Assuming same vintage, say ‘69. Do the 140 and the 180 have the same rear leg room? If it is different is it because the fuselage is different or is the layout slightly different. I have searched the forum and have seen differing responses. Unfortunately, I only have access to a 140 which is too small for an adult sitting behind me in the pilot seat and a -151 which is definitely useable. I rarely take adults in the back, but it is nice to be able to grab breakfast or dinner every so often with another couple. Thanks in advance.
PA-28-140 and 180 rear seat room?
- Thread starter Cth6
- Start date
eman1200
Touchdown! Greaser!
rbridges
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- Warner Robins, GA
- Display Name
- rbridges
- Home Airfield
- KPXE
I can't give you a solid answer, but I used a 180 for a year or two. The back seat is tight IMO for an adult. If you go a few years newer, Piper stretched the fuselage on their arrows and cherokees. Five more inches maybe?
Glenn D
Pre-takeoff checklist
The 140 and 180 up to 1973 were the same length fuselage.... In 73 the Challenger was the first "180" with the 5 inch fuselage stretch, and the old wing. The "Archer" was the Challenger with the new taper wing. All 140's have the same "shorter" length fuselage. and the same wing.
The -151 is a Warrior, which is the stretched fuselage, taper wing, O-320 150hp engine. the Archer is the o-360 180hp engine.
The -151 is a Warrior, which is the stretched fuselage, taper wing, O-320 150hp engine. the Archer is the o-360 180hp engine.
tawood
En-Route
In my Cherokee 140 I never put more than one adult in the back (and why would you?). I recommend to any adult in my plane that they sit on one seat, with their feet placed across to the floor in front of the other seat. It gives more leg room.
Thanks @Glenn D , so then the back seat leg room is the same in the 140 and 180 assuming the same year?
Last edited:
BarryCooper
Pre-takeoff checklist
My backseat has enough room for a Black Lab or a grandchild <10 yo
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
- Pilawt
- Home Airfield
- KGYR
No, they are not.
The -140 and early (pre-1973) -180 have the same external dimensions, but the rear cabin bulkhead of a -140 is one station further forward, so the -140's cabin is considerably smaller behind the front seats.
This is the 1965 Cherokee 140 "2+2 Cruiser". Beginning in 1969 there was an option for a molded plastic rear bulkhead that formed a hat shelf and tiny baggage area behind the snap-in seats, but the room for the rear victims ... er, passengers ... was the same.
And here's the Cherokee 180 (also the Cherokee 150, 160, 235 and Arrow). Beginning in 1971 the rear seats were individual bucket seats.
The convoluted history of the Cherokee line helps to understand the differences.
The Cherokee was designed as an entry level, four-seat family airplane to replace the Tri-Pacer in the Piper line. The first PA-28 to be certified and go to market was the four-seat PA-28-160 in mid 1961, followed a few months later by the PA-28-150. Despite somewhat lower performance, the -150 proved more popular because it could use less-expensive 80-octane fuel. The PA-28-180 came along in late 1962, and the -235 at the end of 1963. All these had identical interior dimensions (same as the blue one above); in fact the same airframe, N2800W, was used as the flight test prototype for the -160, -180 and -235 in succession.
Meanwhile, Piper was getting its brains beat out by Cessna in the primary trainer market. Piper had nothing to compete with the popular C-150, other than the fabric-covered Colt and Super Cub. Piper had planned a new two-seat, low-wing trainer (PA-29 Papoose) to replace the Colt, but its plastic-composite construction was not ready for prime time (or even direct sunlight, as it turned out), and it was scrubbed. To get a trainer to market as quickly as possible, Piper took the rear seats out of a PA-28-150, moved the rear bulkhead forward by one station, eliminated the baggage door, and put a cruise prop on it which derated power to 140 hp (2450 rpm), and voilá, the PA-28-140 "Cherokee 140" was introduced in early 1964. MGW was initially limited to 1,950 lb., which seemed plenty for a two-seater.
