Cherokee Six 300, or...

[3 in the green]

It looks as though I'll have a great opportunity to be a non-equity partner in a Cherokee Six as a spot opened up at my local airport. Very reasonable fixed monthly rate + dry rate, named on the insurance, and get a set of keys to the a/c & hangar. The aircraft appears well-equipped and clean.

The bulk of my relatively low total time (PPL, passing 150 hr mark) is in various flavors of the 172, with maybe the remaining 1/3 of my time in Archers, DA40, and a smattering of tailwheel in the Cub/Decathlon with some basic acro. My mission would range from burger runs to long x/c, possibly as long as 500-1000nm a few times per year, with likely my family - wife and two boys, although the boys are younger aged 5 & 8. However, they're growing quick, and this points to the attractiveness of the Six's space and payload.

My question for those of you with Six 300 experience is, does it really just handle like a bigger Cherokee? Are there any "gotchas"? If you're wondering, there are no minimums (other than PPL) for the insurance/partnership agreement. I've been reading up a lot on it, including the Six POH online, and it seems to me that the largest complication that would be new to me would be the horsepower, and the four fuel tanks, which require the inboards to be burned first...and that there's a ZFW (zero-fuel weight) limit. Constant speed prop I'm familiar with.

Enter the "OR" of this, as implied by the subject line for this thread...

The owner of the Six also has a Comanche 250 coming on-line shortly. I've always loved the Comanche, but honestly have never flown one. I'm almost thinking the Comanche would be the better pick here, especially on the longer x/c flights. The rates will be similar for both...

Let the banter begin!

 

[Jimmy cooper]

With low time and no instrument ticket I would think the six is not a good choice. It flys like a ken worth, heavy on the controls, etc. it's made to haul a load over distance , not to go get a burger. I'd build some more time before I hauled my family on trips, possibly getting some more tail wheel , recovery instruction. I'm very conservative and very respectful of maintenence and weather which has kept me alive for four thousand hours.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

, here we go!!!

 

[Skip Miller]

I have about 50 hours in a PA-32-301, branded a Saratoga but that is basically a Six-300 with only two tanks.

It does handle a lot like a Cherokee but there are some important differences. My strong recommendation is to get with a CFI and explore slow flight and short field landings. The book speed for short field landing at max gross requires a LOT of throttle and a very high deck angle. This is the definition of dragging it in. To account for this, there are two stall warning vanes on the wing, one activated with zero flaps and the other with either flaps one or flaps two, I forget which.

The other surprising characteristic (surprising to me at least) is how heavy the nose is on the ground. You have to be strong on the rudders for steering. It also takes a strong right foot on the ground at takeoff power. You will enjoy the acceleration of 300 hp!

-Skip

 

[3 in the green]

I have about 50 hours in a PA-32-301, branded a Saratoga but that is basically a Six-300 with only two tanks.

It does handle a lot like a Cherokee but there are some important differences. My strong recommendation is to get with a CFI and explore slow flight and short field landings. The book speed for short field landing at max gross requires a LOT of throttle and a very high deck angle. This is the definition of dragging it in. To account for this, there are two stall warning vanes on the wing, one activated with zero flaps and the other with either flaps one or flaps two, I forget which.

The other surprising characteristic (surprising to me at least) is how heavy the nose is on the ground. You have to be strong on the rudders. It also takes a strong right foot on the ground at takeoff power. You will enjoy the acceleration of 300 hp!

-Skip

That is very interesting re: the short field approach...very much "MAF" style. When I'm up in BC we fly to a remote narrow dirt strip to the cabin and it's a blast...granted we have 2k feet of rwy to work with, which is more than enough if it's not too hot out, so we don't really have to drag it in like that.

A CFI on an airframe like this is a given for me; I should've mentioned that in the first post. I'd never consider just hopping in. Like Mr. Cooper, I'm rather conservative and would need to feel comfortable with the nuances.

 

[3 in the green]

, here we go!!!

Yes! I figured the topic of "qualifications" would come up. I'm not naive enough to discount the wisdom of experience (my father has 8k+ hrs in the bush on Beaver/Otter/185, so I get a lot of that from him and grew up around those airframes), but I'm really more interested in the aircraft characteristics. I'll gladly take in whatever opinions are thrown my way, however. There's a lot of knowledge and experience on these boards.

 

[Scott@KTYR]

A Cherokee Six 300 is a great plane. Go for it.

