Cherokee 235- typical maintinance costs?

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,280
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Display name:
Cowman
I know some of you have these. Wondering what a typical annual/maintinance cost is on them. Also, what's a typical fuel burn, my research says 12-15gph.

I'm aware that around 2000hrs you need to budget 30k or so for a rebuilt engine.

Soon as my taxes are out of the way I'm probably going to get more serious about a purchase and the 235/236s seem to fit my budget and intended mission the best. I've thought about a 180 to save $ but I really want a true 4 seater with good range and speed.
 
I plan on 15 GPH and consider myself lucky when I do little better than that. I've to talked to pilots who say they can get 13.x GPH. Not me, but then I'm always flying at 75% power and at 5500 feet or so.

I don't think annuals are much more than other planes. I've been lucky with mine.
 
there are some good books on how to buy an airplane. They will help you avoid the obvious pitfalls.

The Cherokee line is very inexpensive with few surprises. My Cherokee 140 had a $600 annual with an additional average annual maintenance totaling less than $10 per flight hour. So if I flew 120 hrs I would average about $1200 that year, including the annual inspection.

No two people will have the same cost, as I would hunt for good prices, rebuilt accessories, Iran parts and spent time researching ways to keep costs down. Another guy might just push the plane in the maintenance hangar and leave a blank check. He will pay a premium for that.

Your plane is different from a Cherokee 140 in two ways 6 cylinder HP will cost you a bit more. And constant speed prop (you can get fixed prop as well which is cheaper to own). The constant speed prop will cost about $4 per hour additional for the 500 hr 5 year inspection AD which will cost at least $2000.

Nice thing is you can get the mogas STC and safe half your fuel costs.

Cherokee line doesn't have a very big back seat if the front seat is pushed all the way back. I have however had two adults in the back seat of my Cherokee. You will have the 1400lbs useful load but it still could be tight in the back seat.

I'd figure insurance at about $200 per $10k hull coverage; whatever your local hangar is; see if there is a property tax break on 30 year older vehicles for classic vehicles or airplanes....usually there is.

My budget for my Cherokee was:

At 100-200 hrs a year:
$1440 hangar rent per year
$486 for insurance ($20k hull) I had no pilots license when I got it
$600 annual inspection
$600 other maintenance (4 cylinder)

On a Cherokee six I would add:

$500 a year allocated for a constant speed prop inspection if you get that one.
$$500 a year more for the 2 extra cylinders on your aircraft.

I figure mogas at 8 gph.

I think you will burn about 12-13 average. I know own a Comanche 250 the same engine basically with a different compression/stroke and I get 14 gph.

I think you will find that after you own the plane a bit you will figure out that flying 130 knots at 11 gph is better than flying 135 knots at 13 gph. Every plane I have flown has had a 20% fuel premium for that last 3-5 knots.
 
If you email me, I'll send you a copy of a paper I wrote on ownership costs of a typical light single 4-seater. The paper is focused on 150-180HP fixed-gear/fixed-prop types, but the difference for a 235 Cherokee is mostly in the fuel burn and engine overhaul, which you seem to have already researched.

Email only, please -- no posts, PM's, phone calls, smoke signals or ESP thought waves, thank you.
 
the problem with the 235/236 is the cabin is too small to take advantage of the load hauling capability. A carbeurated PA32-260 will have the same maintenance, same speed, fuel burn near-as-makes-no-difference, and it's got a huge cabin that you can be comfortable in. If you want the mini-cherokee cabin, the 180 is the sweet spot for load hauling vs cabin cubic feet.
 
To the OP. The cherokee 235 has an engine affected by that scary crankshaft AD. Google MSB 569A. That can quickly turn your new to you aircraft purchase into a mandatory crank replacement, at which point it's effectively forcing you to consider a full up overhaul. Either way, an unmitigated budget buster.

If I was looking in your aircraft category I'd consider the C-182. To my knowledge the Conti O-470 doesn't have deal breaker ADs like this one. Admittedly, Conti cylinders are weak compared to Lycos, but repairing exhaust valves rather than throwing away the whole jug every time would save you a bundle in the long run.

That said, you can get more airplane per dollar going the 235 route. That backseat though. Ugh. If I was going for a 4 seat dedicated mission that backseat is a deal killer. I have more back seat in my -161 cabin than a 235. That'd be a deal breaker for me. I'd look at the -236 by default. But that one is not as competitively priced as the 235 against the C-182. Everything's a tradeoff I guess.

Good luck on your search.
 
Yeah everything's a tradeoff. The more I look the more abundantly clear that becomes.

I figure my 70% mission will be 300nmi cross-countries through the midwest with 2 adults and bags.

