Cherokee 140 w/ 160hp STC VS Warrior. Differences?

The first Cherokees off the line were all 160 hp.

I think our resident historian, @Pilawt, might independently verify that. ;)

The first PA-28 to be certified and put on the market was the PA-28-160 in mid 1961, followed a few months later by the PA-28-150. The -180 arrived in late 1962, the -235 in late 1963, and the -140 in early 1964.
 
The first Cherokees off the line were all 160 hp.

I think our resident historian, @Pilawt, might independently verify that. ;)

I owned Serial #30 with a 2700 RPM redline 0-320 and 2200 lb gross as it came off the then new Vero Beach assembly line. Still had the original registration from when it left the factory when I bought it in the 1990s.

well, now i am, confused...
did you have 36 or 50 gal tanks?
my POH talks about the early 1950lbs 140hp and the 2150lbs 150hp..
and your sn# 30?... my sn# is 28-21xxx...
AW cert is 3-08-66...
 
Last edited:
The first PA-28 to be certified and put on the market was the PA-28-160 in mid 1961, followed a few months later by the PA-28-150. The -180 arrived in late 1962, the -235 in late 1963, and the -140 in early 1964.

well, now i see a history pattern, that makes absolutely no sense at all...
no wonder i feel confused even more, and just a little stupider...
 
well, now i am, confused...
did you have 36 or 50 gal tanks?
my POH talks about the early 1950lbs 140hp and the 2150lbs 150hp..
and your sn# 30?... my sn# is 28-21xxx...
AW cert is 3-08-66...

50 gallons, 1961 serial # 28-30 iirc, baggage door, 2200 lb gross.

As for confusion, you have company. I could never figure out why a Cherokee 140 had 150 hp. What were they thinking??

As I recall, the semi-tapered wing raised the gross on the Warriors to 2400 lbs, but by the 1970s the empty weight of the planes had ballooned so the useful loads were less than my early model.
 
Last edited:
50 gallons, 1961 serial # 28-30 iirc, baggage door, 2200 lb gross.

As for confusion, you have company. I could never figure out why a Cherokee 140 had 150 hp. What were they thinking??

As I recall, the semi-tapered wing raised the gross on the Warriors to 2400 lbs, but by the 1970s the empty weight of the planes had ballooned so the useful loads were less than my early model.

indeed,,, even more confusion,,, my POH says piper 140, but my sn# tells me 2700 RPM, so 150hp.
i dont have a baggage door, nor do i have a baggage area, just back seats.
i use plane performance http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/Piper/piper.htm
for general info about the airplane we fly, but it doesnt have years info and makes more questions than it answers...
their were some cherokees sold with no back seats, for trainers, just a big back space.
i thought they were cruisers,,, but i rented a cruiser years ago,
i put 4 buts in 4 seats with full fuel and flew to see an eclipse,,, long story...

so here is a query...
your 1961 had a higher sn# than my 1966??? ok, thats not a query, but,,,
what lyc 0-320 engine did you have?? mine is 0-320- E2A, sn#L16140-27A

as spock used to say,,, fascinating....
 
Last edited:
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 D 180, the -235B, and the new 180 hp Arrow.

The -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).

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 took the full four-seat Cherokee 150, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward, removed the rear seats, baggage compartment and baggage door, redlined rpm down and repitched the prop to produce only 140 hp, and called it the “Cherokee 140”, introduced early in 1964. The -140 was intended for fleet sales to flight schools, unlike the Cherokee 150, which was a family airplane for private buyers. 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’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. Power was re-upped to 150 hp (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 Cherokee 150 and 160 were discontinued in 1967, while the Cherokee 140 soldiered on, with the original short PA-28 fuselage and Hershey-bar wings, through 1977, when a new trainer, the PA-38 Tomahawk, was ready for market.