Be sure to first get an Instructor to fly with you until you have learned the plane.

Just remember, because it can haul a large load, it can also get out of CG really quick when loading the plane.

Just get some good training and you will be fine.

 

[eman1200]

....The other surprising characteristic (surprising to me at least) is how heavy the nose is on the ground. You have to be strong on the rudders for steering. It also takes a strong right foot on the ground at takeoff power. You will enjoy the acceleration of 300 hp!
-Skip

I agree with this. I was shocked at how much I needed to stand on the rudder the first coupl'a times I taxi'd/flew the Lance. it's second nature now but at first I felt like a taxiing clutz. as for the plane, it was an easy transition from the cherokee/archer/arrow planes I had flown previously. spend a few hours with an instructor. my main difference between those and the 300hp 6/lance/toga is I view the latter as traveling machines, where the cherokees I might 'bounce around' and have some 'fun' with. the bigger, heavier, heavier-on-the-controls lance I don't do that with. point A to point B.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

Yes! I figured the topic of "qualifications" would come up. I'm not naive enough to discount the wisdom of experience (my father has 8k+ hrs in the bush on Beaver/Otter/185, so I get a lot of that from him and grew up around those airframes), but I'm really more interested in the aircraft characteristics. I'll gladly take in whatever opinions are thrown my way, however. There's a lot of knowledge and experience on these boards.

No disrespect to you... I just know this gang and by the end they will have you in a Pilatus PC-12 after every other personal favorite they have has been recommended... Just sayin'

 

[3 in the green]

Haha, I may have been in that PC-12 recommending crowd more than a few times myself......I mean, why not? It's the best! My father still sings its praises and drools over them.

 

[Pilawt]

A Cherokee Six is a relatively simple airplane that should be within the capability of a lower-time private pilot -- WITH proper checkout and instruction. A pilot with significant experience in a PA-28 should have no trouble getting familiar with the systems of a Cherokee Six. It is a very comfortable traveling machine for pilot and passengers, with lots of spread-out room. On the downside, it's inefficient compared to a four-seater -- slow and thirsty -- and those short Hershey-bar wings don't like to climb very high (the newer Saratogas, with longer, tapered wings, do better). But if you have use for its capacity, it can be a good choice.

That said -- a Cherokee Six loaded to gross is a much different-handling airplane than one at light weights with four or five empty seats. Not bad either way ... just different. By all means, don't let an instructor turn you loose until you have had an opportunity to get comfortable and proficient with the airplane in the extremes of weight and CG configurations.

 

[frfly172]

The six. Is a great airplane,when you start out ,it will seem to handle like a truck. Get used to flying the trim. After a few hours you'll be fine.

 

[Fearless Tower]

A Cherokee Six is a relatively simple airplane that should be within the capability of a lower-time private pilot -- WITH proper checkout and instruction. A pilot with significant experience in a PA-28 should have no trouble getting familiar with the systems of a Cherokee Six. It is a very comfortable traveling machine for pilot and passengers, with lots of spread-out room. On the downside, it's inefficient compared to a four-seater -- slow and thirsty -- and those short Hershey-bar wings don't like to climb very high (the newer Saratogas, with longer, tapered wings, do better). But if you have use for its capacity, it can be a good choice.

That said -- a Cherokee Six loaded to gross is a much different-handling airplane than one at light weights with four or five empty seats. Not bad either way ... just different. By all means, don't let an instructor turn you loose until you have had an opportunity to get comfortable and proficient with the airplane in the extremes of weight and CG configurations.

This.

If you can fly an Archer, you will transition fine to a PA32. An Archer is like an F-150 and the PA32 more like an F-250. Taxiing will require a little more muscle effort (heavier nose). In the air they handle fairly similarly. PA32 is a bit more stable. Biggest difference is that an Archer will glide much better - PA32 will drop like a rock without power, especially when loaded. Be very careful about pulling the power out too early in the flare.

Other than that the biggest concern with the PA32 vs the Archer is the fuel system if it is an early Cherokee 6 with 4 separate selectable tanks. Fuel management should be a big emphasis on the checkout as many folks have run into trouble running a tank dry.

 

[James331]

Haha, I may have been in that PC-12 recommending crowd more than a few times myself......I mean, why not? It's the best! My father still sings its praises and drools over them.

