First airplane purchase PA28 Help

[ag91]

Greetings all,

I am looking to purchase my first airplane soon. I'm looking for a plane that my son can use to build time in, but also that we can use to visit him while he is away at college, which is about a 4.5 hour drive by car, and can carry the rest of my family so I would need a plane capable of carrying 4 people (two adults and a 15 year old and 10 year old). Based on this mission, I would need a useful load of approximately 1,000 lbs. Speed isn't terribly important since it's going to be used for building time and short trips. I started looking at Cherokee 6 or Saratogas, but the increased operating costs made those unattractive as time builders for a newer pilot. So now I'm looking at the Cherokee 180 as a good balance between operating costs as a time builder and also having a useful load of approximately 1,000 lbs. The 180s I'm looking at have the "Hershey Bar" wings which I understand have the characteristic of having a high sink rate compared to later models with the tapered wings. Do Hershey Bar wings allow the 180s to have a higher useful load than the Archer with tapered wings? I've seen several Archers that have tapered wings but the useful load is 150-200 lbs less than the Cherokee 180.

Are there any other aircraft I should be considering? I've thought about an Arrow, but then purchase price goes up, operating costs go up, and insurance and maintenance costs go up as well with a complex aircraft.

Looking forward to hear different opinions.

 

[mandm]

I have an Arrow and I love it. I like logging complex hours, I like flying a complex and retract airplane. I like the fuel usage and speed, well compared to a C172.

But one thing I would say is that I never think of my airplane as a 4 person airplane and I think this is important. Once you think of it as a 4 person airplane plus 4 people’s luggage, you’re going to run into W&B issues especially with density altitude taken into consideration. And not saying it’s the cause of many accidents but it always seems that accident aircraft have 4-5 people in 4-5 seaters. I just wouldn’t do it. You need to spend the extra money for the Cherokee 6 or drive your car.

 

[SebIp]

The Hershey bar 180 aren’t part of the eddy current AD if that matters to you.

Their glide will be a surprise to people used to a 172 or similar. Expect oh 7-800 fpm sink rate power off best glide. And that’s when way under gross.

The single door is a real pain. The fire extinguisher is under the pilot so if your sitting position isn’t far back you’ll have an interesting time getting it out if you need it.

Leg room in the back is bad. If you are tall you might find there is non leg room behind you and it becomes a 3 person plane.

Otherwise its a good entry level with more power then most trainers out there. On cold days you can see 1000 fpm or better initial climb. When it’s just me in it I keep checking my airspeed cause the angle of climb just seems ridiculous Vy or Vx.

You’ll run down 172s in the pattern in clean configuration. Get used to one or two notch of flaps to keep from doing that.

Doesn’t easily have carb ice.

Taking the front wheel pants on and off is a who’s the idiot who designed it this way job. With the pants on trying to check pressure or pump the front tire is impossible.

You’d want the gas strut for the door and the storm window air scoop for summer ground ops.

POH is a POS. Next to no info if you are used to the Cessna ones with all the tables and charts.

 

[SkyChaser]

I flew a Hershey Bar Archer like you are describing for my private training, and I don't think I would recommend it for the stated mission even though I loved flying it. Unless you all average under 130 lbs a piece and don't bring any type of baggage, it will not climb well in any type of heat. I was just shy of 130 lbs while training, my instructor was about 180, and when we added a second instructor that weighed a bit over 200, it got very sluggish on climb out. And that was at night, when it was about 65 or 70 degrees.

If you can, find a CFI and an Archer to rent and ask a friend or two of yours to sit in the back seat so you can experience it in real life before you're on your own with your family. If you're still set on buying the Archer, set extremely hard and fast rules about temperature maximums.

 

[Racerx]

I wouldn't recommend a pa32 to learn in. Depending on how tall the kids are, the pre 73 180's might be a little tight on backseat leg room. As was said, I don't think of a 4 place as 4 adult capable. While I haven't flown one, I might be eyeballing a 73-78 pa28 235..

