opinions on cherokee 140 as primary trainer?

rbridges

rbridges

En-Route
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
Warner Robins, GA
Display Name
Display name:
rbridges
a friend and I are kicking around some ideas. He's a CFII, and we're looking at setting up some flight instruction at the local airport. We were looking for a 152, but I noticed some nicely spec'd cherokees in the same price range. When I trained, it was in a 172 and 180 cherokee, so I have no personal experience with a 152.

I'm looking at cost of ownership and maintenance. The 140 is a little higher IMO but reasonable. I like the idea of double doors, but I'm used to the single side in my mooney. What are the pros and cons of a 140 cherokee as a trainer?
 
A good Cherokee 140 would make a fine trainer.
 
a real work horse and very easy to fly.
 
If I weren't in a co-ownership the Cherokee 140 would be high on my list of "reasonable to own" airplanes for light loads and fun flying. A little doggy up here at altitude but price can't be beat.
 
I had a 1968 140B as my first airplane, although I learned in C-152's. I found it almost too easy to fly. They are good solid airplanes.
 
I had a 1974 Cherokee 140 for 18 years (just sold it in August)

I believe it's a fine trainer. Maintenance costs will be comparable to a warrior or Archer. It's quite simple to work on.

The 140 doesn't have much useful load, particularly if it is a later model or has air conditioning (the basic empty weight tended to increase with each model year). Mine had about 700lbs of useful load.

A significant number of 140's have been upgraded to 160hp, which pretty much gives then climb/speed performance and fuel burn of the warrior if you use warrior RPM settings.

With the 150hp (or even 160hp), it's not really suitable for higher elevations. I'm based at KBED with an elevation of about 125' and most of my flying is just around New England, so the 140's service ceiling wasn't a problem.

I liked how my 140 flew, light controls without being supersensitive. I preferred flying my 140 to a friend's 180.
 
The 180 is a truck. Agreed. Heavier feel even than a 182, which isn't known for its light control feel. ;)
 
I did my primary training in a mix of Cherokees (140, 150 and 160 HP) and finally a 172. You can definitely tell the difference between a 140 and a 160, but they both fly just fine. I'd definitely take a Cherokee over a 150 or 152, simply because I'm not sure I could even wedge myself into a 152. I also think full tanks, me and an instructor bigger than a hobbit would put it well over gross. You can put two pretty big guys in a Cherokee and not have to worry about exceeding max weight.
 
Excellent. I teach in one almost every day. Big advantage over 150 is you have two extra seats once you get your ticket. It may be most bang for the buck in trainers.
 
Last edited:
BTW, you're probably more likely to find one IFR-capable then a 150, so it can serve as the trainer for your instrument ticket. One of my students just did her instrument training and check ride in our 140.
 
DaleB said:
I did my primary training in a mix of Cherokees (140, 150 and 160 HP) and finally a 172. You can definitely tell the difference between a 140 and a 160, but they both fly just fine. I'd definitely take a Cherokee over a 150 or 152, simply because I'm not sure I could even wedge myself into a 152. I also think full tanks, me and an instructor bigger than a hobbit would put it well over gross. You can put two pretty big guys in a Cherokee and not have to worry about exceeding max weight.
Click to expand...

That's why we were considering a 152 vs 150. Two full size guys, summer, full tanks=over gross. Even a 152 is cutting it close. I like the idea of 150 or 160 HP vs 115.

LDJones said:
BTW, you're probably more likely to find one IFR-capable then a 150, so it can serve as the trainer for your instrument ticket. One of my students just did her instrument training and check ride in our 140.
Click to expand...

I noticed that, too. I'm looking at a 140 that has a 430 in it. It would be awesome to find one to double as instrument trainer, too.
 
The Cherokee is a great trainer. The only down sides I can think of for the Cherokee 140 vs a 152 is higher costs due to fuel burn and insurance.
However and autogas STC "might" offset some of the fuel cost.
You can also sell the higher cost by having students ride along in the back seat while training other students, In practice this seldom works unless the students know each other. But it is an option you can offer to students with the extra seat available
Slightly higher cruise speeds can be a selling point, in they will spend less time going to and from the practice area.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
I put around 35 of my training hours in a Cherokee 140 and really enjoyed it. It wasn't pretty to look at (we called it the easter egg), but it flew well.

As mentioned, the useful load is small and the backseats are for kids or extremely short people. With the seat set for me to fly, no average size adult could sit behind me. There just isn't the leg room.

They are easy to fly, pretty docile and take a decent beating in the training environment.

And our instructors were very happy with it.
 
Forgot to mention, try to get one with the 160 HP conversion. As others mentioned it really does help with climb, as the 150 HP is a bit challenged that way.
 
I instructed in 140s and other Cherokee models for a Piper Flite Center in the early 1970s, and later owned a share of a '77 Cherokee 140. I liked these airplanes a lot, but these are my thoughts on it as a trainer.