Funny you mention that airframe, as I recall the only fatial in a PC12 was a guy with more money than hours who bought one, took his family up into the FLs, autopilot disconnected (which it will if it gets a little bumpy) and instead of focusing on flying the plane, or even just following the flight director, he focused on fiddling with the autopilot, even ran the self test, during this time the plane went into a 75 degree spirial, blew past VNE, once he noticed that he yanked back, took the right wing off, which ended up slicing into the cabin and sucking one of his offspring out, eventually it hit the earth, all died.

Now a six isn't as slick and doesn't have the complex systems of the PC12, but I would recommend, seeing you're a VFR 150hr PPL, to get your instrument ticket IN THE SIX as the first thing you do, this will give you enough time to get comfy with the plane and also learn to manage the system instead of th systems managing you, the six is also a long leg hauler, as such not having your IFR really takes much of the point out of that airframe in the first place.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Funny you mention that airframe, as I recall the only fatial in a PC12 was a guy with more money than hours who bought one, took his family up into the FLs, autopilot disconnected (which it will if it gets a little bumpy) and instead of focusing on flying the plane, or even just following the flight director, he focused on fiddling with the autopilot, even ran the self test, during this time the plane went into a 75 degree spirial, blew past VNE, once he noticed that he yanked back, took the right wing off, which ended up slicing into the cabin and sucking one of his offspring out, eventually it hit the earth, all died.

Now a six isn't as slick and doesn't have the complex systems of the PC12, but I would recommend, seeing you're a VFR 150hr PPL, to get your instrument ticket IN THE SIX as the first thing you do, this will give you enough time to get comfy with the plane and also learn to manage the system instead of th systems managing you, the six is also a long leg hauler, as such not having your IFR really takes much of the point out of that airframe in the first place.

I thought the problem started with a fuel inbalance from a lack of PRIST?

 

[James331]

I thought the problem started with a fuel inbalance from a lack of PRIST?

Think that was another one.


Here it is

http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/pilatus-pc-12-crash-ntsb-points-surprising-cause

 

[GRG55]

Impressive that we've reached post #16 for this thread and nobody has mentioned Bonanzas, Mooney's or the Red Handle Special. Remarkable restraint.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

oh....chute.

 

[SoonerAviator]

If I had my choice, I'd go with the PA-24 in your situation. They have plenty of room/payload for your 4-person family (and really any 4-adults). Plenty of speed and will be more efficient (if even slightly) compared to the PA32. I'm sure the handling is a little bit better as well, just being a bit sportier. Now, if you had access to the Six for those long XC trips/vacations where you are bringing a ton of baggage, then that's the best of both worlds.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

the baggage volume is the bomb in the Six.....one truly can bring whatever they like for a family of (4).

 

[arkvet]

I bought a cherokee 180 when I was 15 hours into PPl instruction in a Tomahawk. The cherokee felt huge and heavy compared to the Tomahawk. Within a few weeks and 10 hours or so it was natural. Within 6 months it was like an old pair of shoes and felt "light" and docile. I felt like I was wearing the plane.

Last year I sold the 180 and bought a 300 HP fixed gear Saratoga. The "Six" felt huge and heavy compared to the cherokee. Within a few weeks and 10 hours or so is was natural. Within 6 months it was like and old pair of shoes and felt "light" (lol - ok so no it will never feel light) but docile... YES. I'm almost a year into ownership of the Saratoga and the plane is a beautiful and stable flyer. There is really nothing challenging about it at all.

Some of the bigger points that will differ with it compared to a cherokee or archer:
1- Much larger envelope for weight. This will mean that there will be a 10+ knot difference in your short final / approach speed depending on how heavy you are. Come in with half tanks flying solo with the "book" numbers and you'll use up most, if not all, of a 4,400' runway. Ask me how I know.
2- Engine out glide- It should be obvious but it just needs to be practiced. Without power the plane sinks like a rock. Personally I don't mind this characteristic as the trade off is being able to approach tight areas with hills or obstructions higher than glidepath. Cut power and she'll come on down. Overshooting a runway and not being able to slow down is... well... idk if it's possible.
3- Ground handling is really heavy- will take strong legs but oh well. Like everything else just takes getting used to.

For anyone to suggest that a 150 hour pilot is incapable of flying a Six very well is a joke. Now I'm talking averages here. I realize there are some 40 hour pilots that could fly a six well and then there's some 150 hour+ guys that shouldn't be near one... but that's not the fault of the plane.