From 1971 through 1974, Piper offered a fleet-spec version of the -140, called “Flite Liner”, to its Piper Flite Center network. Returning to the original concept of the Cherokee 140, the Flite Liner was a two-seater with the old rear cabin bulkhead, a standardized, utilitarian equipment package including gyro panel and a basic navcom radio, and no factory options other than blue trim paint instead of red. Many Flite Liners have since been modified to install the snap-in rear seats. If you see a Cherokee 140 with a registration number ending in “FL”, chances are it was built as a Flite Liner. In the late 1980s, Piper did much the same thing with a stripped-down, fleet-spec trainer version of the Warrior II, called “Cadet”.
 
Last edited:
And he would know. Leonard (“Spock”) Nimoy owned a 1971 Cherokee Arrow 200. :)

The stuff you have stashed in that "library" of yours never ceases to amaze...:cool: :thumbsup:
 
indeed,,, even more confusion,,, my POH says piper 140, but my sn# tells me 2700 RPM, so 150hp.
i dont have a baggage door, nor do i have a baggage area, just back seats.
i use plane performance http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/Piper/piper.htm
for general info about the airplane we fly, but it doesnt have years info and makes more questions than it answers...
their were some cherokees sold with no back seats, for trainers, just a big back space.
i thought they were cruisers,,, but i rented a cruiser years ago,
i put 4 buts in 4 seats with full fuel and flew to see an eclipse,,, long story...

so here is a query...
your 1961 had a higher sn# than my 1966??? ok, thats not a query, but,,,
what lyc 0-320 engine did you have?? mine is 0-320- E2A, sn#L16140-27A

as spock used to say,,, fascinating....

My serial number was 28-30 period. I'm pretty sure Piper was just numbering them sequentially as they rolled off the line.

On some other models Piper started putting the last two digits of the year of manufacture in the serial number immediately after the model designation. My 79 Aztec is 27-79XXXXX. But my Cherokee was just the four numbers above.

Sometime last year (maybe longer?) I had an exchange with another PoA member who owned a Cherokee still flying that had an earlier serial number than mine (maybe 22 or 24?).

Don't know which engine exactly, I thought it was a B2B, but can't say for sure. The plane is still in the family but now stationed quite some distance from where I live. I'll see if I can get that info, but it might be a while as everyone from there is away someplace warm for the winter right now. I was thinking about buying it back and restore it to original paint scheme, but I already have too many projects.
 
On some other models Piper started putting the last two digits of the year of manufacture in the serial number immediately after the model designation. My 79 Aztec is 27-79XXXXX. But my Cherokee was just the four numbers above.
That started with the 1971 model year, and ended sometime in the late 1980s.

The Cherokee 140 I used to be a part-owner in was s/n 28-7725043. That meant it was a PA-28, ‘77’ for the 1977 model year; ‘25’ was the code for the PA-28-140 variant; and it was the 43rd example built that model year.

In the late ‘80s Piper eliminated the model year portion of the serial number sequence, but kept the two-digit code for the particular sub-types.

Aztecs and Apache 235s were marketed as PA-23s, but were ‘PA-27’ on the company books. They had serial numbers starting with ‘27’ to differentiate them from round-tail Apaches. Likewise, Comanche 400 serials started with ‘26-‘ instead of ‘24-‘.
 
Last edited:
did you have 36 or 50 gal tanks?
All - repeat - all Hershey-winged PA-28s have 50 gallon fuel capacity (sometimes listed as 48 gal. usable) in the main tanks. As a marketing ruse, Piper sometimes quoted available cabin load based on “36 gallons standard fuel” (i.e., filled only up to the tabs), but you always also had the option of putting in another 14 gallons “reserve” fuel. The Cherokee 180, with the exact same tanks, was listed as having 50 gallon capacity. (The -235 had the same tanks in addition to a 17 gallon tip tank on each wing).
 
The hershey bar wing makes is harder to land IMO. It drops hard in the flare if you are high. The tapered wing lands itself.

The Warrior is much more comfortable inside for backseat passengers and it has a real baggage compartment.

