One mistake you made: the Cherokee 140 was originally released with a 140hp engine in 1964 and only 2 seats. In 1965 they released the Cherokee 140-4, which included a 150 hp engine and 4 seats. And this increased the max gross weight from 1950 lbs to 2150 lbs. Piper also released a conversion kit to retrofit the 1964 models up to 150 hp with 4 seats and increased max gross weight. I own a 1964 Cherokee 140 with a Lycoming O-320-E2A engine, which is 150 hp with a max gross weight of 2150 lbs. I know more about my airplane than most of the other PA-28s. As far as handling characteristics: Mine has the hershey bar wing. The joke about these wings is that without power, you can throw a brick out the window and win in a race to the ground. This is, of course an exaggeration, but without power at normal speeds on final, it does sink quite noticeably. Which, in my opinion, is a feature rather than a bug. It gives me a lot more control over my descent than the tapered wings - which have a bit more tendency to float. The airplane is very easy to fly and land. It's also pretty easy to own as it's a very simple airplane which means low maintenance and insurance costs. Those 2 back seats are mostly just decorative. The only way I can get more than 2 people in the airplane is if everyone is pretty small, or we carry no baggage, or we reduce fuel capacity. And even then it's close. That said I love my airplane. She's teaching me how to become a better pilot and a better owner - which is a skill that must be developed also.
I have a 1971 Cherokee 140 (same 150HP E2A). I tell people it's a two seater with four seats just so they could call it a four seater in the brochure. Most of the time I have the rear seats out so it has a very spacious cargo area (bikes, coolers, camping gear). With it's 50 gallon fuel capacity It's a great cross country plane, especially if you are in no particular rush to get there.
I’m learning to fly in a ‘66 Cherokee 140 with the 160hp conversion. I flew my first 20hrs in a 172, but then flight school found leaky fuel tanks in it. The wait was going to be a few months, so I straightened out the paperwork on my late father’s 140 and started learning on that. I should have done that on day 1 and saved a lot of money. First take off was an eye opener - that extra power was impressive, can’t wait to get into faster stuff one day.
I’ve got a 74 Warrior1 with an STC 160 now at TBO. The compressions are still in the mid 70s and it runs through about a quart of oil every 18-20 hours. Burns about 6.5 gallons an hour, but only does about 90knts. My 1st annual was about 10k and then I dropped about 10k in a WAAS GPS, new radio, CDI and AI. For an original purchase of 28k and all the things that got replaced, carb, mounts, tires, foot pedal assembly…. I think I’ve got a great plane. Given the sticker shock of new and used planes, I’ll probably just keep this one.
Did my initial training in a Warrior during the 70s when they were new. My uncle owned the FBO and I worked the line to pay for flying lessons. Took my first solo in a Warrior as well as my first cross countries. Loved it! The FBO was a Piper dealer, so they tended to push the Pipers over the Cessna high wings... Never liked the Tomahawk 2 seater trainer that came out in the 70s...
The College of Air Training at Hamble added roof windows to their fleet of 39 Cherokee 180C and E variants. This was after several mid-air collisions in the 1970s. Quite a few of these still flying in the UK.
Great outline of the Cherokee models. I have a 1978 PA28-161 Warrior II, it was the first plane I purchased and I have it to this day. Choose aircraft for what you intend to do with them, they need to suit your "mission" as pilots call it. This is very important as it will impact your running costs, if those get out of hand the whole idea stops being fun. As for the purchase prices of older aircraft, look at two things, engine time remaining before TBO and Avionics. Those two components are where the bulk of the costs are and should be the primary focus areas when you get an older plane, cosmetics like paint, seats and interior are the last thing to do. Annual costs, with any plane, avoid using a single year to calculate this. Project a 10 year maintenance plan as not all years are the same. Build in all the specific inspections and rebuilds in that period based on your airplane then amortize it. My first two annuals where $30k each as a proper annual finds real issues that you need to resolved, after several years of this, avionics upgrades and most recently replacing the entire front cowling and paint and body work now everything is pretty much done and annuals will come down to the $8k range as there is always something. Total spend including a $40k purchase in 2012 is $260k USD. But now the plane is virtually new with strong avionics capability. Way less that purchasing a new one which nobody would do other than a flight school due to the limitations of what you can do with them. For me this plane is for fun flying and personal training, what it's intended for. Fuel is consistently almost an insignificant line item in my annual costs.
