost to repair...you want to know as much as you can before moving forward.
 
Looks good for what it is. Haters gotta hate, but if the mission is for the OP and his sire to go flying and some IFR training, airplane should do just fine. Folks must do really different things than me. I could count the number of times I used the back seat on mine on the fingers of one hand. That's good too, only way I can do arithmetic.
 
CC268 said:
...Anyways carry on the useful load argument fellow pilots of America! Whoever wins the argument gets a free ride!

...
Click to expand...

Only if I get a front seat ;)
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I bet you were in the front seat.
I had a 66 for 20 years before I bought the Comanche, so I have a little experience with it. Any third adult in the back was generally a petite wife, with the right seat pulled way up.
Click to expand...

You guys are probably arguing about different things.

A 66' 180 would of been pre-stretch and yeah they are tight. He said he owned a Warrior (160). I don't think they even made Warriors before the 72/73 stretching they did to the fuesalage. The back seats did become pretty usable at that point. I had 6 foot plus guys in the back of a Warrior before. They were fine.
 
KA550 said:
Besides, he will have his essential iPad that he needed assistance buying a few weeks ago to supplement this capability. Hopefully he was able to make the hard decision on which iPad to purchase before he starts looking at airplanes.
Click to expand...
You're making all sorts of friends this month.
 
The 160 referred to could have been a 140 with the 160hp high compression piston STC. That's how I read it anyway.

I agree with you though, once the taper wing came out the back seat got usable.
 
rolivi said:
Odd thing in the ad... no demo ride before deposit? Not sure if that's a craigs-list artifact or an indication of PITA seller.

Plane looks worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

Or it could be that he's tired of PITA tire kicking "buyers" who just are wasting his time and gas. Craigslist is likely full of them.

Chip Sylverne said:
The 160 referred to could have been a 140 with the 160hp high compression piston STC. That's how I read it anyway.
Click to expand...

That's how I read it too. Also, FWIW, I would occasionally have a third person ride in the back of my old Cherokee 140. While it was definitely less comfortable than my current Bonanza back seat, I don't recall anyone really complaining.
 
rolivi said:
Odd thing in the ad... no demo ride before deposit? Not sure if that's a craigs-list artifact or an indication of PITA seller.

Plane looks worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what a jackass. I'd pass on that attitude alone, gonna be a pain to deal with.
 
Well, he did say no deposits without a down payment(which I'd assume is refunable), so he's probably trying to avoid giving free rides to tire kickers.

Nice airplane, I myself am a fan of a standard 6-pack layout for instrument flying with the CDI nearby instead of on the other side of the radio stack. That layout is workable, but I would hate it.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Nice airplane, I myself am a fan of a standard 6-pack layout for instrument flying with the CDI nearby instead of on the other side of the radio stack. That layout is workable, but I would hate it.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, you get accustomed to flying non-standard layout panels. Ideally, I'd change it to a standard layout but I wouldn't worry too much about it either.
 
I think that is probably why I'd hate it, because of what i'm used to.

Starting from scratch, it probably won't bother anyone that much.
 
I have always insisted on paying for fuel used on pre-purchase flights. Of course, I never ran across someone that declined my offer. :D

I offer during the initial contact conversation. It lets the owner know you aren't a joyrider. IMO it sets a positive tone for further discussions.

It's not a huge deal, but placing yourself in a positive light with the owner helps a little.
 
Surprised the guy isn't demanding a credit check and financial statement.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I think that is probably why I'd hate it, because of what i'm used to.

Starting from scratch, it probably won't bother anyone that much.
Click to expand...

I got my ifr with a shotgun panel. You get used to it. As a matter of fact, you find yourself flying more needle, ball and airspeed because the AI is so far to the right, it's just easier to use what's in front of you. That ain't necessarily a bad thing.
 
Looks like a great 180, and yes the back seat leg room is a little tight, but it is workable... the extra power of the 180 really helps, my '67 140 with the same engine is really a delight to fly, just went from So Cal to Southern Utah last weekend, 600 miles and 5 hours total, so much better than driving!.. 8.6 gal burn average. having the added power over the 140 is something I was most interested in as flying up high is great.. I mostly fly at 9,500 to 10,500... cool and smoother. Having the power to get there sooner helps keep the others inside happy. I have one radio, and IFR to me is following roads so that panel looks complete... the hours are in-line with what one would want, and will provide years of flying capability..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top