Cherokee 180 with c/s prop

[DMD3.]

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/219245575/1966-piper-cherokee-180-piston-single-aircraft

Just happened to come across this on controller. It’s priced cheap due to the engine being past TBO time (2,100 hrs & change), but claims it trues out at 130 kts.

I’m not currently in the market, but has anyone ever flown a 180 with this prop, and does the performance match what the owner claims? Also, how hard and expensive would it be to have this conversion done to a standard 180\Archer, assuming the performance is worth it?

 

[SkyChaser]

In my opinion, part of what makes the Archer a nice platform is the simplicity of it. I would not want to deal with the hassle of a c/s prop for less than ten more knots of airspeed. If you get a well-taken-care-of Archer, you can easily get it to fly at 125-128kts in cruise on 9-10 gallons, unless the Archer I trained in was running on miracle fuel.

 

[asicer]

how hard and expensive would it be to have this conversion done to a standard 180\Archer, assuming the performance is worth it?

Depends on the status of the STC that was used.

claims it trues out at 130 kts.

So only 10kts slower than a fixed-pitch fixed-gear Tiger on the same engine?

 

[ateamer]

One of our neighbors has a Cherokee 180 with a constant speed. He cruises at 125 to 130 knots true.

 

[Pilawt]

A PA-28-180 with constant-speed prop would likely get off the ground a bit quicker and climb a little better, but it won't necessarily be any faster. In fact, it might even cruise slower than its fixed-pitch counterpart.

Before 1973, the Cherokee 235 was sold with fixed-pitch propeller standard and constant-speed optional. The cruise performance chart in the owners manual shows the fixed-pitch model is faster in cruise.

 

[Racerx]

I have the stc paperwork to put a constant speed prop on my 180. But it was never done. I'm with @SkyChaser, the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

 

[DMD3.]

Depends on the status of the STC that was used.

So only 10kts slower than a fixed-pitch fixed-gear Tiger on the same engine?

True. But parts are typically easier to get for Piper than Grumman (a discussion for a different thread). And I never said I wanted one with c/s prop, I just figured I’d ask, as I didn’t know they existed (it’s basically a fixed-gear Arrow).

 

[asicer]

A PA-28-180 with constant-speed prop would likely get off the ground a bit quicker and climb a little better, but it won't necessarily be any faster. In fact, it might even cruise slower than its fixed-pitch counterpart.

Before 1973, the Cherokee 235 was sold with fixed-pitch propeller standard and constant-speed optional. The cruise performance chart in the owners manual shows the fixed-pitch model is faster in cruise.

View attachment 114680

All very true, but should also add that for a given power output you can get considerable fuel consumption reduction by running higher manifold pressure at lower RPM.

From the Lycoming O360 Operators Manual:

 

[Racerx]

Regarding how hard to switch it over...that depends. Archer's have an o-360 a4a or a4m which has a solid crank shaft. My 180 has an a3a which is a hollow crank, just plugged. Less desirable as there's an rpm avoid range with a fixed pitch prop. SA2213WE is the stc. Pull the plug to convert the engine to an a1a to allow installation of a governor and new prop. It might help on takeoff, but mine has the Horton stol kit which allegedly lowers stall speed by 10mph. I don't quite buy it

 

[Eldorado]

My guess is 125 kts tops. Better climb, cruise +/-, nose heavy due to weight of governor and less useful load. I would not consider it worth the CSP, and I own a 172 with the 180hp/CSP Alcon conversion. Air Plains thought the CSP Prop was not worth it for their 180 hp conversions for the 172 and I would agree unless special circumstances like short strips.

 

[Rgbeard]

Why the hate on CS Props?

Burn less fuel, run the engine at 2,200 RPM versus a higher RPM.

I see some pluses here.

 

[mandm]

I notice higher speeds with higher throttle but fuel consumption according to the analog fuel flow gauge shows 12gph. Unsure how accurate it is. Slow down 5kts and fuel flow drops to 9-100mph. This is on a 180hp Cherokee Arrow.

 

[bnt83]

No Piper experience but lots of 177 (fixed pitch and 150 horse) VS 177B (Constant Speed with 180 horse), sure takeoff roll with CS is a bit more confidence inspiring, cruise can be a lot quieter depending on settings, but it doesn't perform huge leaps and bounds better to justify $12k+ more equipment installed on the airplane and the extra weight especially if money is an issue.

In the lowly 150 horse 177, 2500 RPM in cruise almost a necessity with a big fuel load and 2 or more people in it. Fighting thermals to maintain altitude means the RPM wanders all over the place which is really annoying, and a constant speed prop solves all of that RPM wondering nonsense. When fighting big thermal/updraft it can wonder over to redline RPM pretty easy.

Every time I would pick up the 177B I would kinda wish I owned it, then every time I dropped it off and flew the 177 back I was happy I had the 177 over the 177B.

(I fly almost entirely solo or with +1. Giving rides with more than +1 I like to start with 32 gallons or less fuel on board)

I've always wanted to fly Cherokee 235 for a few weeks, they seem like a pretty good balance of complexity/cost/performance.