@@erincasey1544 Sure. But as to not hijack this gentlemans channel i'll post a full review on my own in a couple of weeks. My Cherokee comes out of the avionics shop the 19th of July and I'd intended to share everything with anyone who cares to see. I'll post it before I head to Oshkosh end of that weekend.
Had a 79 Arrow IV - I miss that plane as it was a joy to fly. Have also flown Archers, Warriors, original Arrows, Lance, etc. The Cherokee platform is simply a great plane.
hi, i have come across a 67 180 needing wing and propellr and nose gear repair, for small money. i like the idea of flying a low wing. id like to learn to fly in this after we have repaired it. welcome any thoughts you may have for a newbie. r
I own a 1973 Cherokee 140 with the 160 STC. The 160hp is a nice upgrade for sure. I trained in a Warrior with the tapered wing. The later tapered wings have much nicer slow flight characteristics. Far more stable and predictable, there is a significant difference closer to stall speeds but in normal flight they are very similar if not the same.
Dude this must be one of THE BEST videos in aviation clarification that I've ever seen. You actually helped me to know that it's the Warrior III I'm looking for now. THANX A MILLION !
There was also a Turbo Arrow IV with a three blade, Rayjay Turbo, PA-28-201T. A rocket ship that took off at half power, overpowering the silly brakes.
Good model explanation with a few mistakes as pointed out by a few, but that’s ok. We have a 1967 Cherokee 140 with 150Hp, 4 seats. Great little plane, I like it. I used to have C182 ‘78 model with a Continental 0470U 230Hp but if you just want to go out for a quick spin around the place, I preferred to take the little Cherokee, so light on the controls and manoeuvrable. The guy who owned our 140 sent me a pic before we bought it of himself flying with 3 reasonable sized men as passengers and full fuel. He used the 2150lbs max weight but couldn’t show me where his BEW figure came from. It was quite a lot less than my BEW figure. Anyway fortunately he sold it to me so he won’t be having any accidents in that one now.
i have just flown an archer 2 on a trial flight, it was absolutely amazing, it was very very turbulent for most of the flight, im not going to lie, it gave me a real workout keeping it straight and level, it was a very hot day, and i suppose there was a lot of thermals raising from the ground, and worst of all, we had a rain shower cell near us, also a major uk city close by, so not ideal aviating conditions, but i still really enjoyed it, its not put me off, im going for my class 2 medical monday, hopefully ill pass that, get a certificate, and see the archer or one of its warrior sister planes sometime soon a little i found about the aircraft, even though im new to flying, it seemed very manoeuvrable, the controls seemed really light, which would be good for lowering fatigue, it seemed to be very responsive, which is good, when i made control inputs, it did pretty much exactly what i wanted it to do, besides the turbulence, it seemed a very intuitive aircraft to fly, the feedback in the controls really let you know what the aircraft wanted to do, and what it wanted you to do, i couldnt really make a mistake flying the archer, it seemed a very forgiving aircraft to fly I found it easy to taxi, my pilot let me taxi it a little on the taxiways on the way to the runway, and after we landed he turned off the runway then let me taxi it to a parking spot near the hangar, the brakes were good, they stopped you really well, but at the same time didnt bind and throw you forward out your seat Climbing and descending was really easy in the archer, all i really needed to do was set the throttle, and the aircraft seemed to do the rest, i throttled up, the nose wanted to pitch up, and it wanted to climb, i throttled back, the nose wanted to pitch down and it wanted to descend, with fairly minimal elevator input, it seemed very positive and stable whilst banking, i didnt want to over bank to start with, but then the instructor showed me a really steep bank, and it was still very stable It was a pleasure to fly the archer, i hope to be re-united with it soon, if i pass my ppl, i want to fly one of the piper pa28 range of aircraft for leisure, i want to take friends and family around exploring from the air, so im glad i enjoyed it
Several mistakes here.The fuselage stretch happened to the 180 in 1973 and only then was it called the Challenger. The Archer of 1974 was the same airplane, different name. The PA28-235 was NOT called the "Charger" until 1973 when it got the fuselage stretch and wing+stabilator extension, and then in 74 re-named the "Pathfinder." The 235 from its introduction to 1973 had no "model" name, just PA28-235 with a letter following. The 1968 versions that got the 3rd side window also got the throttle quadrant replacing the vernier engine controls, but were not renamed until the fuselage stretch happened. The Arrow is most confusing. The Arrow 180 got the 200 horsepower engine, but was not called the Arrow II, just the PA28R-200. The great fuselage stretch happened to the Arrow in 1972 and only then do we have the true Arrow II's The Arrow II had a speed almost 10 knots faster than the later Arrow III, and a useful load almost 100 pounds more. The semi-tapered wing seems not to have enhanced the Arrow III's performance over the Arrow II of 1973-1976. All this information is easily found in Bill Clarke's "The Piper Indians.".
