Cherokee 140/160

G

GauzeGuy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
376
Location
KBJC
Display Name
Display name:
GauzeGuy
I'm doing some plane shopping and am leaning towards a PA-28 with the 160hp STC. I'm aiming for a plane that will meet 80% of my mission: solo XC flights within about 300-350 nm. I figure I can always rent a 182 if needed.
In looking around, it seems I'm able to get a bit more for the money with a Piper as opposed to a Cessna.

One big consideration is how the aircraft will perform at Colorado altitudes. Will the 160hp PA28 perform in a similar manner to a 172N, or do they tend to perform better? How about a Cherokee 140 without the upgraded engine?

Are there any odd maintenance issues to watch out for with the 140's?
 
I have owned a 140 for about 3 1/2 years. It has a 150 HP engine. They are great planes with good useful load (mine is 860). They are a trainer and so very docile, very much like a 172. I think the Cherokees are probably the best bargain out there right now. That said, it looks like you are out of Denver and this probably isn't enough plane for that altitude. My Dad lives in Big Bear (6,700 feet) and I can only do that in the dead cold of winter with a light load. Cherokees aren't climbers. I regularly fly 300 mile missions (one way) and it is great for that, but I want to be able to visit my Dad year round and make a trip to Tucson now and again, so I am trying to sell and looking at partnering with a guy on a Cherokee 235.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Thanks. Will the additional 10hp with the STC make all that much of a difference in the climb?

I suppose there's always the option of a climb prop but that will not be a good thing for XC speed either...
 
The climb prop will help a little. 10 HP will help, but I would be looking at at least 180 HP in any plane, if I were you. People fly Cessna 150's out of Tahoe, but I wouldn't do it. There is no power or margin to get you out of trouble.
 
I flew a C152M and N models with a 160hp engine out of KAPA at 5,800 feet.

When it's 85 degrees and there's 2 adult males in the plane we never got above 250-300fpm on the initial climb out.
 
Don't. Go for something with180 hp. You do want to at least take off in the summer around here, right? Most of the Colorado bunch have min 180 hp and there's a good reason. Summers are killers i more ways than one. Took a friend out of KAPA in late June, headed to KPUB for lunch. After less than 15 min, called back to the tower saying we needed to return and land. No emergency, but over lunch ( at Perfect Landing, of course) we determined the DA at our altitude, 8500 msl was over 14k and we still hadn't reached cruise alt and the ceiling for my cherokee 180 hp is 15.5.

If you're not going to fly west, you can get away with the 150 or 160 hp, but you won't like it because you'll be missing a lot of great places to fly.

Rule of thumb when looking for your first airplane - don't rush.

Hm...looking at a cherokee based at Erie? If so, pm me for more details.
 
Last edited:
Yup - 180 or 235 if you can swing it. I've seen really nice 235's for under $50k. I fly one - trust me, you'll love the power. :)
 
Agree that Pipers are generally a better value than Cezznas which is one of the reasons I have one.

Agree with Blanche that the 160 comes up a bit short on HP in the summer. I watched one have a tough time on turf on a hot day and that was near sea level.

Greg has mentioned that 10-High may have openings and they have a very nice Dakota but that may be a higher fuel burn than you want. Don't know if you're interested in a partnership/club anyway.
 
mcoflyer said:
I flew a C152M and N models with a 160hp engine out of KAPA at 5,800 feet.

When it's 85 degrees and there's 2 adult males in the plane we never got above 250-300fpm on the initial climb out.
Click to expand...
A Cherokee is much heavier than a C-152.
 
A 140/160 plus the Art Mattson (Pipermods.com) prop tip mod could be considered a 140/170. The mod doesn't give you any HP obviously but it does increase the prop efficiency giving you about the same thrust increase as an aditional 10 HP would.
 
I think 180 HP is the minimum I'd want around here. My initial solo was in a C-150 and it was lethargic in winter. We switched to a 172 to finish up when Summer came around.
 