There was a mention above about the fuel system requiring more attention. That's true for the sixes with 4 tanks. I fly a 1980 model with the tapered wing and two tanks. I've got a big Archer, rather than a big Cherokee.

I absolutely LOVE my Saratoga but there are some days I want to do a joy ride and just for me and another person it's quite overkill but oh well... Only owning one plane it will pretty much accomplish anything I want. If I'm keeping the glass half full, though, there are some moderately windy/turbulent days when I don't mind flying around the patch / countryside when it would be quite unpleasant for some of the other birds on the field. Did I mention it was stable?

 

[Jimmy cooper]

The six. Is a great airplane,when you start out ,it will seem to handle like a truck. Get used to flying the trim. After a few hours you'll be fine.

The six DOES handle like a truck. It IS a truck. That's why it will handle the excessive load it can. As someone stated, it's a much different aircraft fully loaded than near empty. After a few hours, you would be fine IF someone well versed in one flys with you for the time you need to really understand the airplane under various loads, weather conditions, etc. your father, with his experience should have all the answers you need. He also should have a much better handle on your abilitys than anyone on the Internet.

 

[drotto]

I did all of my primary training in a PA28-161, I now fly almost exclusively a Saratoga SP. I have about 40 hours in the Saratoga. So my observations.

1. In the air other than being heavier it is very similar to all other Pipers. Other than at faster speeds, stalls are almost a non event. Plane does not break hard and does not tend to spin.
2. If you are coming from a slower plane (meaning training plane), despite it not being very quick, it is still a much harder plane to slow down, so in the beginning it can get ahead of you.
3. In the flair it will land hard if you do not keep some power in. Does not tend to float. This is not a PA28 where you go to idle 2000 feet from the threshold and glide it down. You will need to keep about 15 on your manifold pressure to make things smooth, and keep a good feel on the controls.
4. The flair will feel very high initially due to the long nose. You really feel like you are sitting back in the plane. Site window takes some getting used too.
5. Very stable platform for IFR
6. RIGHT RUDDER on the ground.
7. Glides slightly better than a rock. Better if you feather the prop as far back as it will go.
8. On take off, due to the big nose (especially if heavily loaded) if you try and pull up to aggressively it likes to put itself back down. Best to get it just off the ground and allow the plane to accelerate in ground effect for a second or two, then climb more aggressively.

 

[arkvet]

8. On take off, due to the big nose (especially if heavily loaded) if you try and pull up to aggressively it likes to put itself back down. Best to get it just off the ground and allow the plane to accelerate in ground effect for a second or two, then climb more aggressively.

I've never done any aerobatics but occasionally like to get just off the ground with my Toga and level out till I hit 100 knots and then pull up sharply to Vx. The climb is awesome and makes me smile every time. For a straight and level guy it's quite enjoyable.

Your list is very good btw.

 

[3 in the green]

This is all great stuff, thanks everyone for thoughts. Oh, and James - of course the PC12 was a joke, even if I had the cash, I wouldn't buy one...yet. I do very much plan on punching the IFR ticket in whatever I end up in. I'm about halfway through it now, but had to take a hiatus for family reasons. It is nice that the partnership does allow for this type of training in the agreement.

 

[mondtster]

My question for those of you with Six 300 experience is, does it really just handle like a bigger Cherokee? Are there any "gotchas"? If you're wondering, there are no minimums (other than PPL) for the insurance/partnership agreement. I've been reading up a lot on it, including the Six POH online, and it seems to me that the largest complication that would be new to me would be the horsepower, and the four fuel tanks, which require the inboards to be burned first...and that there's a ZFW (zero-fuel weight) limit. Constant speed prop I'm familiar with.

Everyone else has covered most of the stuff you need to know about a Cherokee Six, but I'd clarify one thing I didn't see mentioned. There is a procedure on how to burn the fuel (like you mentioned) but there is also a procedure for fueling the airplane. Basically you burn the inboards first then the tips but you fuel the tips first then the inboards.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Everyone else has covered most of the stuff you need to know about a Cherokee Six, but I'd clarify one thing I didn't see mentioned. There is a procedure on how to burn the fuel (like you mentioned) but there is also a procedure for fueling the airplane. Basically you burn the inboards first then the tips but you fuel the tips first then the inboards.

Probably good practice....but not critical.