Desperate to build brand loyalty with a basic trainer, Piper aggressively priced the -140 at $8500, about 25% less than the four-seat Cherokee 150.
Within a year, though, Piper added optional snap-in rear seats for the -140 (the "2+2 Cruiser" option package), repitched the prop so power was equivalent to the PA-28-150 (2700 rpm), and raised the MGW to 2,150 lb., also equivalent to the Cherokee 150.
The "2+2" Cherokee 140 (intended for the flight school market) and full four-seat Cherokee 150 and 160 were built side-by-side until 1967, when the -150 and -160 were discontinued. Beginning in 1964, though, the Cherokee 150, 160 and 180 had the restyled fiberglass cowl that made them easily distinguishable from the -140.
Last edited:
Thanks @Pilawt I had heard the bulkhead was a station aft, but I assumed that it was just providing luggage area. Based on the pictures it looks like the seat back moved aft in the 180s providing a deeper rear seat (Just looking at the placement of the back of the ladies knees. So, did the raised floor bulkhead (Where your heals are) move aft as well in the 180 or is the rear passenger foot well the same as the 140?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
- Pilawt
- Home Airfield
- KGYR
The -140 leg room is more restricted because it has a flat floor structure over the rear spar. Look at the photo of the Cherokee 140 interior above. Notice that the thin rear-seat cushions are snapped onto a flat box-like surface, with even a chrome finishing strip on the front corner. That was intended to be the baggage area floor in the original two-seat Cherokee 140 configuration, and that was the standard configuration throughout Cherokee 140 production up through 1977. In the four-seat models (-150, -160, -180, -235, Arrow), that "box" is not there. Larger, more thickly-padded seats are permanently installed above the main spar, and do not have to leave room for a load floor.
This illustration is from the POH of my old '77 Cherokee 140. The area marked (1) is the standard two-seat configuration, with flat cargo floor above the main spar. (2) shows the added baggage area with the optional molded plastic rear bulkhead if the snap-in rear seats are installed.
I tell ya, he does not disappoint. If this were a paid position, he'd be well compensated.
eman1200
Touchdown! Greaser!
Raymo
Pre-takeoff checklist
Pretty sure the 151 was 160 HP (high compression ratio).
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
- Pilawt
- Home Airfield
- KGYR
For 1974 through 1976, the PA-28-151 "Cherokee Warrior" had the same 150 hp engine as the Cherokee 140 and Cherokee 150, and used economical 80 octane fuel. When 100LL fuel took over and 80 octane became scarce, Piper introduced the PA-28-161 "Cherokee Warrior II" for 1977 with a higher-compression 160 hp engine, that ran better on 100LL. The same year Cessna did more or less the same thing with the 160 hp 172N "Skyhawk/100".
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,774
- Display Name
- DISPLAY NAME
Archer was just a Challenger with an Indian themed name. Archer II was the first Archer with the taper wing. This fact is easily confused with the Warrior where all variants had the taper wing.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
- Pilawt
- Home Airfield
- KGYR
Correct. "Cherokee Challenger" was the '73 PA-28-180; "Cherokee Archer" was the '74 and '75, still with the Hershey-bar wing; and the taper-wing PA-28-181 "Cherokee Archer II" appeared for 1976. "Cherokee" was dropped on all models after the 1977 model year (except for the "Cherokee Six", which remained through 1978; for its last year, 1979, it was just "Piper Six 300").
The '73 PA-28-235 was "Cherokee Charger". Why did the "Challenger" and "Charger" names go away after only one year? Rumor is that Chrysler Corporation was all a-dither about the trademarks of its popular muscle cars, so Piper came up with new names. Maybe they could have gotten away with one or the other of those names, but both at the same time, when those cars were at the height of their popularity, seems a little obvious.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
- Pilawt
- Home Airfield
- KGYR
Back when I owned my Cherokee 140 at Van Nuys, CA, a pilot friend asked me to help out. He was soon to be married (despite the fact we had counseled him), and asked me to fly him and his bride the 12 nautical miles from Van Nuys to Santa Monica after the wedding so they could evade rowdy well-wishers. They planned to have a car waiting for them at KSMO.