GauzeGuy said:
Thanks. Will the additional 10hp with the STC make all that much of a difference in the climb?
Click to expand...
If you're only flying it solo, a 160HP Cherokee 140 will do just fine in Denver. Even with one other person, it should be quite adequate. Just don't load it to max gross in the summer, and you'll be fine.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're only flying it solo, a 160HP Cherokee 140 will do just fine in Denver. Even with one other person, it should be quite adequate. Just don't load it to max gross in the summer, and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

In Denver. Not West. Everyone I know who's bought a 140 sold it within a year or two. They're dogs up here. Seems like such a great deal on paper.
 
denverpilot said:
In Denver. Not West.
Click to expand...
I've flown a pseudo-160HP Cheetah across the Rockies and back in July with two adults and baggage, and a PA28's wing will give better takeoff climb performance. I've also flown a full-gross-loaded 180 Cherokee across the Rockies and back. I'm comfortable that for one person, and even an occasional two, a 160 HP PA-28 will safely satisfy the OP's stated requirements, especially if he limits himself to "tabs" fuel when there are two aboard.
Everyone I know who's bought a 140 sold it within a year or two. They're dogs up here. Seems like such a great deal on paper.
Click to expand...
First, this airplane has an extra 10 HP. Second, the OP said he's planning to fly it well below MGW. That changes everything from a fully-loaded stock 140 Cherokee.

Now, would the OP be happier in the long run with a 180 HP Cherokee? Almost certainly. But if that's not in the OP's budget right now, what he proposed should do well for the foreseeable future as long as he sticks with the loads he proposed.
 
Last edited:
None of my buddies flew their 140s fully loaded. They still sold them. There's a point where you're just trying too hard to wring water out of a stone.

If I just needed something to fly really bad a 140 is great for a single owner on a limited budget no doubt. He'd be better off joining Greg's club or a co-ownership with a more capable plane.
 
denverpilot said:
None of my buddies flew their 140s fully loaded. They still sold them. There's a point where you're just trying too hard to wring water out of a stone.
Click to expand...
Maybe your buddies wanted more than necessary. :dunno: Just saying a 140 Cherokee with a 160HP STC is adequate for the stated purpose.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe your buddies wanted more than necessary. :dunno: Just saying a 140 Cherokee with a 160HP STC is adequate for the stated purpose.
Click to expand...

Tell ya what Ron, fly a 160 hp aircraft out of BJC for a year and then get back with us. I've done it and I purchased well over 160 when I bought. As always YMWV but you don't see that many 160's up here other than flight school service.
 
In the summer the densitiy altitude gets up to 10,000...and it ain't pretty.

Will a 160hp cherokee fly? Yes. Will you enjoy the 250 fpm climb? I didn't.

I remember doing work in the pattern and I would almost be turning base before I reached pattern altitude. That's AFTER doing about 1 hour of flying and with 2 people in the plane.

A 180hp airplane isn't that much more...if you can spare some $$$ you'll get a lot more out of it imho.
 
I left Front Range east bound on an IFR clearance once in a 150HP Cherokee Climbing as fast as I could, ATC still felt that it was necessary to remind me what altitude I had been cleared to.
 
mcoflyer said:
In the summer the densitiy altitude gets up to 10,000...and it ain't pretty.

Will a 160hp cherokee fly? Yes. Will you enjoy the 250 fpm climb? I didn't.

I remember doing work in the pattern and I would almost be turning base before I reached pattern altitude. That's AFTER doing about 1 hour of flying and with 2 people in the plane.

A 180hp airplane isn't that much more...if you can spare some $$$ you'll get a lot more out of it imho.
Click to expand...

Roger that. I remember my mountain checkout, departing KLXV with a DA of over 11000 in a PA-28R-201 was no picnic. That was with me, my CFI and partial fuel. It took a lot of runway to get going, and I'm glad there wasn't much climbing to be done for a while...
 
I appreciate all of the feedback.

Since the majority of my 250 hours have been spent in the Denver area, I'm well aware what effect density altitude will have on the climb rate of any aircraft. I fully plan on using a 182 to head west when the need arises. I have no delusions on how a Cherokee 140 will do in the mountains...

So to reiterate my other question: will the Cherokee with 160hp climb similar to a Cessna 172 with 160hp? I know what the Cessna 172N will do; I'm trying to determine if the Cherokee is similar...

Also, to those who advised me of the issue with the local PA-28 for sale: thanks. I wasn't looking at that one, but will be sure to steer well clear...
 
GauzeGuy said:
I appreciate all of the feedback.

Since the majority of my 250 hours have been spent in the Denver area, I'm well aware what effect density altitude will have on the climb rate of any aircraft. I fully plan on using a 182 to head west when the need arises. I have no delusions on how a Cherokee 140 will do in the mountains...

So to reiterate my other question: will the Cherokee with 160hp climb similar to a Cessna 172 with 160hp? I know what the Cessna 172N will do; I'm trying to determine if the Cherokee is similar...

Also, to those who advised me of the issue with the local PA-28 for sale: thanks. I wasn't looking at that one, but will be sure to steer well clear...
Click to expand...