I have a 63 180 and it just barely meets your useful load criteria full of fuel. I have a STOL kit, but close to max gross with a higher DA would make one give pause. I hate anything but full tanks.

 

[dmspilot]

Do Hershey Bar wings allow the 180s to have a higher useful load than the Archer with tapered wings? I've seen several Archers that have tapered wings but the useful load is 150-200 lbs less than the Cherokee 180.

That's probably because "Cherokee 180" usually refers to the models without the fuselage stretch. The PA-28-180 "Cherokee Challenger" and original Archer have hershey bar wings with a fuselage stretch. The non-stretched Cherokees are VERY tight in the back seat.

 

[Racerx]

That's probably because "Cherokee 180" usually refers to the models without the fuselage stretch. The PA-28-180 "Cherokee Challenger" and original Archer have hershey bar wings with a fuselage stretch. The non-stretched Cherokees are VERY tight in the back seat.

The 4" fuselage stretch doesn't account for all of the loss of UL. The tapered wing also adds 5 feet of wingspan. But the max gross in the 181's is also 150lbs more. If you look at the seats of the early pa28's compared to later models, there's quite a difference. They did that a lot throughout the years and things got heavier.

 

[ag91]

All very good information, thank you.

The PRIMARY goal of this airplane would be for my son to build time in. The short trips with 4 passengers near max weight are probably more of a nice side benefit. While the Dakota and 6's and Saratogas would be better at carrying more weight/passengers, I don't want to get into the increased costs that it would take to operate those. I'm thinking maybe we might have to reconsider taking a full passenger load which would open up the possibilities on aircraft that would fit my goals, and only plan on taking two or three passengers at a time instead of 4.

The search continues!

 

[Mikey52]

A Dakota would be a better choice.

If you want to carry 2 people get a 4 place, if you want to carry 4 people get a 6 place.

 

[Bob Noel]

Only fill the tanks to the tabs, thus gaining more for passengers

The stretched fuselage would be good to have

(wrt to running down 172s in the pattern and using flaps... huh? just reduce power, no flaps needed when flying a pattern)

 

[mandm]

All very good information, thank you.

The PRIMARY goal of this airplane would be for my son to build time in. The short trips with 4 passengers near max weight are probably more of a nice side benefit. While the Dakota and 6's and Saratogas would be better at carrying more weight/passengers, I don't want to get into the increased costs that it would take to operate those. I'm thinking maybe we might have to reconsider taking a full passenger load which would open up the possibilities on aircraft that would fit my goals, and only plan on taking two or three passengers at a time instead of 4.

The search continues!

For your son to build time in, you may consider a 2 seater, the fuel consumption is half that of a 4 seater. 4-5gph x $5 = $20-25/hour. But you have to do the math, usually 2 seaters cannot accommodate 2 x 200lbs adults. So you have to calculate the weight of your son and his instructor.

Funny thing that I have lost weight since getting my airplane and she noticeably flies better and faster now!! And more level flight compared to leaning to the pilot side. Embarrassing!!!

I worry that if you have 4 pax airplane that you may be confronted with some difficult decisions to “try” it out. It is difficult to say no to family and friends, I’ve been there done that. If someone “has” to be home for dinner or a meeting then they won’t be joining the $100 hamburger. I don’t want to be faced with that decision.

The thing is, my 4 seater fits my family unit (including my dogs and luggage), so it works for me. But I wouldn’t want a situation where I need to leave part of my family behind as I might one day calculate that it works out (per POH) and try it out. Weather pressure temps change and your airplane might not be performing at POH numbers (for whatever reason) which could be problematic in some scenarios.

 

[cowman]

What about a PA-28-235 or -236 Dakota? That would be the only intermediate step between a pa-28-180 and a six.

 

[Racerx]

What about a PA-28-235 or -236 Dakota? That would be the only intermediate step between a pa-28-180 and a six.

