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!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,835
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
rbridges
En-Route
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
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
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?
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
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!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,835
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
Raymo
Pre-takeoff checklist
Pretty sure the 151 was 160 HP (high compression ratio).
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
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
- 5,850
- Display Name
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.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
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:
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
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.