And probably a 20% mission with 4 adults and bags over 300nmi.

Then we've talked about some truly cross country runs in the future... like from WI to ME or FL.... or wherever We'll see if or how often that happens but I'd like to.

I cringe because a Cherokee 180 would handle more than half of the missions I'd like to fly but wouldn't handle the occasional 4 adult x-country. I seriously looked at Pa-32s but it looks like for one in good shape equipped the way I want I'm looking at a good 100k purchase price. I think I'd use the extra 2 seats maybe once a year and I don't even need 4 seats more than half the time. I'd also read that the 260 is under powered somewhere and you'd really want the 300, but I'm only going on what I read so what do I know.

I've found 235/236s listed that look like they have what I want(clean, good condition, at least a few years left before TBO, and a garmin GNS gps installed). in the $66-75k range. That just seems like a good compromise with my mission constraints and money factored in. Also with the extra range and a higher cruise speed it looks like a better x-country choice over the 180.
 
cowman said:
Yeah everything's a tradeoff. The more I look the more abundantly clear that becomes.

I figure my 70% mission will be 300nmi cross-countries through the midwest with 2 adults and bags.

And probably a 20% mission with 4 adults and bags over 300nmi.

Then we've talked about some truly cross country runs in the future... like from WI to ME or FL.... or wherever We'll see if or how often that happens but I'd like to.

I cringe because a Cherokee 180 would handle more than half of the missions I'd like to fly but wouldn't handle the occasional 4 adult x-country. I seriously looked at Pa-32s but it looks like for one in good shape equipped the way I want I'm looking at a good 100k purchase price. I think I'd use the extra 2 seats maybe once a year and I don't even need 4 seats more than half the time. I'd also read that the 260 is under powered somewhere and you'd really want the 300, but I'm only going on what I read so what do I know.

I've found 235/236s listed that look like they have what I want(clean, good condition, at least a few years left before TBO, and a garmin GNS gps installed). in the $66-75k range. That just seems like a good compromise with my mission constraints and money factored in. Also with the extra range and a higher cruise speed it looks like a better x-country choice over the 180.
Click to expand...

Split the difference. Your mission sets would be 100% accomplished by an Arrow. Cheaper than a Pa32 and 28/236. Much more efficient way of getting the speed range you want.

None of your mission set is high DA departures with any frequency, and your 70% mission could literally be accomplished with a warrior, so the 230HP birds are overkill. Do some research on the Arrow, see if that fits.
 
cowman said:
.

I cringe because a Cherokee 180 would handle more than half of the missions I'd like to fly but wouldn't handle the occasional 4 adult x-country. I seriously looked at Pa-32s but it looks like for one in good shape equipped the way I want I'm looking at a good 100k purchase price. I think I'd use the extra 2 seats maybe once a year and I don't even need 4 seats more than half the time. I'd also read that the 260 is under powered somewhere and you'd really want the 300, but I'm only going on what I read so what do I know.

.
Click to expand...

The archer II I have some hours in had 1000# useful load. With four adults you would probably not be needing full fuel anyway.
 
Well, lets see... my test scenario is 440lbs of meat in front, 320lbs in back and 50lbs of junk carried along..

With a 1000# useful load that leaves 190lbs behind for fuel which gives us just over 31gallons. So what's the fuel burn on this bird, about 10/hr? So if I leave an hour of reserve that would allow a 2 hour flight, yes?

Seems workable but is that the real useful load with typical equipment or gross - factory empty weight?
 
The one I flew 50+ hr in was between 990 and 1010 useful load. Original interior, updated avionics.

Tabs are 34 gallons. 10gal/hr is about right, which leaves you about 2.5 hrs.

I flew it at gross on 95 degree days a few times at sea level and it was fine. I don't have any experience with it at high altitudes.
 
it's a moot point. No adults are going to ride in the back seats of a cherokee for any distance. At least not more than once.
 
Does that apply to the models '72 and later when they stretched teh cabin?


I also seem to remember both the 235s and arrow were supposed to have improved cabin size.
 
cowman said:
Does that apply to the models '72 and later when they stretched teh cabin?


I also seem to remember both the 235s and arrow were supposed to have improved cabin size.
Click to expand...
engine size doesn't matter, it's just by year. Yes the later ones are a little longer but still claustrophobic in the back. The back side of the spar is vertical and there is nowhere to put your feet.
 
cowman said:
Does that apply to the models '72 and later when they stretched teh cabin?


I also seem to remember both the 235s and arrow were supposed to have improved cabin size.
Click to expand...
Yes. If the pilot is more than 69" tall, there is very little room in the back seats.
 