I mentioned the 73-77 235. They're relatively tough to find. But they've got the fuselage stretch and I believe Mogas eligible and don't have the dual mag the Dakota's do.

 

[jbarrass]

That was my first plane and I think it's about perfect for what you're describing. It's pretty hard (and $$$) to find a decent one these days though.

 

[murphey]

1000# load is really 700# after filling the 50 gal of fuel. It’s a wonderful 3 person + gear airplane. Barely 4 with almost no gear. I’ve had mine for over 20 years and put 4 people in once and only once.

 

[idahoflier]

I know you said PA28, but a C172 with an Air Plains or Penn Yan O-360-A4M conversion fits your mission profile well...

 

[Lndwarrior]

Cardinal will do what you need.

 

[SebIp]

Only fill the tanks to the tabs, thus gaining more for passengers

The stretched fuselage would be good to have

(wrt to running down 172s in the pattern and using flaps... huh? just reduce power, no flaps needed when flying a pattern)

Yeah you can do that. I prefer to have the flaps in for the lower nose. The whole high wing low wing thing.

 

[SebIp]

I know you said PA28, but a C172 with an Air Plains or Penn Yan O-360-A4M conversion fits your mission profile well...

And he’ll swear less at the POH, swear less during forced approach cause can see the spiral keys, swear less getting in if he’s a big guy, but swear more when he hits his shins on the gear or strut, more when the wing hides the field in the pattern, and a lot more when you slip off the foot steps going up the wing to check for fuel when wet or worse icy.

lol.

 

[Albany Tom]

I'll descent a bit. I've flown a bunch of different PA-28s, and think the 180's are the sweet spot. To me, a good time builder when 1 or 2 up for the altitude/terrain/temps around the NE US. I think it's fine for 4 person travel if the people in the back are a bit flexible and the heaviest of the 4 is less then 200, where the 150's to me are 2 people airplanes.

Between tapered and Hershey, if you learn on the Hershey you may keep a little bit of extra speed coming in, because it's really easy to burn that off, so when you switch to taper it might seem to float a bit. You just have to watch your speeds...they're both really easy to a land. I'm positive of that, because they're easy for me and I'm not any kind of super pilot. I probably have about equal time in both, and honestly don't have a preference.

Don't get me wrong, Dakotas and other 235's are great, but seem to me to be overkill for time building. Ignore ALL of the above if you're either flying a football team (American), out west in the mountains, or where it's crazy hot. I love a low wing, but a PA-28 in Georgia would seem like it might be an eazy-bake oven inside...guessing.

 

[sky7]

late to chime in here but I have also taken 4 up in the Cherokee 180 tapered wing, 3 adults 1 child, at or near max takeoff weight in cool conditions. Never again, I had no performance whatsoever and barely made it out on a long runway

 

[Bob Noel]

A 180 that can't perform at max gross isn't working correctly... some combination of bad rigging, weak engine, and a cruise prop...

 

[SebIp]

A 180 that can't perform at max gross isn't working correctly... some combination of bad rigging, weak engine, and a cruise prop...

It’s also hard to judge what people meant. And what conditions.

For some if it’s not a rocket ship it’s struggling. Ok I can see why you want to feel like there’s a big margin. Whatever the margins you can always find a way to use them up. The question is was it actually unsafe or just felt less good. And the latter is highly variable.

 

[SkyChaser]

A 180 that can't perform at max gross isn't working correctly... some combination of bad rigging, weak engine, and a cruise prop...

I am sure that the Archer I flew was performing at book numbers when I flew it more heavily loaded that one night, as it always hit book numbers or extremely close to them every other flight I took in it. I am also sure that I have no desire to experience book numbers at max gross and high DA, even if it is technically possible and even "by the book".

 

[murphey]

A 180 that can't perform at max gross isn't working correctly... some combination of bad rigging, weak engine, and a cruise prop...

