Cherokee 235 vs 180

[EdFred]

Is the 235, just the 180 with a 235hp engine, or were there frame differences? Part two: If they are the same frame, can you stc to the 180 to a 235 with an engine swap at OH?

 

[mikea]

Is the 235, just the 180 with a 235hp engine, or were there frame differences? Part two: If they are the same frame, can you stc to the 180 to a 235 with an engine swap at OH?

Nice thought. For a start I think O-540 is enough of a different beast that it wouldn't fit in a 180.

I think the frame on a 235 is slightly longer nose to tail. The wingspan is higher. The nose is heavier.... The prop can be a CS. The fuel capacity on the early models is 84 gallons. Starting with the Challenger it got a wider and longer cabin. The Dakota "236" has less fuel capacity and the tapered wing, but I digress.

The 235 has the Cherokee heritage to make the paperwork easier, but it wasn't as simple as just swapping the engine.

 

[EdFred]

Ok, thanks. Just wondering. I know the moment arm lengths on the 140's and 180's are the same. Just wondered if the 235s were the same frame.

 

[JHW]

firewall back, the fuselage is essentially identical. Wings have tip tanks like a cherokee-6 (or is a 6 like a 235?). the stab may be longer like an arrow. Probably not practical to convert 180 to 235, but if rebuilding a 235 pretty near all fuse parts could come from a 180 of the same vintage.

 

[Pilawt]

can you stc to the 180 to a 235 with an engine swap at OH?

I've never heard of a 235 mod on a 180 airframe. There are internal structural differences from the 180 to the 235, as the weights are different.

I think the frame on a 235 is slightly longer nose to tail.

As JHW said, the dimensions from firewall aft are the same. The only external differences between the two when the 235 came out in late 1963 were:

-- Fiberglass cowl to accommodate the larger six-cylinder engine. That made the 235 a bit longer than the Cherokee 'B' 180, which had the original blunt metal cowl (like the later Cherokee 140). A variation of the 235's fiberglass cowl was then applied to the Cherokee 'C' (150, 160 and 180 hp) in mid 1964, with a spacer between the prop and engine.

-- Pointed fairing on the tip of the rudder (also applied to the rest of the Cherokee line in 1972 for styling).

-- Wingtip tanks which added one foot of span to each wing; and

-- Slightly longer span stabilator.
​

As Mikea said, constant-speed prop was optional on early 235's.

In 1973 the 235 and 180 both got the longer (not wider) cabin, both got the longer PA-32 stabilator, and the 180 had wingtip extensions that matched the span of the 235's tip tanks. So from '73 through '75 about the only way to tell them apart without opening the cowl was to look for fuel caps on the wingtips or a C/S prop.

The '73 180 was given the name "Challenger" and the 235 was "Charger". These names only lasted one year (maybe Chrysler objected?) and for '74 they became "Archer" and "Pathfinder," respectively.

Some 235 trivia: The production prototype of the 235 was N2800W ... the same airframe that served as the production prototype of the PA-28-160, the first certified Cherokee.

-- Pilawt

 

[Len Lanetti]

A quick scan of the FAA database of STC's reveals only one engine related approved modification for PA28-180 and PA28-181...that is to convert from an O360A3A to an O360A1A in a PA28-180.

FAA database of STCs can be found at the following URL.

Len

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

 

[PoAdeleted5]

deleted.

 

[mikea]

I've got the parts catalogs and service manuals.

The 235 has a number of different parts, from engine mount and cowling, to landing gear, to extended stabilator and wingtips and even subtle things like interior appointments such as thicker double pane windows and curtains.

No stc and it would not be a practical swap.

Great hauler though.

Although the 180 is a great, useful plane too.

Yah. The curtains make all that money it sucks up worthwhile.

The 235 was positioned by Piper to be a businessman's hauler - to get 4 actual adults to the next meeting in one hop. Thus the effort to make it quieter. Trust me. It ain't quieter, except with the CS you can pull the prop back. think they should have made the Travel John a standard feature.

Although I have some original Piper ads that show it as sorta of 60's-era Yuppie tool with a husband and wife and the kids.