Piper 28/180 model question

J

JC565

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
49
Display Name
Display name:
Mad_Scientist_565
Hello.

I am looking for a specific Cherokee, and im not sure if it exist. I know there was lots of variants but I haven't been able to find just the right combination of airframe.

Im looking for one with the following features

- Fixed gear
- Tapered wing
- extra leg room (so post '73 i believe?)
- 180 hp
- STC to upgrade to CS Prop. (so changed over to hollow crank?)

Is there a specific model that meets those criteria that anyone knows of? Closest I could find was a 140 that was upgraded to a 180 with a CS prop. Its been a while since i read, but if i'm not mistaken there was an STC that allowed to change to the 180, and then another that allowed the hollow crank, which in turn allowed the Prop governor to be installed and signed off with a form 337. (i could be completely wrong about that)


I would not be opposed to going the 140 route if it could meet that criteria, as i would just do the changes at over haul.

Also, would anyone happen to be able to recommend a good book about the history of the cherokee? (just not the 200 dollar one with ALL the piper specs in it.. thats overkill.. just looking for a historical read to keep in the airplane)
 
I thought the archer was a cherokee... lol. but hey Im listening.
 
JC565 said:
I thought the archer was a cherokee... lol. but hey Im listening.
Click to expand...

If you want the tapered wing, you can't get a Cherokee :)
Cherokees are with Hershey bar wings, tapered wings are called Warriors and Archers.
 
Still the same PA28 basic frame though right?
 
model ends in 1 = tapered wing
zero = Hershey bar wing

PA-28-181 is a 180 hp Cherokee Archer with a tapered wing.
PA-28-180 is a 180 HP Cherokee

So if you are looking for a tapered wing, just look at the airplanes that end in 1.
 
OK roger that.. so now the question comes down to the CS Prop. Sorry i dont know more about these STCs or how/where to investigate them..
 
mtuomi said:
If you want the tapered wing, you can't get a Cherokee :)
Cherokees are with Hershey bar wings, tapered wings are called Warriors and Archers.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The 180 hp fixed-gear PA-28 evolved like this:

From late 1962, when the Cherokee B 180 was introduced, through the 1972 model year, the PA-28-180 had the short body and was generally referred to as "Cherokee 180".

For 1973 the PA-28-180 was given the same stretched fuselage, extended outer panels on the Hershey-bar wings (span increased by 2 feet) and enlarged stabilator, introduced in 1972 on the Cherokee Arrow II. For 1973 only the PA-28-180 was called "Cherokee Challenger"

The 1974 and 1975 PA-28-180 had only minor cosmetic changes from the '73, but the name was changed to "Cherokee Archer". I've heard that Chrysler Corp. objected to Piper's use of the its muscle-car names for the '73 Cherokee Challenger and PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger. So Piper renamed them after only one year, and yes, the '74 and '75 Cherokee Archer did have the old rectangular "Hershey Bar" wings.

The 1976 model inherited the tapered wings introduced two years earlier on the Cherokee Warrior. In Piper's model number protocol, tapered wings were indicated by arbitrarily adding '1' to the horsepower suffix. Thus the '76 180-hp model became the PA-28-181 Cherokee Archer II.

The "Cherokee" part of the name was dropped at the end of the 1977 model year on all PA-28s.
 
Last edited:
They are all death traps, because:
They only have one door.
The wing is in the wrong place.
The fuel tanks fill up with gunk because you never get on the ground to sump them.
They have too many positions on the fuel switch.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is. I have too much brain damage from walking into the wing on the Cessna.
 
btw.. i should of added.. that the ability to add a CS Prop is far more important to me than the wing. i read even piper said there wasnt a very big difference, and the only performance information i could find, said it had a bit better stall characteristics
 
On a blind test, you won't recognize the difference between the wing types.
 
Anyway the only way I know to get a C/S prop on a Cherokee is to get a 235, 236, turbo Dakota or an Arrow. The earliest 235 were fixed pitch standard from the factory. I believe C/S was an option.

You could get a 180 hp Arrow and leave the gear down. I think those are just short bodies though.
 
JC565 said:
Im pretty sure the CS prop conversion is a possibility.

its on the internet so it must be true right? This isnt the first one I have seen

http://rraircraft.com/1966-piper-cherokee-140180-sold.html
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I looked at a 180 in Phoenix many years ago that had the CS prop. There's an STC for it, but you'd have to search the FAA STC database to find it. I have no doubt that the STC will be good for the Archer, too.
 
Shepherd said:
They are all death traps, because:
They only have one door.
The wing is in the wrong place.
The fuel tanks fill up with gunk because you never get on the ground to sump them.
They have too many positions on the fuel switch.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is. I have too much brain damage from walking into the wing on the Cessna.
Click to expand...

now I take serious offense .... with these 3

Wing is absolutely at the right place, I would rather sit on one than hang from one
I would any day sump 3 drains and not 13 (out of which you have to pretty much crawl under the cowling for the last 3)
172 SP has one more fuel switch - Both

now about the one door... :p
 
CS prop on any Cherokee/Warrior/Archer 180 is just a more expensive toy.

Cheers
 
I flew a CS prop on a Cessna for few days, apart from have to pull the throttle back pretty fast while leveling off, there wasn't much difference. I have seen much better climb performance with fixed pitch prop on a cold day

Edit: I stand corrected. it was a climb prop on the cessna
 
Last edited:
WannFly said:
I flew a CS prop on a Cessna for few days, apart from have to pull the throttle back pretty fast while levelling off, there wasn't much difference. I have seen much better climb performance with fixed pitch prop on a cold day

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

?????
 