Nice. I have flown the Warrior, Archer, Dakota, and Arrow. They all fly pretty well, except that the Warrior tends to sink like a stone when you pull the power, and with the warriors being the lightest, they get beat up the worst in gusty and turbulent air. All fun though!
Great video but one thing I’d like to point out that i saw was incorrect. The Cherokee charger wasn’t introduced till 73. The basic Cherokee 235 was introduced in 63 but wasn’t a charger, u can tell because the first 235’s don’t have the extra 3rd window.
I fly a 1969 Cherokee 140B which is a Hershey bar wing on a short fuselage and a 160hp o320 which you don’t mention because you stated they were stopped but they were not.
It seems odd to me that the new LX isn't considered a training variant. I'm a complete non-pilot (but dreamer), but you'd think the fixed landing gear would be appealing to schools from a safety and insurance factor. Thanks for the breakdown!
It is. It's simply that Piper brand the LX that's dedicated for training as the "TX". It has cheaper, canvas style seats and hard-wearing plastic interior panels, where the LX has more plush, softer furnishings. But they are just two variations of the same Archer (180hp) family.
Hey, thanks for the video. For some reason I see the error when trying to open the spreadsheet. Please let me know if there is an alternative link for Google sheet or something. Thanks
Not sure a single door is a "quark," as the only two door low wings I know are the Commanders, the Aerospatulas and the Grummans. Obviously all Cessna singles are two door. Come to think of it, it's a pretty mixed bag with the Cirrus as well and all the bush planes like Luscombs and Taylorcraft and Stinsons and Maules. But for single door low wing how many Debonairs and Bonanzas and Mooneys were made? Idunno, just seemed weird to hear "quark" since I trained in lots of them.
I used to fly a Warrior II, but I'll recommend a 180 if you want a true 4 person plane. Unfortunately I don't like the limited range, like it can only do under 600nm and there is no STC for extended range tanks I am aware of. Unlike the gravity fed fuel system of Cessna, there is no mogas STC for it. Upside is the flying and landing characteristic is better than a Cessna, and fixed gear makes it cheaper to keep than say a Mooney. They made one running Continental diesel nowadays but honestly there is no advantage of it compared to say a Diamond, I don't see a future for the Cherokee even though it is one of the most produced plane model in history.
i have a cherokee crusier 1965 with 160hp engine, all fairing kit, isham wingtip and 60" pitch prop. in this configuration the best cruise speed 120 Knots burning 7gal/h, in normal cruise the speed is 110 knots burning 6.5 gal/h and tha max economic cruise 100 knots burning 5.6 gal/h "YES" 9 hour endurance. i love my cherokee because one Archer with 110 knots burn 9 gal/h both with 4 passenger. i only need more baggage capacity.... best regards!!!!
cause theyre all the same airframe. its like how you can get different levels of camaro (ss, zl1, etc). think of the archer, arrow and warrior like those
One mistake you made: the Cherokee 140 was originally released with a 140hp engine in 1964 and only 2 seats. In 1965 they released the Cherokee 140-4, which included a 150 hp engine and 4 seats. And this increased the max gross weight from 1950 lbs to 2150 lbs. Piper also released a conversion kit to retrofit the 1964 models up to 150 hp with 4 seats and increased max gross weight.
I own a 1964 Cherokee 140 with a Lycoming O-320-E2A engine, which is 150 hp with a max gross weight of 2150 lbs. I know more about my airplane than most of the other PA-28s.
As far as handling characteristics: Mine has the hershey bar wing. The joke about these wings is that without power, you can throw a brick out the window and win in a race to the ground. This is, of course an exaggeration, but without power at normal speeds on final, it does sink quite noticeably. Which, in my opinion, is a feature rather than a bug. It gives me a lot more control over my descent than the tapered wings - which have a bit more tendency to float.
The airplane is very easy to fly and land. It's also pretty easy to own as it's a very simple airplane which means low maintenance and insurance costs.
Those 2 back seats are mostly just decorative. The only way I can get more than 2 people in the airplane is if everyone is pretty small, or we carry no baggage, or we reduce fuel capacity. And even then it's close.