The reason for burning the mains first is due to the upper skin stress on a hard landing. Weight out at the wing tips lessons the upper skin stress with a hard landing.

You'll notice a few have skin patches from cracks from the hard landings.....newer togas have a thicker upper skin and a larger combined wing tank.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

It looks as though I'll have a great opportunity to be a non-equity partner in a Cherokee Six as a spot opened up at my local airport. Very reasonable fixed monthly rate + dry rate, named on the insurance, and get a set of keys to the a/c & hangar. The aircraft appears well-equipped and clean.

The bulk of my relatively low total time (PPL, passing 150 hr mark) is in various flavors of the 172, with maybe the remaining 1/3 of my time in Archers, DA40, and a smattering of tailwheel in the Cub/Decathlon with some basic acro. My mission would range from burger runs to long x/c, possibly as long as 500-1000nm a few times per year, with likely my family - wife and two boys, although the boys are younger aged 5 & 8. However, they're growing quick, and this points to the attractiveness of the Six's space and payload.

My question for those of you with Six 300 experience is, does it really just handle like a bigger Cherokee? Are there any "gotchas"? If you're wondering, there are no minimums (other than PPL) for the insurance/partnership agreement. I've been reading up a lot on it, including the Six POH online, and it seems to me that the largest complication that would be new to me would be the horsepower, and the four fuel tanks, which require the inboards to be burned first...and that there's a ZFW (zero-fuel weight) limit. Constant speed prop I'm familiar with.

Enter the "OR" of this, as implied by the subject line for this thread...

The owner of the Six also has a Comanche 250 coming on-line shortly. I've always loved the Comanche, but honestly have never flown one. I'm almost thinking the Comanche would be the better pick here, especially on the longer x/c flights. The rates will be similar for both...

Let the banter begin!

OR... get the plane in your avatar picture

 

[3 in the green]

I saw that in the POH as well. I presume the fueling technique is directed that way to prevent a situation where you have only fueled the mains and not the tips, and thus are in a situation where you, in essence, did not burn the mains off first.

 

[3 in the green]

OR... get the plane in your avatar picture

One can dream, but you're right - it would be my first pick (getting a Beaver, like your avatar). I was lucky enough to get a bunch of "unofficial" time in them, if you can call it that, in my younger years. The Otter like the one in my avatar was my favorite though...what a beast! It truly was like flying an airliner to me. The sights, sounds, and smells are etched in me forever.

 

[mondtster]

Probably good practice....but not critical.

The reason for burning the mains first is due to the upper skin stress on a hard landing. Weight out at the wing tips lessons the upper skin stress with a hard landing.

You'll notice a few have skin patches from cracks from the hard landings.....newer togas have a thicker upper skin and a larger combined wing tank.

It may not be critical but it is in the flight manual.

 

[mondtster]

I saw that in the POH as well. I presume the fueling technique is directed that way to prevent a situation where you have only fueled the mains and not the tips, and thus are in a situation where you, in essence, did not burn the mains off first.

Personally, I believe that the fueling procedure is the reverse of the burning procedure to load the wing properly and keep the wing skins from cracking. I suspect this might also be why there is a zero fuel weight limitation on these airplanes.

As I mentioned directly above, the fueling procedure is laid out in the flight manual in the same spot as the fuel burn procedure. Also, read and understand how to properly preflight the fuel system and know there is a 50 hour AD on it to inspect.

None of it is a big deal, but there are some unique things compared to most other light airplanes.

 

[drotto]

Probably good practice....but not critical.

The reason for burning the mains first is due to the upper skin stress on a hard landing. Weight out at the wing tips lessons the upper skin stress with a hard landing.

You'll notice a few have skin patches from cracks from the hard landings.....newer togas have a thicker upper skin and a larger combined wing tank.

The fuel tank usage was set up to reduce oscillation in the wing which could cause damage to the skins and possibly the wingspar. In the Saratoga there are still technically four tanks. Two inner metal tanks that hold 35 gallons and two outer bladders which hold 18 gallons, but the outer bladder drains directly into the inner metal tanks and each side functions as a single tank. At some point the wing was redesigned (when the lance was introduced?) so the oscillation was not longer considered an issue, and with the toga the tapered wing involved other changes to the structure.

 

[James331]

This is why I like simple BOTH or auto fuel management.

 

[3 in the green]

Even the straining technique detailed in the POH was unique.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk