Cherokee 235 or Cessna 182 question

A

Andrew geary

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
1979piperarcher
Ok, not going to start a big high wing/low wing debate. I think I have a legitimate question. I currently own a piper archer. I am not happy with the takeoff distance/climb. Curious to know how the 235 and 182 stack up as a potential replacement. I am aware that both have changed over the years but generally the 182 has shorter takeoff and better climb. However I've noticed that for many of the years the 235 has a better useful load. Meaning the data at MGTOW don't represent the same amount of fuel and people calculated in the performance numbers. The ultimate question is about takeoff and climb similarly loaded. Is the 182 still better?
 
No experience in a 235 - but I have many hours in Arrows and in 182's. Regardless of the high wing vs low wing argument, Every time I rent a piper, I always regret it and wish I took a Cessna.

I took an Arrow to OSH at gross weight and will say I was very impressed with it at gross weight. I flew it a ton at near empty weight in order to practice and I was very concerned about it because of its sluggish climb and sluggish handling, but with 1000 more lbs in it, it handled and climbed EXACTLY the same as empty.

I flew a 182 to Lake powell at gross weight and it definitely felt the weight increase. It took significantly longer to takeoff and had a slower climb rate. This being said, I still prefer the Cessna because it's just more fun to fly. The utility of having two doors is awesome as well.

If you plan to do any off airport stuff the 182 would be much more rugged.

@Ark235B can tell you more about the Cherokee 235.
 
I think you need to narrow down what is really important to you. If you like grass strips, 182 all the way. Want to shoot photos? 182. Easy of entry? 182.

Don't want to break you neck filling it up or preflighting? Cherokee. Want a docile airframe? Cherokee. More useful load? Cherokee.

If flown both and I prefer the Pipers.
 
I don't mind the Cherokee cabin. Just noticed all published numbers at gross weight. Did piper increase MGTOW for marketing at the expense of numbers on paper. Ultimately the question is about the performance difference with the same payload.
 
Andrew geary said:
I don't mind the Cherokee cabin. Just noticed all published numbers at gross weight. Did piper increase MGTOW for marketing at the expense of numbers on paper. Ultimately the question is about the performance difference with the same payload.
Click to expand...

It sure seems like it.

Flying Warriors and Archers around, I seem to be able to beat book climb numbers routinely, by a lot, when even a little light.
 
AggieMike88 said:
*cough* bonanza
Click to expand...


I think he actually wants to use the useful load on the W&B sheet. Not to mention, it's an entirely different rhelm of plane.

If he said he wanted a Cherokee 140 or a C152, would you have suggested a Deb?
 
Since the Archer doesn't meet your expectations, it might be helpful for us to understand more about those expectations (and more detail around your use case). If you are loading to gross with higher density altitudes in the summer, I suspect that just about everything is going to disappoint. None of these airplanes are rockets.

If you aren't getting close to book numbers in your Archer, something is wrong.


JKG
 
I'm simply trying to increase my safety margins. In the middle of summer I don't fly with all 4 seats filled. I asked a reasonable question regarding actual weights. I have looked all over the Internet and haven't found the answer. Let's say 20 galling of fuel and one 170# FAA standard individual. Which airplane lifts off shorter and climbs faster? I know at max gross the piper lifts more and the Cessna climbs better even though lifting less.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
No experience in a 235 - but I have many hours in Arrows and in 182's. Regardless of the high wing vs low wing argument, Every time I rent a piper, I always regret it and wish I took a Cessna.

I took an Arrow to OSH at gross weight and will say I was very impressed with it at gross weight. I flew it a ton at near empty weight in order to practice and I was very concerned about it because of its sluggish climb and sluggish handling, but with 1000 more lbs in it, it handled and climbed EXACTLY the same as empty.

I flew a 182 to Lake powell at gross weight and it definitely felt the weight increase. It took significantly longer to takeoff and had a slower climb rate. This being said, I still prefer the Cessna because it's just more fun to fly. The utility of having two doors is awesome as well.

If you plan to do any off airport stuff the 182 would be much more rugged.

@Ark235B can tell you more about the Cherokee 235.
Click to expand...