That said I love my airplane. She's teaching me how to become a better pilot and a better owner - which is a skill that must be developed also.
I have a 1971 Cherokee 140 (same 150HP E2A). I tell people it's a two seater with four seats just so they could call it a four seater in the brochure. Most of the time I have the rear seats out so it has a very spacious cargo area (bikes, coolers, camping gear). With it's 50 gallon fuel capacity It's a great cross country plane, especially if you are in no particular rush to get there.
Yup! My first airplane.
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅cc😅ccc
I’m learning to fly in a ‘66 Cherokee 140 with the 160hp conversion. I flew my first 20hrs in a 172, but then flight school found leaky fuel tanks in it. The wait was going to be a few months, so I straightened out the paperwork on my late father’s 140 and started learning on that. I should have done that on day 1 and saved a lot of money. First take off was an eye opener - that extra power was impressive, can’t wait to get into faster stuff one day.
I’ve got a 74 Warrior1 with an STC 160 now at TBO. The compressions are still in the mid 70s and it runs through about a quart of oil every 18-20 hours. Burns about 6.5 gallons an hour, but only does about 90knts. My 1st annual was about 10k and then I dropped about 10k in a WAAS GPS, new radio, CDI and AI. For an original purchase of 28k and all the things that got replaced, carb, mounts, tires, foot pedal assembly…. I think I’ve got a great plane. Given the sticker shock of new and used planes, I’ll probably just keep this one.
Thanks for this. I've always been baffled by the Piper naming convention. Surprised it only took 9 minutes! :)
Did my initial training in a Warrior during the 70s when they were new. My uncle owned the FBO and I worked the line to pay for flying lessons. Took my first solo in a Warrior as well as my first cross countries. Loved it! The FBO was a Piper dealer, so they tended to push the Pipers over the Cessna high wings... Never liked the Tomahawk 2 seater trainer that came out in the 70s...
The College of Air Training at Hamble added roof windows to their fleet of 39 Cherokee 180C and E variants. This was after several mid-air collisions in the 1970s. Quite a few of these still flying in the UK.
Great outline of the Cherokee models. I have a 1978 PA28-161 Warrior II, it was the first plane I purchased and I have it to this day. Choose aircraft for what you intend to do with them, they need to suit your "mission" as pilots call it. This is very important as it will impact your running costs, if those get out of hand the whole idea stops being fun. As for the purchase prices of older aircraft, look at two things, engine time remaining before TBO and Avionics. Those two components are where the bulk of the costs are and should be the primary focus areas when you get an older plane, cosmetics like paint, seats and interior are the last thing to do. Annual costs, with any plane, avoid using a single year to calculate this. Project a 10 year maintenance plan as not all years are the same. Build in all the specific inspections and rebuilds in that period based on your airplane then amortize it. My first two annuals where $30k each as a proper annual finds real issues that you need to resolved, after several years of this, avionics upgrades and most recently replacing the entire front cowling and paint and body work now everything is pretty much done and annuals will come down to the $8k range as there is always something. Total spend including a $40k purchase in 2012 is $260k USD. But now the plane is virtually new with strong avionics capability. Way less that purchasing a new one which nobody would do other than a flight school due to the limitations of what you can do with them. For me this plane is for fun flying and personal training, what it's intended for. Fuel is consistently almost an insignificant line item in my annual costs.
This is SO helpful thank you!!
Do you have recommendations as to avionics to look for?
@@erincasey1544 Sure. But as to not hijack this gentlemans channel i'll post a full review on my own in a couple of weeks. My Cherokee comes out of the avionics shop the 19th of July and I'd intended to share everything with anyone who cares to see. I'll post it before I head to Oshkosh end of that weekend.
@@GavinD50C great! Looking forward to it!
Had a 79 Arrow IV - I miss that plane as it was a joy to fly. Have also flown Archers, Warriors, original Arrows, Lance, etc. The Cherokee platform is simply a great plane.
My Dad had a 68 Cherokee 180 with the Hershey bar wing. I learned how to fly in that bird. I much prefer a low wing over a 152 or 172.
hi, i have come across a 67 180 needing wing and propellr and nose gear repair, for small money. i like the idea of flying a low wing. id like to learn to fly in this after we have repaired it. welcome any thoughts you may have for a newbie. r
I flow a Piper Dakota for many years, have enjoyed very much!
I own a 1973 Cherokee 140 with the 160 STC. The 160hp is a nice upgrade for sure. I trained in a Warrior with the tapered wing. The later tapered wings have much nicer slow flight characteristics. Far more stable and predictable, there is a significant difference closer to stall speeds but in normal flight they are very similar if not the same.