The Warrior has a much better useful load even against a 140 with the 160 STC.

Having flown a 140 with the 160 conversion, I much preferred the Warrior.

After 100+ hours in my Hershey bar 140, I have realized that with full flaps it really starts dropping once you get below 65mph, right about where the green arc ends on the ASI. Stall speed is 55mph but descent rate increases significantly below 65. Add a little power, no problem.
 
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 D 180, the -235B, and the new 180 hp Arrow.

The -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).

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 took the full four-seat Cherokee 150, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward, removed the rear seats, baggage compartment and baggage door, redlined rpm down and repitched the prop to produce only 140 hp, and called it the “Cherokee 140”, introduced early in 1964. The -140 was intended for fleet sales to flight schools, unlike the Cherokee 150, which was a family airplane for private buyers. 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’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. Power was re-upped to 150 hp (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 Cherokee 150 and 160 were discontinued in 1967, while the Cherokee 140 soldiered on, with the original short PA-28 fuselage and Hershey-bar wings, through 1977, when a new trainer, the PA-38 Tomahawk, was ready for market.

From 1971 through 1974, Piper offered a fleet-spec version of the -140, called “Flite Liner”, to its Piper Flite Center network. Returning to the original concept of the Cherokee 140, the Flite Liner was a two-seater with the old rear cabin bulkhead, a standardized, utilitarian equipment package including gyro panel and a basic navcom radio, and no factory options other than blue trim paint instead of red. Many Flite Liners have since been modified to install the snap-in rear seats. If you see a Cherokee 140 with a registration number ending in “FL”, chances are it was built as a Flite Liner. In the late 1980s, Piper did much the same thing with a stripped-down, fleet-spec trainer version of the Warrior II, called “Cadet”.
 
Pilawt, just now read this awesome timeline. Have you published more comprehensive histories elsewhere?

To clarify: the Hershey Bar airframe was not stretched in 73?
 
Pilawt, just now read this awesome timeline. Have you published more comprehensive histories elsewhere?

Thanks for the kind words. I did collaborate some with Ron Smith in his excellent book, Piper Cherokee: A Family History.

The best history of Piper airplanes was published in the mid-1990s, Piper Aircraft - The History and Development of Piper Designs, by Roger Peperell. Unfortunately it's out of print and quite expensive if you can find a used copy.

To clarify: the Hershey Bar airframe was not stretched in 73?

The Arrow was stretched in 1972, and the -180 (Challenger) and -235 (Charger) in 1973. The Cherokee 140 never got the stretched airframe.
 
Necrothreads are sometimes great.

I actually find hershey bar Cherokees easier to land WELL, but taper wing ones are probably easier to mush onto the mains. My best Cherokee landings have been in hershey bar Arrow IIs.

Then again, Piper’s best aircraft was the Super Cub, a high wing.

:D

The Twin Comanche and Cheyenne 400LS would like a word
 
I learned in a Cherokee 140/160, flew a Cherokee 180 and then an Archer for a while, and now fly a 200hp Arrow. The 140/160 was a great little trainer - it's not fast by any stretch of the imagination, but we never had performance issues on takeoff with two bigger men even on some very hot afternoons. I would second the earlier comment about the hershey wing being noticeably steadier through touchdown in stiff crosswinds: that 180 (a C model, if memory serves) was my favorite crosswind airplane I've flown. I'd also agree about that little bit of "lag" in the flaps on the semi-tapered wings, but that's a non-factor in my opinion.

My only advice here would be to try a Cherokee 180 before you buy the 140/160 if you get the chance. I always preferred the 180, and not only because of the performance differences: it just felt better in all phases of flight to me.
 
The hershey bar wing makes is harder to land IMO. It drops hard in the flare if you are high. The tapered wing lands itself.

The Warrior is much more comfortable inside for backseat passengers and it has a real baggage compartment.

The Warrior has a much better useful load even against a 140 with the 160 STC.

