According to the owners manual, the fixed-pitch Cherokee 235 is a couple mph faster in cruise than with the constant-speed prop. But as expected, takeoff and climb are a little better with the constant-speed.
I remember sitting right seat in my friend's 180D (partnership) watchin trucks on the Interstate passing and motoring away from us. Hmm, the Tiger was compared to the Arrow. And I flight planned the Tiger at 132. Archers at 130? Really?
Assuming I had calibrated the ASI on this one, I guess I could get past 120 every now and then. Don't know what my altitude was on this one.
There really aren’t many FP 235’s left out there. I believe It became an option and then was was dropped after the B model. From my understanding the climb rate is substantially reduced from the CS prop (someone told me 650fpm) but cruise similar. The guy here that posted earlier with the FP 235 will be able to state specifically what the climb rate is. FWIW, I can climb at over 1k ft/min with a my 235 C model CS fully loaded. Slows a little after 6-7k but will pull all the way to altitude. I wouldn’t get a FP 235 for resale considerations.
If I ever downsize from a PA32 I would think the 235/236 would be what I would take before going back to a 181.
Here's one ... https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...EROKEE+235&listing_id=2405953&s-type=aircraft Fixed-pitch was standard, and constant-speed an extra-cost option, through the 1972 "235F". This is from the brochure for the 1970 235D:
1964 model FP 235 would climb quite vigorously initially but fade higher. Granted was almost always flown one- or two-up. Hersey bar wing would quit flying exactly when you wanted it too, which was a plus but could surprise the unaware or Cessna driver. Would turn 182 speeds on a more fuel. Maybe 125 ktas unless opened up, maybe 137 ktas higher but it’s been 30 years so may be off.
Archer II, I went up on a cold winter day with the barometer at 30.65. Best I could, WOT level at 3000ft was 130 kts indicated. I was happy with that! -Skip
Probably about right for a winter's day - around 134 ktas. A 235 could probably do 142 ktas in the same conditions - same airframe, bigger engine, but horsepower does little for cruise speed just climb and payload. But these are going to be in the 75%+ power range, not at all economical.
You are right! At WOT the enrichment plumbing the carburetor is wide open, and that fuel, she does flow! But it was fun! -Skip
There looks to be a sizeable price difference. Looks to be around $30k ish. Another thing to consider.
Extra horsepower usually helps with payload much more than airspeed/efficiency. If you need the useful load, 235 is the way to go, efficiency and economy more important l, go with 180. Speed difference is 15 kts at best. Few 235 get better than 14gph while 9gph for 180. 2 or less souls, 180, 3 or more, 235. I’ve owned both.
Beg to disagree on the fuel burn and performance. My 1968 235 C - 12.5 GPH at 10k 152 MPH (132KTAS). Having said that, she’s no Mooney speed wise. If the mission doesn’t need the bigger engine the more efficient 180 is a good choice. I use my 235 for x-c and family hauler. Most flights are near gross wt 2900lbs
Other than climb rate and/or payload, the best way to utilize the extra power of an oversized naturally aspirated engine is to fly at high altitude, where the bigger engine can still make enough power in thin, low drag air while not burning so much extra fuel. That was BTW why the Comanche 400 exists.
Comanche 400 is one of my dream planes. Until you need an overhaul, of course and then it’s a nightmare. My A&P has one…. OH costs nearly 70k.
When flying with the family in my 181, with the exception when the kids were small, we (me + 3 ladies and their baggage) were always at gross. Really true, as you have stated for any non-turbo IC engine in that high altitude will lower available HP, but the fuel saving is very healthy and associated with less loss in ground speed because of the thin air. In general also, the higher altitude air is smoother giving a comfortable ride for all.The only exceptions are icing considerations higher up or hellacious headwinds at higher up that can be mitigated much lower(unless really turbulent). But for me, in my 181, the usual increased headwind from the west higher up is outweighed by the increased efficiency, and comfort with minimal loss in ETE.