Dude this must be one of THE BEST videos in aviation clarification that I've ever seen. You actually helped me to know that it's the Warrior III I'm looking for now. THANX A MILLION !
I came across your Chanel by chance, great videos and professional presentation style 👍. Subscribed !!
Looking forward to more content to come.
Awesome, thank you!
There was also a Turbo Arrow IV with a three blade, Rayjay Turbo, PA-28-201T. A rocket ship that took off at half power, overpowering the silly brakes.
Good model explanation with a few mistakes as pointed out by a few, but that’s ok. We have a 1967 Cherokee 140 with 150Hp, 4 seats. Great little plane, I like it. I used to have C182 ‘78 model with a Continental 0470U 230Hp but if you just want to go out for a quick spin around the place, I preferred to take the little Cherokee, so light on the controls and manoeuvrable.
The guy who owned our 140 sent me a pic before we bought it of himself flying with 3 reasonable sized men as passengers and full fuel. He used the 2150lbs max weight but couldn’t show me where his BEW figure came from. It was quite a lot less than my BEW figure. Anyway fortunately he sold it to me so he won’t be having any accidents in that one now.
i have just flown an archer 2 on a trial flight, it was absolutely amazing, it was very very turbulent for most of the flight, im not going to lie, it gave me a real workout keeping it straight and level, it was a very hot day, and i suppose there was a lot of thermals raising from the ground, and worst of all, we had a rain shower cell near us, also a major uk city close by, so not ideal aviating conditions, but i still really enjoyed it, its not put me off, im going for my class 2 medical monday, hopefully ill pass that, get a certificate, and see the archer or one of its warrior sister planes sometime soon
a little i found about the aircraft, even though im new to flying, it seemed very manoeuvrable, the controls seemed really light, which would be good for lowering fatigue, it seemed to be very responsive, which is good, when i made control inputs, it did pretty much exactly what i wanted it to do, besides the turbulence, it seemed a very intuitive aircraft to fly, the feedback in the controls really let you know what the aircraft wanted to do, and what it wanted you to do, i couldnt really make a mistake flying the archer, it seemed a very forgiving aircraft to fly
I found it easy to taxi, my pilot let me taxi it a little on the taxiways on the way to the runway, and after we landed he turned off the runway then let me taxi it to a parking spot near the hangar, the brakes were good, they stopped you really well, but at the same time didnt bind and throw you forward out your seat
Climbing and descending was really easy in the archer, all i really needed to do was set the throttle, and the aircraft seemed to do the rest, i throttled up, the nose wanted to pitch up, and it wanted to climb, i throttled back, the nose wanted to pitch down and it wanted to descend, with fairly minimal elevator input, it seemed very positive and stable whilst banking, i didnt want to over bank to start with, but then the instructor showed me a really steep bank, and it was still very stable
It was a pleasure to fly the archer, i hope to be re-united with it soon, if i pass my ppl, i want to fly one of the piper pa28 range of aircraft for leisure, i want to take friends and family around exploring from the air, so im glad i enjoyed it
Good luck with training.
Several mistakes here.The fuselage stretch happened to the 180 in 1973 and only then was it called the Challenger. The Archer of 1974 was the same airplane, different name. The PA28-235 was NOT called the "Charger" until 1973 when it got the fuselage stretch and wing+stabilator extension, and then in 74 re-named the "Pathfinder." The 235 from its introduction to 1973 had no "model" name, just PA28-235 with a letter following. The 1968 versions that got the 3rd side window also got the throttle quadrant replacing the vernier engine controls, but were not renamed until the fuselage stretch happened. The Arrow is most confusing. The Arrow 180 got the 200 horsepower engine, but was not called the Arrow II, just the PA28R-200. The great fuselage stretch happened to the Arrow in 1972 and only then do we have the true Arrow II's The Arrow II had a speed almost 10 knots faster than the later Arrow III, and a useful load almost 100 pounds more. The semi-tapered wing seems not to have enhanced the Arrow III's performance over the Arrow II of 1973-1976. All this information is easily found in Bill Clarke's "The Piper Indians.".
No mention 9f the the most popular cherokee 140 1964 on up
This is what replaced the 150 and 160 and then got the the tapered wing and became the warrior.
That's absolutely correct that the Arrow II was 10kts faster than the Arrow III. Piper got a lot of stick for this on release of the III.
