Cherokee 235 Interior: This Cramped?

L

Lawson_Stone

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
137
Display Name
Display name:
Lawson_Stone
I've attached a photo from TAP of a Cherokee 235 interior from 1968. I noticed the front edge of the rear seat is virtually touching the back of the front seat. Is this really how the seats are spaced? Would most pilots bring the front seat more forward and create a bit more space for the rear seats? I've heard the pre-1972 Cherokees didn't have much rear seat leg room, but this looks almost humorous.

Is this really how it is?
 

Attachments

  • Cherokee235-Interior.jpg
    Cherokee235-Interior.jpg
    266.1 KB · Views: 230
I'm not familiar with the 235, but Arrow 1's of that vintage are that way.
 
That's how it is for the older ones! But to be fair I'm 6'1" and would have to bring the front seat a few clicks forward. So there'd be some room in back - not much - but more than what's in the pic.
 
It's looking like the case for hunting for something post-1972 with the 5" fuselage stretch would be pretty strong if one anticipates carrying more than a right-front seat passenger very often.
 
Tell me I'm not the only one to notice the 'staining' on the front pax seat ...

-------------

On a more on topic note, that looks like a standard Cherokee interior to me. If I have a passenger with me, where my bag is placed in the back seat, I can reach it with no problem.
 
Standard pre-73 non 140 pa28 dimensions.
 
They did the stretch of 5 inches in 1972. It’s still a little crowded if the com pilot keeps his seat full back.
 
All of the PA28s, of the same vintage, have the same fuselage. There’s a reason 182s are more desirable
 
Last edited:
Not much space in the back in the Cherokees but in your photo, the passenger front seat (with the nasty looking stain) is all the way back. Unless you're super tall, you wouldn't do that. I'm 6-1 and I don't have it all the way back.
 
I used to own a 64 235B and yes they are really crowded in the back. For long flights with my Wife I would remove the front seat and she would sit in the back. That gave sufficient leg room.

Otherwise I have had 2 adults in the back but I had to have the front seats pretty far forward and I was still hitting their legs all of the time.
 
This all really underscores that if someone really hopes to use the back seats, the Charger/Pathfinder (235), the Challenger/Archer I (180), or the Arrow II or later are really the best choices due to the extra 5" in the second row.
 
People were considerably smaller back then. :)

Yep, that looks much like all the Cherokees I've seen. Another reason I prefer my baby Beech.
 
The Cherokee is a great travel machine if you don't need the backseats. The one I have has the the removable snap in backseats which I took out, using one half of the back as a baggage compartment and the other half is for the dog who now has plenty of space back there despite his rather large size. But transporting 4 humans on that plane comfortably is IMO not an option.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
The Cherokee is a great travel machine if you don't need the backseats. The one I have has the the removable snap in backseats which I took out, using one half of the back as a baggage compartment and the other half is for the dog who now has plenty of space back there despite his rather large size. But transporting 4 humans on that plane comfortably is IMO not an option.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Cherokee's prior to the 5" fuselage stretch or after?
 
frfly172 said:
They did the stretch of 5 inches in 1972. It’s still a little crowded if the com pilot keeps his seat full back.
Click to expand...
Right. By the time they got to the Dakota, legroom for the rear seats was pretty good.

- Martin
 
Half Fast said:
People were considerably smaller back then. :)

Yep, that looks much like all the Cherokees I've seen. Another reason I prefer my baby Beech.
Click to expand...

Can't say they were shorter, but weigh less? Yeah
 
Lawson_Stone said:
Are you talking about the Cherokee's prior to the 5" fuselage stretch or after?
Click to expand...
The reference to removable snap-in back seats suggests to me he has a -140. Though the external dimensions of the -140 fuselage (firewall aft) are identical to the short-body -150/-160/-180/-235/Arrow, the -140's aft cabin bulkhead is further forward, further reducing rear seat room.
 
My Challenger rear seats "snap" in and out. It has the extended fuselage.
 
Lawson_Stone said:
Are you talking about the Cherokee's prior to the 5" fuselage stretch or after?
Click to expand...

Prior to the 5" fuselage stretch. Mine is a 140 from 1966.

Pilawt said:
140's aft cabin bulkhead is further forward, further reducing rear seat room.
Click to expand...

True when leaving it original. My mechanic installed the hat rack in mine giving me the same amount of space in the back than other Cherokees I believe.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
True when leaving it original. My mechanic installed the hat rack in mine giving me the same amount of space in the back than other Cherokees I believe.
Click to expand...
The molded rear bulkhead with hat rack and extended luggage area is an excellent option for a PA-28-140, but it is still less room than the other short-body PA-28s. The snap-in rear seat geometry of the -140 is different from the full-size rear bench seat (up through 1970) or individual rear bucket seats (1971-72) of the short-body -180 and -235.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Not much space in the back in the Cherokees but in your photo, the passenger front seat (with the nasty looking stain) is all the way back. Unless you're super tall, you wouldn't do that. I'm 6-1 and I don't have it all the way back.
Click to expand...
I'm 5'11 and I wish there was a notch between second from all the way aft to third. I've had adults in back and I hear more about the shoulder room or lack thereof than leg room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top