Cherokee 235 leg room question

[stapler101]

My search for a new plane goes on (not brand new, just new to me).
I currently have a '72 cherokee 140.
I am restricted on carrying passengers because of weight but also because at 6'2, I must push my seat back so far that no adult could sit behind me.
We are shopping for a plane with the ability to carry 4 adults, some luggage and to go a little faster than the 140.
My immediate question is concerning the cherokee 235. Does it have more rear seat leg room than the 140?

 

[SCCutler]

The Cherokee 140 is really a 2-place plane (I know, it has a back seat, but not really intended to be one except for incidental use).

The 235 has more room, much like a 180.

Maybe Mike Andrews, who drives around in a 235, can chime in...

 

[sba55]

Maybe Mike Andrews, who drives around in a 235, can chime in...

I imagine he will, and that he will do so in a much more informed fashion.

That said, I just flew in Mike's 235 today, and I had to move my seat forward a lot to reach the pedals. I'm 5'10''. I suspect 6'2'' would be fine.

-Felix

 

[Pilawt]

My immediate question is concerning the cherokee 235. Does it have more rear seat leg room than the 140?

Yes. Cherokee 235's built 1963-72 have (barely) adequate rear seat leg room, but still considerably better than the -140. -235's built from 1973 through end of production in 1977 (aka "Cherokee Charger" and "Cherokee Pathfinder") have longer cabins and much better rear legroom, same as the PA-28-236 Dakota.

 

[mikea]

I'm 6'2" and more on good days. I put the seat back far enough to almost touch the back seat and then I like a seat cushion to put my back forward a little because my legs are longer than my arms.

I can pull the seat forward a notch or two to let someone sit behind me. It's always been a child of 10-12 years old at most.

As a touchpoint. Kent is 6'4"(?) We flew to CT with Kate behind us in the right side of the back bench seat. The biggest problem was having enough shoulder room up front. I think she sat partly sideways and we had the seat around her loaded with baggage (see below)

I think later models up to the Dakota may have an extra inch or two of cabin length if you're routinely gonna have adults behind the pilot.

I think Jay's Challenger has the same size as my 235.

The Piper book says the 235 was designed to effectively be a 1960s bizjet. It is designed to take 4 "beefy" adults - just not adults of the 21st century size.

The 0 fuel useful load on mine (not as equipped) is 1400 pounds. That's a lotta beef.

 

[jesse]

Cherokees aren't really known for having much back seat room. A 172, on the other hand, has way more feet room for the folks in the back.

 

[gprellwitz]

Cherokees aren't really known for having much back seat room. A 172, on the other hand, has way more feet room for the folks in the back.

But a 172 isn't going to give the payload he's looking for. A 182, OTOH, will be a lot closer, though with four full-sized people you'd be partial tanks. You can get four hours of fuel and four 200# people in it, though!

 

[Ghery]

But a 172 isn't going to give the payload he's looking for. A 182, OTOH, will be a lot closer, though with four full-sized people you'd be partial tanks. You can get four hours of fuel and four 200# people in it, though!

Get a 172 with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion and the 172 becomes a load hauler. With full long range tanks I can put about 100 pounds more in the cabin of our club's C-172N than I can in the cabin of the club's C-182P. About 755 pounds payload with full fuel.

That said, the 182 is a lot more comfortable.

 

[gprellwitz]

Get a 172 with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion and the 172 becomes a load hauler. With full long range tanks I can put about 100 pounds more in the cabin of our club's C-172N than I can in the cabin of the club's C-182P. About 755 pounds payload with full fuel.

That said, the 182 is a lot more comfortable.

Good point on the Penn Yan. Not all 180HP 172's are load haulers, though. Like most newer planes, the new 172SPs have gotten heavier to use up most of the benefits of their more powerful 180HP engines.

 

[nyoung]

In 1973 and beyond, the Cherokee 180 series got a ~5" fuselage stretch with all of that stretch going to leg room for the back seat occupants.

I know the 235 series got the stretch at some point too, and most likely it was in 1973.

 

[Pilawt]

In 1973 and beyond, the Cherokee 180 series got a ~5" fuselage stretch with all of that stretch going to leg room for the back seat occupants.

I know the 235 series got the stretch at some point too, and most likely it was in 1973.

Yes. -180 and -235 got the stretch in 1973; Arrow in 1972; and -140 never got it.

 

[mikea]

But a 172 isn't going to give the payload he's looking for. A 182, OTOH, will be a lot closer, though with four full-sized people you'd be partial tanks. You can get four hours of fuel and four 200# people in it, though!

When I rode in the back of hangar neighbor's 172 legroom wasn't the major problem (he's average height). Fastening the seat belt was. I barely got it done.

 

[gprellwitz]

When I rode in teh back of hnagr neighbor's 172 legroom wasn't the major problem (he's average height). Fastening the seat belt was. I barely got it done.

Yeah, we have that problem in the 182, too. Probably the same seat belt. But then again, you and I are not exactly svelte! I think the real solution would be for us to lose a little weight so we can carry more fuel!

 

[skyflyer8]

As a touchpoint. Kent is 6'4"(?) We flew to CT with Kate behind us in the right side of the back bench seat. The biggest problem was having enough shoulder room up front. I think she sat partly sideways and we had the seat around her loaded with baggage (see below)

I'm still going to the chiropractor weekly -- just kidding! But compared to the dozens of planes I've ridden in, the 235 is lacking back seat legroom. You are much better off with an Archer or Arrow as far as legroom goes. When Kent and Mike were in the front (with their seats far back), I had just enough room for my legs to fit between my bench seat and the back of a front seat. The front seat basically had my legs pinned so that I could not shift positions during flight. Since that proved uncomfortable, as Mike mentioned later on we got rid of some baggage so that I could sit sideways on the bench seat for the trip home.

I had never been in a Cherokee 235 prior to that, and had I known of the legroom situation I wouldn't have gone on that trip with tall guys up front. If the front seat people were maybe less than 6 feet tall that might be better -- 5.5 feet, ooh now you're talking. Maybe.

 

[spiderweb]

C182 would be a simple step up. Easy to fly, and roomy.

 

[Pilawt]

the 235 is lacking back seat legroom. You are much better off with an Archer or Arrow as far as legroom goes.

It's not that it's a 235, it's the age of the airplane. A '71 235's cabin is identical to a '71 Arrow or 180; a '76 235 (Pathfinder) cabin is identical to a '76 Arrow or Archer II.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

C182 would be a simple step up. Easy to fly, and roomy.

Yep.

While I like the PA28's better than the C-birds, all else being equal, Piper never made a plane like the 182.

Look what Kate wrote above. She's rather compact and still was absolutely squished in the back of the 235.

 

[spiderweb]

Yep.

While I like the PA28's better than the C-birds, all else being equal, Piper never made a plane like the 182.

Look what Kate wrote above. She's rather compact and still was absolutely squished in the back of the 235.

And the thing is, for four-places between Piper and Cessna, I'd go for the C182. Just so darn easy to fly, and perfect for IFR. Fuel on both, and watch the gauges.

OK, for six-place in the Piper-Cessna competition, though, I'd go back to Piper and try to find a Saratoga. Such a sweet airplane, and much faster than the C206 and some C210s, but definitely roomier than the Cessnas.