Having flown a 140 with the 160 conversion, I much preferred the Warrior.
Agreed on most of the points — the Warrior II is longer, it can seat four passengers realistically, it has a 2,440 lb max gross weight (about 675 lb on top of full fuel in my plane), and a huge baggage area. It also has better wheel fairings and other speed improvements, plus 3 windows on each side, giving you better backwards view. You can realistically expect to cruise at well over 120 KTAS (say, 140 mph) in a Warrior II loaded to middle weight at 75% power around 7–8,000 ft density altitude, burning 8 gph if you're LOP or 10 gph if you're ROP.

As far as landings go, they're more about airspeed management than wing shape. The Hershey Bar wing drops you in only if you let your airspeed get too low; the Warrior wing floats more only if you have the airspeed too high. My theory for the urban legend about the Hershey-Bar wings dropping and the Warrior wing floating is that most 140s and 180s have the ASI calibrated in MPH, while all 161s and 181s have the ASI calibrated in knots. So if you're used to approaching at 65 kt (75 mph) in a Warrior and then approach at 65 mph in a 140, it's going to feel like it's dropping in faster because you're further into slow flight. If you're used to approaching at 75 mph in a 140 and then approach at 75 kt (86 mph) in a Warrior, yes, it's going to float most of the way down the runway before it touches down because you're close to Vy.

The actual difference in the Warrior wing is that, while it has about the same surface, it was stretched out to give better roll control near the stall. The wing root stalls first because of washout, and making rest of the wing longer (even if it doesn't have more lifting surface) gives it a longer lever arm to roll the plane in slow flight, when the ailerons are otherwise less effective. That's it, really. You can read about the design choice in interviews with Fred Weick, the designer of both the 140 and Warrior, in the book Cherokee Nation.
 
My only advice here would be to try a Cherokee 180 before you buy the 140/160 if you get the chance. I always preferred the 180, and not only because of the performance differences: it just felt better in all phases of flight to me.

I had a 140 (which I eventually upgraded to 160hp). One year my 140 was down for maintenance and I borrowed a friends 180 for a few flights. The 180 definitely was a little heavier in the controls... I realized I liked the light control feel of my 140. But, yeah, the 180 definitely climbs better than my 140 did.
 
Necrothreads are sometimes great.

I actually find hershey bar Cherokees easier to land WELL, but taper wing ones are probably easier to mush onto the mains. My best Cherokee landings have been in hershey bar Arrow IIs...

I've owned Cherokees with both types of wings. Any pilot, even one with comparatively low time, can fly and land either of those wing types on a Cherokee consistently well after only a short time in type.

I went from a 160 to a 180 to an Arrow and then a Dakota. They were all fun to own and fly, and always got me home with no complaints. But I did prefer the Dakota over all the others, and think it's the best all-'round Cherokee derivative that Piper ever made, all things considered...

...except for maybe the Cherokee Six, or perhaps the turbo-Arrow, or possibly the Lance, or... :D
 
If you've got a Cherokee 140 cruiser with the 160hp RAM STC vs a Warrior, same vintage, is there really a difference?

Did the 140 still have the "Hershey bar" by then vs the "Taper" in the Warrior? Also in this case, the 140 has metco tips anyways.
We had a 1970 Cherokee C that was modified in 1994 with a bolt-on engine conversion to the 160 HP D3G series. To me, the difference in performance was notable, especially on hot days. That said, we previously owned an early 1960s Cherokee 160 and performance was nearly identical. The 160’s vernier throttle was more precise than the levers subsequently implemented by Piper. Overall, the 1972 Piper Arrow we owned for several years was a delight to fly—and a good deal faster than our fat-wing Cherokees. Several times. I rented a Piper Dakota. The 235 HP engine made it a legitimate plane for hauling four adults, plus baggage, in comfort with speed. In retrospect, I’d put this aircraft ahead of the other Pipers I’ve flown (in my few thousands of hours aloft).
 
Back
Top