Welcome to living where ground is 5280 and DA in the summer (at ground level) is over 9000.

 

[Bob Noel]

Welcome to living where ground is 5280 and DA in the summer (at ground level) is over 9000.

are those the conditions existing when the poster said the 180 was a dog?

are those conditions applicable to the OP's mission?

but, duh, the 180, the 172, and similar airplanes aren't particularly good for mountain flying or conditions close to mountain flying. Even this lowlander knows that.

 

[William Pete Hodges]

May I suggest a different way of looking at this? Try looking at payload and how it varies with fuel load based on the different lengths of the flight you intend to complete. Are you really going to cram your airplane full of people and bags and full fuel and fly a 4 hour leg? My guess is probably not.

I am more familiar with the Cherokee 140 than the 180. With a gross weight of 2150 pounds an empty weight of 1400 pounds that aircraft has a useful load of 750 pounds. 50 gallons of fuel weighs 300 pounds and 40 gallons of fuel weighs 240 pounds, and 30 gallons of fuel weighs 180 pounds. For every 10 gallons of fuel you can leave behind you gain 60 pounds of payload. Payload increases 450 vs 510 vs 570 as you leave unnecessary fuel behind.

Take another look at all of your perspective airplanes and apply the above information and see where that leaves you. I'll bet those airplanes are bigger than you think.

I also suggest reading this article: https://airfactsjournal.com/2013/10/from-the-archives-wolfgang-langewiesche-flies-across-africa/
It is a wonderful true story about how to use an airplane to its fullest capabilities.

I hope this helps.

 

[SebIp]

Also you might find you use it as a two place plane.

My family are not keen on flying in the tiny plane.

 

[Half Fast]

Try looking at payload and how it varies with fuel load based on the different lengths of the flight you intend to complete.

Also, consider that if,...

Speed isn't terribly important since it's going to be used for building time and short trips.

... then you can fly at reduced power and have greater endurance (time building) and range (trips). For my baby Beech, flying at 55% power adds roughly 2 hours and 180 miles compared to 75% power. When you’re evaluating plane vs mission, consider the effect of power settings. A trip that looks impossible with full fuel might become quite doable with reduced fuel load and reduced power.

 

[Michael Castle]

We have a ‘69 Cherokee 140 and have very happy with it, having owned it for 11 years. The previous post by Seblp is spot on, everything is exactly what I would say.
However, 4 people, bags and fuel will be a tall order for any PA-28 unless it’s an hour or less of flight time. Our plane is nice for two adults, some bags and full fuel but thats all we typically do.
If the primary goal is time building for your son, the 150 HP PA-28’s are far cheaper to purchase, and it is very economical to operate. The fuel burn is between 6-8 GPH, parts are still available, plus the O-320 is a reliable engine. If you don’t mind a VFR plane, you can do what we did and get an Appareo transponder that gives you ADS-B in/out so your Foreflight equipped EFB gives you traffic/weather/GPS equivalent navigation. Our bird has the classic 6-pack instruments plus classic King radios that work. I wouldn’t mind newer avionics but the eye-watering cost of avionics upgrades made us decide to put that money in fuel instead.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

As others have said, depending on how heavy each of you are, weight may or may not be an issue. What will be an issue in any of the Cherokees is space. I owned the 140 with the 160 HP engine. I treated it as a two place aircraft with a large baggage area (I took out the backseats). If the primary mission is time building or two people traveling, it's perfect. If the primary mission is traveling with family and baggage, it's tight. Alternatives you can look into are Beech Musketeers/Sundowners. Similar performance, cost, fuel burn to the Cherokees but from what I've heard and seen, they are more spacious. Anything above that will get you either into complex or high performance territory so cost to operate and maintain will go up.

 

[Half Fast]

Alternatives you can look into are Beech Musketeers/Sundowners. Similar performance, cost, fuel burn to the Cherokees but from what I've heard and seen, they are more spacious.