Well that may not be a deal breaker, I'm about 68" tall. My wife also has an unbelievable ability to scrunch into small spaces and be comfortable. She routinely will get into a car and pack bags around her feet in the floor when it could just as easily go in the back.

On the other hand she's horribly uncomfortable in the back of my Mustang(the car) so I guess we need to see if we can travel somewhere with a rental archer and see.
 
It's really not that bad. Anyone whos ever rode with me has been fine as long as you don't need the whole seat positioned at its furthest point.

I'm 76" tall and typically only use 3/4th of the available space for my legs as PIC. Granted its not roomy by any standards it's certainly not a deal breaker for me at least.

I'm getting 14gph but I usually only fly 6-9k feet so I don't lean as good as I probably should.

The latest useable load sheet in my logs indicate a useable load of 1,417lbs. And I usually plan for 130kts on a typical day.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
It's really not that bad. Anyone whos ever rode with me has been fine as long as you don't need the whole seat positioned at its furthest point.

I'm 76" tall and typically only use 3/4th of the available space for my legs as PIC. Granted its not roomy by any standards it's certainly not a deal breaker for me at least.

I'm getting 14gph but I usually only fly 6-9k feet so I don't lean as good as I probably should.

The latest useable load sheet in my logs indicate a useable load of 1,417lbs. And I usually plan for 130kts on a typical day.
Click to expand...
The thing is, it's a sacrifice you don't have to make. 235's fetch a premium price and there are plenty of choices for the same money that don't require it. A pa32 has a lot more room. A debonair is faster, has great back seat legroom, and will carry the OP's load.
 
JHW said:
The thing is, it's a sacrifice you don't have to make. 235's fetch a premium price and there are plenty of choices for the same money that don't require it. A pa32 has a lot more room. A debonair is faster, has great back seat legroom, and will carry the OP's load.
Click to expand...

What's a premium price? There's always going to be a trade off somewhere. 235's can be purchased for less than most that fit the ops needs. The useable load is insane and the speed isn't horrible. I'm not saying a p32 wouldn't better, but it won't be cheaper either. The 235 is a great mix of speed and useable load. I bought one over the 182 because of price/useable. The speed difference was not enough to make a differnce for me.


But it's a personal preference, just take a ride in the type your considering.
 
I did have a wild idea of seeing if i could pull the back seats out of a pa-32 and fit a moped/small motorcycle back there. And the extra room would be very nice for long trips but I just don't know about financing another 30k or so to haul around 2 more empty seats.
 
cowman said:
I did have a wild idea of seeing if i could pull the back seats out of a pa-32 and fit a moped/small motorcycle back there. And the extra room would be very nice for long trips but I just don't know about financing another 30k or so to haul around 2 more empty seats.
Click to expand...

You need to reset your price expectations. 235's and pa32's significantly overlap.
 
JHW said:
You need to reset your price expectations. 235's and pa32's significantly overlap.
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken, but any Cherokee 260/300 I'm seeing on the market is around 50-60K on the low side.

Cherokee 235s on the other hand are 30K low side. Where are you looking?
 
Well if my mind was made up and I was ready to go, this is good example of the kind of ad I'd follow up on:
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ROKEE-235/1977-PIPER-CHEROKEE-235/1268883.htm

Has the avionics I'm looking for, looks pretty clean inside and out, engine is relatively fresh and has quite a few hours left on it, and the price is something I think I can handle.

I've been watching ads for a while and I can generally find a pa-28-235/236 like this after a minute or two of looking. Pa-32s not as much.

Maybe once I start talking to owners and getting pre-buy inspections done I'll find those prices aren't as good as they look. I don't know, this is why I consult people more experienced than myself :wink2:
 
Anybody care to take a stab at the maintenance and operating cost differential of the OPs mission if he were to get a Piper Arrow? I still think he might be well served by looking at an arrow if he thinks the 235 suits his mission....

Haven't owned a retract so I don't know if an arrow is cheaper in combined operation/mx costs than a 235...
 
hindsight2020 said:
Anybody care to take a stab at the maintenance and operating cost differential of the OPs mission if he were to get a Piper Arrow? I still think he might be well served by looking at an arrow if he thinks the 235 suits his mission....

Haven't owned a retract so I don't know if an arrow is cheaper in combined operation/mx costs than a 235...
Click to expand...
The only difference is the cost of insurance. Maintenance wise you'll spend as much time messing around with wheel pants as you will on the retract gear.

That said, once you go arrow there is no significant cost penalty to do one better. A comanche 180 is the same plane performance-wise but is much more comfortable. A debonair is faster, more comfortable especially in the back seat, and can burn autofuel.