Yes, they will perform about the same.
 
GauzeGuy said:
will the Cherokee with 160hp climb similar to a Cessna 172 with 160hp? I know what the Cessna 172N will do; I'm trying to determine if the Cherokee is similar...
Click to expand...
With the same power, a C172 will get off the ground quicker, climb faster and higher, and glide farther, than a Hershey-bar-wing PA-28-140. The 172 has more wing area, a higher aspect ratio, and an airfoil with less induced drag at high AOA.

A taper-wing PA-28 with the same engine (i.e., a Warrior) will perform more similarly to the 172.
 
I went up to KLXV with a Comanche 250 and it climbed fine with just 2 of us and also partial fuel. I wouldn't even try to go up there in a 180HP 172.
 
Pilawt said:
With the same power, a C172 will get off the ground quicker, climb faster and higher, and glide farther, than a Hershey-bar-wing PA-28-140. The 172 has more wing area, a higher aspect ratio, and an airfoil with less induced drag at high AOA.

A taper-wing PA-28 with the same engine (i.e., a Warrior) will perform more similarly to the 172.
Click to expand...

Not true. The Cherokee 140 actually has a slightly better glide ratio than the equivalent 172 (this one has been beat to death in other threads.

mepy4aby.jpg


gytejepu.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Graueradler said:
I left Front Range east bound on an IFR clearance once in a 150HP Cherokee Climbing as fast as I could, ATC still felt that it was necessary to remind me what altitude I had been cleared to.
Click to expand...

Heh. This made me chuckle. ;)
 
mcoflyer said:
I went up to KLXV with a Comanche 250 and it climbed fine with just 2 of us and also partial fuel. I wouldn't even try to go up there in a 180HP 172.
Click to expand...

Done it in a Cherokee 180 with 3 people and full fuel. However, by the time we got out of Denver, over Wilkerson Pass, then over the park, then over the hills into the Leadville/Buena Vista/Salida valley, (a bit over an hour) the fuel was at 40 gal or so, and no problems into Leadville. Of course that was in May.

I do Leadville frequently in the summer starting with full fuel (altho Leadville usually has cheaper fuel that Denver area) and 2 people, not 3.
 
It's not enough to just talk about a 160hp cherokee 140. You need to know which prop is on the plane, the original 140 prop or one that has been repitched so that it's the same prop a warrior has. [edit: the 160hp warrier or the pa-28-160]

When I upgraded my 140 to 160hp I also repitched the prop so get better cruise performance. But I flew the plane out KBED (125' MSL). (btw - It still climbed better then before the upgrade).

I would expect that you would want to have a climb prop on the 160hp cherokee 140 when flying out of higher elevation airports.
 
Last edited:
mcoflyer said:
I went up to KLXV with a Comanche 250 and it climbed fine with just 2 of us and also partial fuel. I wouldn't even try to go up there in a 180HP 172.
Click to expand...

They used to (maybe still do) train using a 150 hp 172 out of LXV. Pretty strict rules on temperatures and load though. A 180 hp 172 w/two aboard and light bags is fine in the hills.
 
go for a 180 or 235 if you can afford it. I moved out to Denver from Seattle with a Cherokee 140 with the 160 STC. Sold it and bought a 235 the first year I was out here. Love the 235.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The 160 for most trips then rent the 182 for west-bound trips sounds good but....how often will you need to rent the 182 because you want to go to Steamboat or other places? If you expect to very rarely go west, this makes sense. But I think you'll find that living out here, you'll want to travel west more than you think.

Next issue...even if most of your trips are going east, just remember you'll be flying west to come home, and the winds are never in your favor. I've seen 168 MPH going east to OSH i the cherokee 180. Coming home? The cars on I80 were going faster than I was.
 
Bob Noel said:
But who was travelling in the most enjoyable manner?
Click to expand...

Having flown and driven Denver - OSH....

The car had AC, stereo, incredibly convenient to stop & stretch, more room to load luggage (I had to ship a couple boxes back when flying), cheaper gas, etc.

Due to winds I had to stop at SUX overnight. In the car, I usually overnight in either Omaha or Des Moines, depending on the direction.

If you really want a pragmatic justification to fly, aint none.
 
murphey said:
Having flown and driven Denver - OSH....

The car had AC, stereo, incredibly convenient to stop & stretch, more room to load luggage (I had to ship a couple boxes back when flying), cheaper gas, etc.

Due to winds I had to stop at SUX overnight. In the car, I usually overnight in either Omaha or Des Moines, depending on the direction.