Pros:

-- It's comfortable inside for both student and instructor; same dimensions in the front seat area as a Turbo Arrow.

-- Instrument panel capable of accommodating as much gear as you can afford to cram in there -- again, same panel as a Turbo Arrow.

-- It's no speed demon in cruise, but it can accommodate high approach speeds so as to fit in at busy airports.

-- Important moving parts are readily accessible for pre-flight inspection and maintenance. The cowl is kinda homely, but those big clamshell doors open up the engine compartment beautifully.

-- Benign stall characteristics.

-- Landing gear geometry makes it about as easy to make a safe (if not artistic) landing in a -140 as in any other trainer.

-- Prepares student for easy transition to higher-performance models (especially Cherokees!)

-- Optional snap-in back seats permit bringing along another person.

Cons:

-- Not particularly efficient in cruise. Back in the day, Piper suggested an "instructional cruising" power setting of 50%, which yielded airspeed and fuel flow similar to the competitive Cessna 150.

-- In some respects it's too easy to fly -- it covers a multitude of student sins. It might deprive a primary student of some valuable "teaching moments" that another trainer might provide. It's interesting that Piper replaced the Cherokee 140 with the Tomahawk, which was intentionally designed to have "edgier" handling characteristics.

Overall I prefer the Cessna 150 for primary training, and the Cherokee 140 for instrument training.

Just my $.02.
 
Pilawt said:
-- In some respects it's too easy to fly -- it covers a multitude of student sins. It might deprive a primary student of some valuable "teaching moments" that another trainer might provide. It's interesting that Piper replaced the Cherokee 140 with the Tomahawk, which was intentionally designed to have "edgier" handling characteristics.

Overall I prefer the Cessna 150 for primary training, and the Cherokee 140 for instrument training.

Just my $.02.
Click to expand...


Spot on. Totally agree. I learned in a C-152, and if just a tad uncordinated, it was hard to get perfectly cordinated at high angles of attack with full power (departure stall) it would always snap, and drop a wing in a stall, forcing you to correct with opposite rudder. Valuable lesson for sure.

In my Cherokee, as in my Grumman, power on stalls are a non-event.
 
I like 140's, hella fun to tool around in. I actually like the Hershey bar wing better than the swept wing. I have boo coo hours in Turbo Arrows but my Arrow II flies more like a 140, just faster.
 
denverpilot said:
The 180 is a truck. Agreed. Heavier feel even than a 182, which isn't known for its light control feel. ;)
Click to expand...

I resent that! (or resemble it, I dunno which) I'm rather fond of my Cherokee 180, and am getting checked out in a C182. That 182 really handles very differently and I need to be much more agressive on the yoke than on the cherokee.(Nate owns a C182, I own a Cherokee. It's a religious issue)

But going back to the OP posting. At low altitudes, the 140 is incredibly stable. Because the mains are further apart than on a 152 and the fuselage sits lower (mains are shorter) and low wing, it's easier to maneuver on the taxiway (unless there's 4 ft snow piles) and a bit less prone to bounce on landing.

You'll also find the cabin of the 140 slightly wider than the 152 so the two in front are more comfortable. It's also heavier than the 152, which is one aspect of its stability.

Also remember that the 140 was designed to be a trainer to compete with the 152/172 and is not necessarily a traveling aircraft.

Big issues that will determine your choice:
1. Insurance
2. Parts availability
3. A&P familiarity with the aircraft (cost of maintenance)
4. Your location - altitude really does matter.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Also remember that the 140 was designed to be a trainer to compete with the 152/172 and is not necessarily a traveling aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's the issue -- the Cherokee 140 was not designed as a trainer at all. It's just a reworked Cherokee 150, which was designed and marketed as a family traveler.

In the early '60s, Cessna owned the trainer market with the 150. Trainers never were profitable themselves; they were loss-leaders whose value lay in establishing brand loyalty in the students who flew them. Piper's only trainer at that time (unless you count the Super Cub) was the high-wing, tube-and-fabric Colt, itself merely a downgraded Tri-Pacer. Colt is a fun airplane (and unlike the Cherokee, could actually demonstrate adverse aileron yaw), but it was not a logical lead-in to the airplanes that did make money for Piper. They had been developing a modern, low-wing two-seat trainer, the PA-29 Papoose, but that airplane's composite construction proved not ready for prime time, and the project was abandoned.

So in order to get a "modern" trainer online as quickly as possible, they simply took the current Cherokee B 150, removed the rear seats, sealed up the baggage compartment and baggage door, reduced gross weight by 200 pounds, and limited the engine to 140 hp, and called it the 1964 Cherokee 140.