Anyone making this decision based on 20k diffence in purchase price is missing the point. The purchase is just paying the cover charge to get in the bar.
 
JHW said:
The only difference is the cost of insurance. Maintenance wise you'll spend as much time messing around with wheel pants as you will on the retract gear.

That said, once you go arrow there is no significant cost penalty to do one better. A comanche 180 is the same plane performance-wise but is much more comfortable. A debonair is faster, more comfortable especially in the back seat, and can burn autofuel.

Anyone making this decision based on 20k diffence in purchase price is missing the point. The purchase is just paying the cover charge to get in the bar.
Click to expand...

I just saw 3 Comanche 250's for less than $21k, $25k and $29k and these did not seem to be ratted out, long time out of annual nor high time with pending maintenance.... you get a good 1100 lbs useful load four real adults, luggage and 155 knots on 14 gph with climb out of 1300 fpm on a 60 d F day. I so much wish I were buying today rather than 11 years ago....

But the annual maintenance will likely be at least 50-60% more than a 235 or 182....If you were going to do a least back I would consider an arrow as they are great lease back planes but I don't think you are going to see the full 1000 lbs useful or real useful load even with only 180 lbs fuel for 300 miles plus reserve.
 
JHW said:
The only difference is the cost of insurance. Maintenance wise you'll spend as much time messing around with wheel pants as you will on the retract gear.

That said, once you go arrow there is no significant cost penalty to do one better. A comanche 180 is the same plane performance-wise but is much more comfortable. A debonair is faster, more comfortable especially in the back seat, and can burn autofuel.

Anyone making this decision based on 20k diffence in purchase price is missing the point. The purchase is just paying the cover charge to get in the bar.
Click to expand...

20K buys a lot of maintenance and gas...

Also, buzzing around at the same130kts at 10gph versus 13gph adds up really quick over a year.

I'm not sure I understood your point about wheel pants. Are you saying mx on two more cylinders and 3gph more equals the expected yearly mx cost on the swing gear? If so, I guess the OP is better off going the big engine fixed gear route.
 
hindsight2020 said:
20K buys a lot of maintenance and gas...

Also, buzzing around at the same130kts at 10gph versus 13gph adds up really quick over a year.

I'm not sure I understood your point about wheel pants. Are you saying mx on two more cylinders and 3gph more equals the expected yearly mx cost on the swing gear? If so, I guess the OP is better off going the big engine fixed gear route.
Click to expand...
an arrow or comanche 180 is the same 4-banger as the archer. The 235 is the one that gives you the 6 cylinders in that comparison. That said, the 540 is going to run forever just like the O-360 will. the thing to watch for in any case (235, arrow, comanche, or PA32) is the prop. get one with the wrong hub and you are staring at some $$$
 
hindsight2020 said:
20K buys a lot of maintenance and gas...

Also, buzzing around at the same130kts at 10gph versus 13gph adds up really quick over a year.

I'm not sure I understood your point about wheel pants. Are you saying mx on two more cylinders and 3gph more equals the expected yearly mx cost on the swing gear? If so, I guess the OP is better off going the big engine fixed gear route.
Click to expand...

180hp arrow burns 9.6 gph the 200 hp arrow about 10.7 gph and the 235 more like 14 plus or minus 1 gallon depending on carburetor and how you run it. At $6 per gallon of av gas that is $18 per hour savings in fuel. I don't think maintenance on A 235 will come close to that. So the arrow might possibly be cheaper to operate if you are basing it on mileage for sure but it might also be cheaper by the hour as well unless you burn mogas in the 235 then the 235 has the cost advantage.

Based on prices I have gotten on insurance there is no significant penalty for either the HP 235 nor the RG of the Arrow so they should be roughly the same so its a difference in purchase price, maintenance and fuel cost.

Arrow and 235 are both Cherokees (airframe)... maybe 2 hrs more annual inspection to put the plane on lift and swing the gear on the arrow but then you have to take the boots off to do the brakes on the 235 so could net out. Both can have fixed speed prop so same maintenance there.

Arrow is going struggle with 1000 lbs useful load and the Cherokee you can stuff like a sausage and its going to jump off on a hot day. 90% of a pilots flying is solo; so you really only need that extra useful load 10% of the time...I thought I could fill a Cherokee six but I can't even find 1 person to go up most of the time...our wants and expectations are often different from our reality.

I do like the mogas in the a E225 Bonanza or Debonair but I suspect a Deb is going to be higher maintenance than the Arrow (just like my Comanche is)..
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I do like the mogas in the a E225 Bonanza or Debonair but I suspect a Deb is going to be higher maintenance than the Arrow
Click to expand...
no, just the opposite. The PA28 line is a cheap design, cheaply made. It will nickel & dime you over the years compared to the beechcraft.