On the appointed day I decked out the airplane's interior with paper wedding bells and ribbon and waited for them, certain that they would have changed clothes before coming to the airport.
Nope.
She showed up in full wedding gown and he in tux. I'll let those of you with Cherokee 140 experience visualize the two of them squeezing into the back seats, while her brother took the shotgun position. There was minimal fuel aboard, and we were all young and skinny, so we were legal. Barely.
texasag93
Line Up and Wait
Back when I owned my Cherokee 140 at Van Nuys, CA, a pilot friend asked me to help out. He was soon to be married (despite the fact we had counseled him), and asked me to fly him and his bride the 12 nautical miles from Van Nuys to Santa Monica after the wedding so they could evade rowdy well-wishers. They planned to have a car waiting for them at KSMO.
On the appointed day I decked out the airplane's interior with paper wedding bells and ribbon and waited for them, certain that they would have changed clothes before coming to the airport.
Nope.
She showed up in full wedding gown and he in tux. I'll let those of you with Cherokee 140 experience visualize the two of them squeezing into the back seats, while her brother took the shotgun position. There was minimal fuel aboard, and we were all young and skinny, so we were legal. Barely.
View attachment 72129
When you land safely, the legality is never questioned.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
I know this is an old thread, but I'm new, and I have a question relating to the subject matter at hand.
Is it POSSIBLE.... to change out the rear bench seat in a 1970 Piper Cherokee 180 for the separate bucket seats in the '71 and later models, and if so, is there a whole bunch of red tape to go through with the A&P with AI? I know you can re-do your interior with a kit with minimal hassle, but didn't know if this was "a bridge too far"...
Is it POSSIBLE.... to change out the rear bench seat in a 1970 Piper Cherokee 180 for the separate bucket seats in the '71 and later models, and if so, is there a whole bunch of red tape to go through with the A&P with AI? I know you can re-do your interior with a kit with minimal hassle, but didn't know if this was "a bridge too far"...
Not something you'll be able to do (legally) on your own. Might be able to talk an a&p into doing it as a minor modification if it's a bolt-in swap.
The 1st place I'd start is to call Piper tech support and see if there is a bulletin to install those seats. If not, you'll need to talk to your mechanic about installing them. But unless there is a common mount for the bucket seats in all 180s, then it will require approved data to install them under a 337 which your mechanic could take care of if he is willing. Don't see any big issues unless it would require extensive structural changes for the seat mount area.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Well, the reason I thought it might be doable is, I saw a pilot friend's 140 cleaned out ready for a new interior, and I noticed that back platform where the seats get mounted is made of plywood. Seems like a simple "carpentry" job... I thought if I googled "trade out bench seat for bucket seats Cherokee 180" that I would get all kinds of search results. This thread was one of the few provided. Not nearly the discussion topic I thought it would be.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Interestingly enough, I copy and pasted what I put in quotes above just now, and put it into the Google search bar. Apparently I did not originally word my search that way. When I did it just now, I got exactly (almost, it's about a Warrior using Archer rear donor seats... same difference) what I was looking for. Here it is for reference:
Replacing rear bench seats with bucket seats in a Warrior II
Anybody know of a STC to replace a bench seat with bucket seats or has anyone done it with a field approval?
piperowner.org
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Exactly. I fully intend to build a Zenith CH640 (with some refinements) for my forever plane.
Yep... looks pretty involved. Going to need to find a mechanic willing to do the extra work, which is hard to find these days.
Welcome to POA!
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Thanks for the welcome! I'll GLADLY do the extra work. Heck, I'll do ALL the work, and just have the A&P over my shoulder when needed...