They are indeed more spacious, but for family travel I suggest only considering the models with 180hp and up. The early Musketeers were underpowered and won't climb well when fully loaded.

 

[FPK1]

Make sure there is a tie down or hangar available for ya before you buy the plane!

 

[Domenick]

I've owned and flew a Warrior II (PA-28-161) for over 20 years. I consider it a two-place plane. Three are okay for a local jaunt without any gear. In all that time I only had 4 people in it once. The passengers were allowed 5 pounds of luggage, the pilot, me, 10 pounds. None of us were large people. First time at gross in that plane, I picked up two passengers at Paine Field, WA (KPAE) with its 9000' runway. I'm glad I did. The performance degradation was a surprise. Not sure what would have happened if I'd used my home drome's 2672' runway (S43) with the power lines at the end.

For full disclosure, I did make two mistakes. We were headed 200 nm south to the Oregon coast, and I wanted to make it in one leg, so I took off with full fuel. Not an issue at KPAE, but it might have made a difference at S43. Second, while I had anticipated the performance hit, it was still a surprise and I lost a few seconds. Again, not an issue at KPAE.

That one takeoff taught me a lot. Many years later, I did a month-long, solo trip around the US. Plane was near or at gross most of the time as I brought chocks, plane cover, full tools and an extra case of oil, food, and more. Stuck to long runways 3500' and over. I was a bit concerned about Sedona at elevation 4800', but it was plenty long and a non-issue.

If you want to haul 2 adults and 2 teenagers, the smallest I'd go in the PA-28 family is a Dakota (-236) or -235. A Warrior or an Archer will not cut it.

 

[William Pete Hodges]

Taking the front wheel pants on and off is a who’s the idiot who designed it this way job. With the pants on trying to check pressure or pump the front tire is impossible.

I went to a truck parts place and bought a tire adapter, some pipe fittings and an 8" piece of brake line. I added a pressure gauge and air trigger and pieced them together and bent the line as needed to check my air pressure and refill my tires without pulling the wheel pants. It worked like a charm.

 

[William Pete Hodges]

We have a ‘69 Cherokee 140 and have very happy with it, having owned it for 11 years. The previous post by Seblp is spot on, everything is exactly what I would say.
However, 4 people, bags and fuel will be a tall order for any PA-28 unless it’s an hour or less of flight time. Our plane is nice for two adults, some bags and full fuel but thats all we typically do.
If the primary goal is time building for your son, the 150 HP PA-28’s are far cheaper to purchase, and it is very economical to operate. The fuel burn is between 6-8 GPH, parts are still available, plus the O-320 is a reliable engine. If you don’t mind a VFR plane, you can do what we did and get an Appareo transponder that gives you ADS-B in/out so your Foreflight equipped EFB gives you traffic/weather/GPS equivalent navigation. Our bird has the classic 6-pack instruments plus classic King radios that work. I wouldn’t mind newer avionics but the eye-watering cost of avionics upgrades made us decide to put that money in fuel instead.

I owned a 68 Cherokee 140 with 160HP for 14 years. Everything they say above is spot on. We flew with 2 people and bags and a 30 lb dog and would take it for a week to visit family. We had the cavernous back shelf option and filled it up. A good plane up to 7500 feet. We went as high as 12,500 but it took a LONG time to get there. I have a short body Mooney M20E now. Much the same with better climb faster cruise and burns less fuel.

I forgot to add more useful load. 943 for the Mooney vs 750 for the Cherokee 140.

 

[murphey]

I went to a truck parts place and bought a tire adapter, some pipe fittings and an 8" piece of brake line. I added a pressure gauge and air trigger and pieced them together and bent the line as needed to check my air pressure and refill my tires without pulling the wheel pants. It worked like a charm.

I took the wheel pants off years ago. They're sitting on the shelf in the hangar. The (alleged) 2-4 kts difference is noise when you consider the effort to check/add air. Just not worth it.