Drop 5 knots for the Piper wing at high density altitude and you'll get near book numbers for climb rate.
 
Unit74 said:
Don't want to break you neck filling it up or preflighting? Cherokee.
Click to expand...

Huh? I've always found humor in this claim. I have a three step step ladder that I use when filling the plane. It's not even as high as the Cherokee wing that a Piper owner has to climb up on numerous times during preflight and boarding. I've flown both and found that there is far less climbing involved in fueling/preflighing/flying a Cessna than a Piper...not more.

Also, the Cessna owner doesn't have to crawl in hands and knees under the wing to check tire pressure and sump the tanks.
 
I owned a Cherokee 235 (Pathfinder) for 12 years, flying my family everywhere in it. It's an amazing airplane.

I routinely flew it with four 200 pound guys in it. Even with full fuel and 150 pounds of luggage, it wasn't over gross. It's one of those planes where, if you can fit it in the door, it will fly. That O-540 just pulls like a tractor, and we had all available speed mods, which made it an honest 140 knot airplane. I could walk away from a retractable Arrow, but, of course, I was burning a lot more gas.

I've flown 182s, and they're fine aircraft. In the end, I prefer the lower panel height of the Cherokee, and I've never been a fan of the runway disappearing while turning base-to-final in high-wings -- but you won't do wrong with either aircraft.
 
True. Sumping requires an able bodied person and cabin entry is more difficult. Disagree on fueling though. It's a pain in the ass trying to hold 20 pounds of hose and fuel up on top of a ladder. I'm sure if you are used to it, it's no big deal. But beaten wives also dont complain much either till they are in the hospital.

I had a couple old guys walk 100 yds to me to ask if I would fuel their 170 a couple months ago. I was like, seriously boys? Do I Look like a line boy? If you can't fuel it, land at an FBO but don't expect others to sservice your plane be user you can't everywhere else.

And yes, I did help them but it irritated me.
 
rbridges said:
Not that it matters to the OP, but isnt rear leg room tight in the 235 relative to the 182?
Click to expand...

Yes. I wouldn't compare a 235 with a 182. You'd have to start with the 73' charger in order for it to be apples to apples. Pre-73 235s are 140s with a big engine. Not the same airplane at all. Frankly, the O-540 is a wasted engine on a pre-73 PA-28 (arrows got the stretch but piper never put a 540 in the arrow...biggest missed opportunity imo).
 
My 182 has a 520 in it and that really helps with gaining a bit more speed but more with making it not act as heavy when close to loaded and 1000+ fpm climb is great. The 182 is a great "small truck" of airplanes and adding a few more ponies/displacement makes it even better. You can find pponk/Texas skyways/air plains aircraft for similar money as 470 powered aircraft.
 
Jay Honeck said:
[snip] I've never been a fan of the runway disappearing while turning base-to-final in high-wings -- but you won't do wrong with either aircraft.
Click to expand...

I've done the great majority of my flying in high wings (mostly C-172s). This comment just highlights to me "it's what you're used to." From a purely functional perspective, I hate not being able to see what may be on a straight in approach when I'm turning final. I've never worried that the runway might move on me. :)

John
 
Besides, if you lean forward about 6" or so, the runway never disappears anyway...and if I'm flying a proper pattern, then I don't even have to lean forward. At least not in my 182. :)

Downwind to base sure, but not base to final.

But, yeah, even if I would lose it, if a few seconds of losing sight of the runway induces spatial disorientation then I need to take up a different hobby!
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Yes. I wouldn't compare a 235 with a 182. You'd have to start with the 73' charger in order for it to be apples to apples. Pre-73 235s are 140s with a big engine. Not the same airplane at all. Frankly, the O-540 is a wasted engine on a pre-73 PA-28 (arrows got the stretch but piper never put a 540 in the arrow...biggest missed opportunity imo).
Click to expand...
This.

A Pathfinder or Dakota has an enormous amount of rear legroom, perhaps even more than a 182. The one time I flew in the back, Mary was flying, and had her seat pulled all the way forward.

I could not touch the back of her seat with my feet, and I'm 6' tall.

Prior to the fuselage stretch, the back seat on a 235 is unusable by people my size. The difference is night and day.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top