With my 180, I get 145mph(125kts) at 6-8T on 8.5 gph at gross(if I’m up for4 hours) the first hour would be 10 gph)
Let's not. remember that AI, in the form of things like ChatGPT, is designed to generate text that sounds good, but there is zero fact checking. FWIW, I usually get a bit better cruise in my 235, but my ceiling is only 12,000 feet. That's unusual for the 235; most are higher, but check your specific model if this matters to you. Mine is the '73 with the hershey bar wing. Mine is also the first one with the extra 5 inches of space for the back seats, which is something that I definitely appreciate, but if you're almost always solo it won't matter so much of course.
The 1973 redesign in the -180 and -235 (1972 for the Arrow) involved not only the longer fuselage, but also more wingspan (in the -180 and Arrow only, matching the -235's 32' wingspan), longer stabilator and more weight. Stands to reason that performance would be degraded somewhat, but the extra cabin room was well worth it.
I don't have the need for a -235, but I'm always astounded by the 1400+ pound useful loads on some of the ones listed for sale. Full fuel and 4 200 pounders? Sure, what else do ya' got???
This seems quite optimistic unless you are flying very light and very high. Our club has an Archer and a 180 and I don't think I've ever seen 130 in them.
I think the 73 (Charger) had that low service ceiling. The 74 (Pathfinder) improved that quite a bit, and then the Dakota has a higher ceiling still.
Piper quoted service ceiling of 12,000' for the 1973 Cherokee Charger, and 13,550' for the 1974 Cherokee Pathfinder. I'm suspicious of that, though. There was no difference between them other than the name, the paint job and the shape of the windows -- not enough to account for another 1,550 feet of climb.
That's true. I have recalled something somewhere that explained the difference, but I can't recall where. It's the same engine as the early 235's and the Charger.
I can attest to the fact that the 12,000 ceiling for the Charger is pretty accurate. I can creep a little above that slowly if the conditions are good, but not enough to be very useful.
I believe the 12,000' number. But I would doubt the 13,550' quoted for the 1974-77 models (gross weight, ISA, etc., etc.) It wouldn't surprise me if the sudden and otherwise unexplainable increase were driven by the marketing department, smarting from hearing about the competitor C-182P's lofty service ceiling of 17,700'. Service ceiling is not necessarily an objective or verifiable measure.
The POH for the Pathfinder lists 13550 for the service ceiling and 15, 500 as the "absolute" ceiling. That really is a shift from the Charger (12,000//13,900). It might be hype, but I'm wondering if maybe a change in some other system, like more efficient exhaust, different air intake, different propeller? Not arguing here, just trying to analyze the possibilities.
According to “The Cherokee Tribe” by Terry Lee Rogers, which is considered the “bible” of Cherokees, the only difference between the Pathfinder and the Charger (Charger was 1973 only) was “a higher degree of luxury of appointment and new soundproofing, including a 1/4 inch windshield”. Service ceiling etc was identical. In other words, the Pathfinder had nicer crushed velveteen velour seats and carpet and a slightly quieter cabin to listen to Kool and the Gang on your portable 8 track!
Got a very respectable 10.9 GPH on my ‘68 235 C at 6,500 ft 138MPH TAS. Not speeding along in the least but wanted to see what sort of economy I could get. 150MPH+ TAS if I enriched to about 11.5 - 12.0 GPH
Tell me about the leg room in the rear seats? Would a medium height pilot, say 6 feet even, be able to move the pilot seat forward enough to make room in the back? That 68-72 model seems to have it all except for the rear seat.
Yes, I’m 6 ft 265lbs. With my seat in the most comfortable position for me there’s room in the back. My wife is 135 - when her seat is moved up in there is even more. I suppose it depends on how large the people in the back are although I have sat in the back a few times and its ok. It’s the same leg room as a similar year Cherokee 180.
For me personally it was too much of a performance hit to go for the Charger/Pathfinder, especially in the relatively high and hot DA of Las Vegas where I live. If you want the extra legroom in the back and the performance then a Dakota is probably the best fit. I looked for one for some time and had 2 fall out of prebuy before I made the decision on a 235. I’ve been REALLY happy with my ‘68.