I have seen constant speed prop stcs on Cherokee 180s that had type certificates for the O-360-A3A (hollow crank). That included up to the D model I believe whose TC was for the A3A and the A4A (solid crank). Once the TC excluded the A3A, for instance the Archer II, I could not find a CS prop conversion. I would be curious if someone knew of one however.
 
I got this info from hartzell today. Apparently the a3a hollow crank is just plugged. Converting it (allowing for installation of prop governor) changes the engine designation to a1a

JC:



Looks like there are a couple of STC’s that will allow for this on a PA-28-180.



They are:



SA2213WE (this one might be your best bet – I’ll get to that later)

SA556SW



SA556SW is a little vague, and if I remember correctly, the STC holder is difficult/impossible to get ahold of. Sometimes these older STC’s go “inactive” and the people are hard to find.



SA2213WE, on the other hand, looks like it’s still active, and appears to allow for the “conversion” of the existing O-360-A3A engine to an O-360-A1A, and then installing a CS prop. It appears that the O-360-A3A has a hollow crank.
 
Of course the first questions to ask - why do you want a CS prop?
Have you flown behind a CS in the past?
If you have, then why choose an aircraft that will have to be retrofitted with a CS prop?
Why not look for an aircraft that has a CS prop as standard?
 
Mainly because I want the extra few knots and climb benefits of the cs without the added cost and reduced payload of an airplane with a landing gear. (Since as far as i can tell the only cs equipped 28's are r models) i also plan on making it availible for rent so no landing gear has its benefits.

Since then 360 came in both variants, its appears to be the best candidate for the upgrade.
 
Have you considered a Cardinal or TB10?
 
No i hadnt. I pretty much limited myself to cessnas 172s and pipers 160/180. since that's what most low hour pilots are going to fly.
 
Shepherd said:
They are all death traps, because:
They only have one door.
The wing is in the wrong place.
The fuel tanks fill up with gunk because you never get on the ground to sump them.
They have too many positions on the fuel switch.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is. I have too much brain damage from walking into the wing on the Cessna.
Click to expand...

Do you ever bother to drain the fuel selector drain to get all the gunk on your Cessna? It is the lowest part of those fuel systems? If so, how do you do it with out crawling on the ground?

Is 4 less that 3? A Piper has left, right and off. A Cessna has left right off and both. Cessna never built one that drains evenly from both tanks.

Do you use self serve fuel? How is dragging that hose up the ladder working for you?
 
I fly an Archer, it's a good airplane. Probably one of the best values for the money. It's simple and easy to fly, the useful load is about as good as you'll ever see for a 4 cyl 4-place aircraft. It's a common well known airplane with a basic and rugged design so maintenance/insurance costs are low. Fuel burn is around 10gal/hr or a little less. Cruise speeds around 115-120kts.
 
Pilawt said:
PA-28-235 Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (1963-77), and PA-28-236 Dakota (1979-87) have fixed gear and constant-speed prop (optional on the 235 in earlier years),
Click to expand...

Just flew the "new to us" 235F this morning - GTX345/530W combo, EDM700 and an autopilot which freaked me out using one for the first time. Sure nice having the extra ponies upfront compared to the Archer we sold recently. Average 11.2 gallons per tach hour. I am in love !!!

Only thing all I can find online is an "owners manual" and not an actual POH that would have the CG limit graphs etc.....
 
JC565 said:
Mainly because I want the extra few knots and climb benefits of the cs without the added cost and reduced payload of an airplane with a landing gear. (Since as far as i can tell the only cs equipped 28's are r models) i also plan on making it availible for rent so no landing gear has its benefits.

Since then 360 came in both variants, its appears to be the best candidate for the upgrade.
Click to expand...
How much faster is the CS prop?
 
Pilawt said:
PA-28-235 Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (1963-77), and PA-28-236 Dakota (1979-87) have fixed gear and constant-speed prop (optional on the 235 in earlier years),
Click to expand...

The 235 is just a bit outside my budget for now. But im thinking thats going to be airplane #2. I have a plan that I'm trying to stick to, since ultimately i want to be in the business of airplanes, not just flying them.

MauleSkinner said:
How much faster is the CS prop?
Click to expand...

Im trying to get actually verified numbers from an owner, but other planes sold in both variants show an 8-12 knot increase at cruise. To me that's worth the cost of the swap.


Ive pretty much settled on an archer ii. It seems to have all the requirements I'm interested in. Cs prop upgrade would require a crank swamp , but that's not a big deal.
 
I'd get a credible estimate on that crank swap/prop upgrade before proceeding. I expect for the labor cost in all of that it would be cheaper to get a 235....
 
cowman said:
I'd get a credible estimate on that crank swap/prop upgrade before proceeding. I expect for the labor cost in all of that it would be cheaper to get a 235....
Click to expand...
Or more practical to keep the original equipment fixed pitch prop. The ROI may not be worth it.
 
The crank and prop are negligible since you have to buy them anyway. The rest of the cost is the block mod (blocking off oil pressure relief hole) and the other prop parts and install labor.

It may be cheaper to get a 235 (or at least competitive) but the difference is that i can buy a archer this year. I can't a 235. Well...i could. ..i just don't want to.

Im working on cost next and I'll post a thorough break down. I think it's doable at this point but i still need to prove it to myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top