A year later, the 2150 lb gross weight and full 150 hp were restored, and snap-in 2+2 back seats were offered. Thereafter the only differences between the -140 and -150 were the -150's baggage area and door, full-size rear bench seat, and beginning with the 'C' model in 1964, sleeker fiberglass cowl.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
I resent that! (or resemble it, I dunno which) I'm rather fond of my Cherokee 180, and am getting checked out in a C182. That 182 really handles very differently and I need to be much more agressive on the yoke than on the cherokee.(Nate owns a C182, I own a Cherokee. It's a religious issue)

But going back to the OP posting. At low altitudes, the 140 is incredibly stable. Because the mains are further apart than on a 152 and the fuselage sits lower (mains are shorter) and low wing, it's easier to maneuver on the taxiway (unless there's 4 ft snow piles) and a bit less prone to bounce on landing.

You'll also find the cabin of the 140 slightly wider than the 152 so the two in front are more comfortable. It's also heavier than the 152, which is one aspect of its stability.

Also remember that the 140 was designed to be a trainer to compete with the 152/172 and is not necessarily a traveling aircraft.

Big issues that will determine your choice:
1. Insurance
2. Parts availability
3. A&P familiarity with the aircraft (cost of maintenance)
4. Your location - altitude really does matter.
Click to expand...


thanks. we're checking insurance. I expect the premiums to be higher, but hopefully not too much. Our IA should be pretty familiar with it; there are a ton of cherokees around here. Our runway altitude is ~400ft, so not too much problem there.
 
oh, btw, one thing I like about the cherokee 140 is the hinged cowling. Really really really easy to pre-flight the engine compartment. Much nicer than opening the little tiny access panel for the oil dip stick like on the warrior/archer and 172 (I don't remember what the 150/152 have).
 
I soloed in one.

The only thing I dont care for in the Cherokees is that the door is on the wrong side, not a problem in a trainer.

I am thinking about getting one, the things I am looking for are:

- throttle quadrant (I just prefer it, no mechanical or religious reason)
- 6-pack panel
- ratty paint
- ratty interior
- decent avionics with not too bad of a hatchet job on the panel.
- good engine
 
My school started with a Liberty XL2, but quickly abandoned it in favour of 1965 Cherokee, later picking a 1968 Cherokee 140 as well. The airplanes were in service for a few years until they were supplemented with a leaseback 172 in 2010. It turned out that some students prefer Cessnas, and so they bought another 172. Cherokees continue to soldier on with engine and panel upgrades. The former -140 now has a 160 hp engine and is called "PA28A".

A competing school in town was an all-Cessna shop, until they decided to get a fancy airplane and bought a DA-20. A renter prop-striked it pretty quickly. Cherokees can take anything, which may be a factor.

On the other hand, there's a one-man, one-airplane school about an hour drive away that uses an LSA, a Remos GX. Judging from their social media, they graduate a student about once a month, with an even split between Private and Sport tickets. You'd think students would've bent that airplane in 2 years it was online. Their GX is a mega fancy deal that has every imaginable electronic gizmo (just got FIS-B a month ago), and apparently customers love it. No idea where the guy got the cash to buy that bird, it may be financed as part of business somehow.
 
zaitcev said:
My school started with a Liberty XL2, but quickly abandoned it in favour of 1965 Cherokee, later picking a 1968 Cherokee 140 as well. The airplanes were in service for a few years until they were supplemented with a leaseback 172 in 2010. It turned out that some students prefer Cessnas, and so they bought another 172. Cherokees continue to soldier on with engine and panel upgrades. The former -140 now has a 160 hp engine and is called "PA28A".

A competing school in town was an all-Cessna shop, until they decided to get a fancy airplane and bought a DA-20. A renter prop-striked it pretty quickly. Cherokees can take anything, which may be a factor.

On the other hand, there's a one-man, one-airplane school about an hour drive away that uses an LSA, a Remos GX. Judging from their social media, they graduate a student about once a month, with an even split between Private and Sport tickets. You'd think students would've bent that airplane in 2 years it was online. Their GX is a mega fancy deal that has every imaginable electronic gizmo (just got FIS-B a month ago), and apparently customers love it. No idea where the guy got the cash to buy that bird, it may be financed as part of business somehow.
Click to expand...
Actually, PA28A is the FAA code for all fixed gear cherokees (and arrows are PA28R's).

I'll say that I have barley touched the Cessna 172's I used to rent after getting checked out in the GX. I only use the 172's for instrument currency now.
 
Let's be honest, a 150 with full tanks will fly longer then most students will want to be in the air, even with a fattie and adjusted fuel the 150 tends to have more endurance the most students or PPLs.
 
murphey said:
(Nate owns a C182, I own a Cherokee. It's a religious issue)
Click to expand...

Heh heh. That whole wing on the bottom thing is against my religion. ;)

Not really. But it's fun to say it is.

Clark's Dakota has that problem too. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top