If you really want a pragmatic justification to fly, aint none.
Click to expand...

Well, for the person from whom (who?) flying is just about getting from point A to point B, then that person simply has no soul and is beyond help. ;)
 
murphey said:
Having flown and driven Denver - OSH....

The car had AC, stereo, incredibly convenient to stop & stretch, more room to load luggage (I had to ship a couple boxes back when flying), cheaper gas, etc.

Due to winds I had to stop at SUX overnight. In the car, I usually overnight in either Omaha or Des Moines, depending on the direction.

If you really want a pragmatic justification to fly, aint none.
Click to expand...

I've also done that in both the 182 and the Yukon. The big difference wasn't so much in motion as the amount of comfortable camping gear I could haul in the 182 vs the Yukon. ;)

Thus... Why I'm hunting a 5th wheel trailer now. For the off years when it's not my turn to fly the airplane to OSH or it's down for MX like this year.

Mr. Quiet Honda generator will let me charge my gadgets without hanging around the bath house for hours too. (As well as other folks' gadgets. Heh.)
 
Thanks for all of the feedback.

I called regarding the PA28, it is based at KAPA and was just used by a guy for his PPL. Assuming he was training during the summer and it managed to haul a CFI and student, it would probably work.

In the same call, I also learned there was a Dakota that I may be able to buy into at KFTG. I'm going to look into that.

I also see that I can probably get into a M20 B or C for about (or less than) the cost of a Cherokee 180. There are quite a few options out there...
 
GauzeGuy said:
Thanks for all of the feedback.

I called regarding the PA28, it is based at KAPA and was just used by a guy for his PPL. Assuming he was training during the summer and it managed to haul a CFI and student, it would probably work.

In the same call, I also learned there was a Dakota that I may be able to buy into at KFTG. I'm going to look into that.

I also see that I can probably get into a M20 B or C for about (or less than) the cost of a Cherokee 180. There are quite a few options out there...
Click to expand...

There's probably also a 182 at KAPA. ;)

But we haven't been actively looking or advertising. We've shown hard numbers to two folks who showed interest and they either didn't like them or just couldn't afford it, but we knew them personally and have them the option.

The bulletin boards over at Denver JetCenter East at KAPA are covered in co-ownership offers and a few sales offers. It's a buyer's market for sure right now. Have you been over there and looked?

Also see the CO Pilot's Assn Classifieds.

I'd assume all numbers seen on those postings to be a high starting point for negotiations. Most of those co-ownership offers have been posted in both places for over a year. Either the owners are "too proud" of what they have or they're trolling for sugar daddies.

Almost any co-ownership can be made to work well if you're going to fly the hell out of it. Our 182 can't beat the lowest priced 182 rental on the field but it's hangared and I like knowing the maintenance is done to our specifications.

As I mentioned, Greg's club at KBJC is a good deal too. I gave them first billing because they have a nice fleet. If I weren't "otherwise engaged", I'd be running numbers on their club. I'd also be talking to Clark about whether or not he would appreciate a co-owner in his bird because I know he takes care of it. I also know he takes longish trips in it and my flying schedule can easily live with that.

But I'm dancing with the girl I brought to the dance for now. ;) I like ol' 79M too much not to keep on dancing. :) Eventually, life will change for someone and we'll see changes in co-owners or who knows, maybe even sell her.

She's going to a South Dakota this weekend. Our co-owner who hails from there doesn't fly as much as I do locally but we know he likes having a co-ownership for the purpose of long trips without rental penalties a few times a year. Knowing what motivates your co-owners and whether or not you can live with those things really helps everyone get along.

That and regular board meetings at Perfect Landing or Maggie's over beers. Er, um... Safety Meetings. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
As I mentioned, Greg's club at KBJC is a good deal too. I gave them first billing because they have a nice fleet. If I weren't "otherwise engaged", I'd be running numbers on their club. I'd also be talking to Clark about whether or not he would appreciate a co-owner in his bird because I know he takes care of it. I also know he takes longish trips in it and my flying schedule can easily live with that.
Click to expand...

Greg's club looks like a good deal and it sounded like they had good people.

As for me, I'm in the middle of deciding on disposition of the 'kota. Things are screwy at work and it may not be resolved for a couple months. Assuming work settles down I'd like to move to an airpark and that may not be suitable for a partnership. OTOH, the 'kota needs to be flown more and I don't see my flight time increasing. Maybe a non-equity partner or two is the way to go. It's a good aircraft for IFR training (430w, coupled autopilot, Aspen) and the engine would appreciate regular use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top