But if they're going to charge me an extra $1000 for the "privilege" of doing it (STC), that's going to be a no for me.
There's guys who will do it if you build a relationship with them. I'm in the home stretch of doing a major overhaul on my io-540 under the supervision of my ap/ia. I've been working with him for several years though and he's come to trust my abilities. Actually the first work i did that he signed off was adding the seventh seat to my Lance. In that case though, it was a factory option, so it was just a case of gathering the right parts and installing them.
While the work may seem simple, its to ensure that work meets the same standards as the type design. And since it is a seat alteration then you get into structural loading checks, etc. as referenced in AC 43.13-2B to meet those requirements.
Except its not a "privilege" but a requirement you need as owner to keep your aircraft airworthy. There's definitely a path to do this alteration, which I doubt will take an STC to accomplish, but it will require an A&P and one most probably with an IA to perform properly.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Okay, I was going to let this go, but I just can't. STC paperwork and FEES do not make an aircraft airworthy. Propper work does. Paying money to someone that results in no labor, no product, or no service, is quite frankly, correctly labeled extortion. You know how I know? Because Kit planes don't have to pay for or procure STCs, and they fly just fine. I appreciate your perspective, but that's my opinion on STCs.
Proper work means not only workmasnship but also making sure it complies with the standards of airworthiness (type certificate, supplemental type certificate, other data acceptable to the administrator, etc...).
Except Kit planes or E/ABs technically are not required to be “airworthy” by definition, ie., the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. What triggers the requirement for STCs is the “conforms to its type design” part which an E/AB or other experimental aircraft does not have, so no STC required. And its no different than when you need a E/AB repairman certificate or A&P to sign off the yearly Condition Inspection on your Kit plane to ensure all the work was done properly.
So it has zero to do with privilege or extortion and more to do with having an understanding how the regulations work and why. For example, if you were to develop a reason to put your Piper under Experimental Exhibition say for a new interior configuration, you could modify it how you want without the need for STCs or A&Ps, except you’ll need an A&P to sign-off your yearly Condition Inspection like E/AB aircraft do.
Last edited:
Jim_R
En-Route
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,569
- Display Name
- Jim
Nobody ever got an STC approved without expending effort, even if all that STC does is change some numbers on a piece of paper. Whoever got the STC had to prove to the FAA that the number change was safe. Maybe they did it through flight testing. Maybe they did it through some other method. But whatever they did, it took effort.
It is that effort you are paying for when you purchase a "paperwork STC". No different than buying an art print that was reproduced 100 times. Maybe 99 of those were run off on a Xerox machine, but someone's time, creativity, and talent went into the first one, and that's what you're paying for.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Okay. Y'all can stop justifying now. I give up. Whatever. I am an Architect, so I am well acquainted with intellectual property rights.
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,770
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
It's not just intellectual property. The stc holder still has some paperwork to do and potentially answer to the feds.
This is one of those things where you don't know what you don't know. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but it's the way it is in TC'd land.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Answer me this. Is there a guy (or gal) out their with an STC on trading out rear bench seats in a 1970 Cherokee for 1971 Cherokee bucket seats? If so, they are collecting money off of engineering already performed by Piper in 1971. That's all I'm saying. If you got an STC for new design wing tips? Cool. I can see that. Bucket seats vs. bench seats in the same hull with the same plywood floor? Give me a break.
Not really. The question you should asking is if Piper did perform that engineering why didnt they develop a service bulletin for you to swap the seats on your aircraft? No STC needed. Regardless, if anyone, outside the OEM, wishes to produce or sell a part/process that may possibly be installed on a TC'd aircraft, they must obtain an FAA approval for it, ie., an STC.
If the alteration will change the number of certified seat numbers, STC required. If that stays the same, then could be accomplished under a 337 field approval with the right ASI.
geosnooker2000
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2025
- Messages
- 9
- Display Name
- George
Yeah, That's what I'M thinkin'.