@@TheStoryofSebring - He *did* mention the 140.
Nice. I have flown the Warrior, Archer, Dakota, and Arrow. They all fly pretty well, except that the Warrior tends to sink like a stone when you pull the power, and with the warriors being the lightest, they get beat up the worst in gusty and turbulent air. All fun though!
It’s said that if you cut the power & chuck a brick out of a PA-28 on short final, you will land first !
@@MaxB50 lol I believe it!
Great video but one thing I’d like to point out that i saw was incorrect. The Cherokee charger wasn’t introduced till 73. The basic Cherokee 235 was introduced in 63 but wasn’t a charger, u can tell because the first 235’s don’t have the extra 3rd window.
4:51 That is mine, right there... :D
I fly a 1969 Cherokee 140B which is a Hershey bar wing on a short fuselage and a 160hp o320 which you don’t mention because you stated they were stopped but they were not.
Could you do a video on the piper 32 lineup?
What about the Cherokee 400 with the 8-Cylinder Lycoming?
It seems odd to me that the new LX isn't considered a training variant. I'm a complete non-pilot (but dreamer), but you'd think the fixed landing gear would be appealing to schools from a safety and insurance factor. Thanks for the breakdown!
It is. It's simply that Piper brand the LX that's dedicated for training as the "TX". It has cheaper, canvas style seats and hard-wearing plastic interior panels, where the LX has more plush, softer furnishings. But they are just two variations of the same Archer (180hp) family.
Hey, thanks for the video. For some reason I see the error when trying to open the spreadsheet. Please let me know if there is an alternative link for Google sheet or something.
Thanks
im doing all my training in the archer iii
Nice job!
Thank you for nice explications !
Cool! But what about the PA 181 Archer II and Archer III ? What are the difference
Very nice, thank you!
Great video.
Not sure a single door is a "quark," as the only two door low wings I know are the Commanders, the Aerospatulas and the Grummans. Obviously all Cessna singles are two door. Come to think of it, it's a pretty mixed bag with the Cirrus as well and all the bush planes like Luscombs and Taylorcraft and Stinsons and Maules. But for single door low wing how many Debonairs and Bonanzas and Mooneys were made? Idunno, just seemed weird to hear "quark" since I trained in lots of them.
I used to fly a Warrior II, but I'll recommend a 180 if you want a true 4 person plane.
Unfortunately I don't like the limited range, like it can only do under 600nm and there is no STC for extended range tanks I am aware of.
Unlike the gravity fed fuel system of Cessna, there is no mogas STC for it.
Upside is the flying and landing characteristic is better than a Cessna, and fixed gear makes it cheaper to keep than say a Mooney.
They made one running Continental diesel nowadays but honestly there is no advantage of it compared to say a Diamond, I don't see a future for the Cherokee even though it is one of the most produced plane model in history.
i have a cherokee crusier 1965 with 160hp engine, all fairing kit, isham wingtip and 60" pitch prop. in this configuration the best cruise speed 120 Knots burning 7gal/h, in normal cruise the speed is 110 knots burning 6.5 gal/h and tha max economic cruise 100 knots burning 5.6 gal/h "YES" 9 hour endurance. i love my cherokee because one Archer with 110 knots burn 9 gal/h both with 4 passenger. i only need more baggage capacity.... best regards!!!!
Can you do the same kinda video for the piper pa32
That single door was designed in times when most of people were still quite fit. The door isn't the problem, we are.
Looking for a sold piper for my 1st plane to get the 250 hrs flight time in. Which one do you recommend?
Piper PA28 Cherokee 140, if it's just for time building. This will be the cheapest to acquire and operate.
Do one for the Cessna 182
Piper as well as Cessna built a plane an fit seats in them,,,Diamond Aircraft construct a plane around the seats
😂 I hate removing those seats
I have not
They are so cheap flown compared to new.
What a darn MESS! WHYYYY would any one do this? So many numbers, so many letters they can choose from, and they call ALL of the PA28...
cause theyre all the same airframe. its like how you can get different levels of camaro (ss, zl1, etc). think of the archer, arrow and warrior like those
Not a bad explanation. BUT, still ridiculous. PA-280-A, PA-28-B, PA-28-C Etc I don't know lol
@@zed2653
Awesome video!
Kinda skipped over forty some years and several models didn't you?
No? Did you actually watch the video?
I am dumber for watching.
Well, that's on you...
@@jonbowden5207 It was meant to be funny. Actually very informative.