And that's no slam against the cherokee. The purpose of it was to reduce parts count and manufacturing hours vs the comanche and they certainly achieved that goal.
 
JHW said:
no, just the opposite. The PA28 line is a cheap design, cheaply made. It will nickel & dime you over the years compared to the beechcraft.

And that's no slam against the cherokee. The purpose of it was to reduce parts count and manufacturing hours vs the comanche and they certainly achieved that goal.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you see a bunch as complex trainers? They are cheaper to buy than an Arrow so not sure why flight schools don't use them.

i can see they might be cheaper than Comanches for the reasons quoted.
 
Last edited:
Tony_Scarpelli said:
180hp arrow burns 9.6 gph the 200 hp arrow about 10.7 gph and the 235 more like 14 plus or minus 1 gallon depending on carburetor and how you run it. At $6 per gallon of av gas that is $18 per hour savings in fuel. I don't think maintenance on A 235 will come close to that. So the arrow might possibly be cheaper to operate if you are basing it on mileage for sure but it might also be cheaper by the hour as well unless you burn mogas in the 235 then the 235 has the cost advantage.
.
Click to expand...

So...advantage Arrow? That's what my math was leaning towards. At 100hrs a year that's 1800 bucks. That's enough to cover the swing test portion of the inspection and parts replacement on the swing gear components, easily. If you fly much less than that then the 235 might just be cheaper to keep.

Considering the OP can find a stretch cabin Arrow cheaper than a -236, looks like it would be considerable cheaper to acquire and operate an Arrow than the 235/6 series.

I guess it does come down to acquisition price at this point.
 
hindsight2020 said:
So...advantage Arrow? That's what my math was leaning towards. At 100hrs a year that's 1800 bucks. That's enough to cover the swing test portion of the inspection and parts replacement on the swing gear components, easily. If you fly much less than that then the 235 might just be cheaper to keep.

Considering the OP can find a stretch cabin Arrow cheaper than a -236, looks like it would be considerable cheaper to acquire and operate an Arrow than the 235/6 series.

I guess it does come down to acquisition price at this point.
Click to expand...

I'b take a 260/6 any day.....but I hear they are not fun to fly...I might miss my Comanche.

The Cherokee was fun little plane so I think the Arrow would be a good balance unless you need that 1400 useful load.
 
Are the six/260s underpowered at all? There doesn't seem to be a huge price difference between the 260s and 300s, given that is there a really compelling reason to go with a 260 over a 300?
 
cowman said:
Are the six/260s underpowered at all? There doesn't seem to be a huge price difference between the 260s and 300s, given that is there a really compelling reason to go with a 260 over a 300?
Click to expand...

I think they have a 13-14k Service Ceiling but they are designed to carry a higher useful load than the empty weight.... So the Useful load on a 260 is higher than a 300hp. As high as 1600 lbs.

It is a rare bird but you once in a while see a 260/6 Turbo (Rajay Stc) which I think would be as perfect of bird as possible as the SC is then raised to 20,000'.

I have a feeling that the same folks who told me that a Cherokee 140 is under powered, not a good trainer, not a good first plane would probably be the same guys to say you want a 300/6 not a 260/6.

My recommendation is to find one, go fly it with the owner and see for yourself.

The additional weight of the 300 doesn't add useful load to cover itself so the higher useful load Cherokee 6's are the 260 hp.
 
cowman said:
Are the six/260s underpowered at all? There doesn't seem to be a huge price difference between the 260s and 300s, given that is there a really compelling reason to go with a 260 over a 300?
Click to expand...
yes, but only on the way that any airplane is underpowered

if you are shopping PA32's then definitely get the 300. OTOH if you are shopping 235's and realizing that it's not big enough to take advantage of the load carrying capability, then the 260 is a fine alternative
 
I've flown the 6/260 and a couple different 6/300s. The 300s did like their fuel. Also, I believe the engine is considerably more expensive to overhaul than the 260.

If transporting 4 adults with luggage over shorter distances is the goal, a 260 is hard to beat.

It's not fast and it flies like the box it came in. But it'll haul its empty weight in useful load. Some S/N are zero fuel weight limited (iirc you can only put 1250 in the cabin, that's 6 dudes and 3 hrs of fuel).

There are a couple of useful accessories:
- 7th seat (for a skinny kid)
- cargo floor: provides a flat floor from the pilot seat to the bulkhead in case you have to haul pianos, dead bodies or sheets of drywall. Also makes a good surface to throw a matress onto for plane-camping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top