Cherokee 180 vs. Archer

jruhnke

Hi, guys. As I continue to shop for a plane, I am beginning to think that an Archer/Archer II might be out of my price range with the avionics I'm hoping for. However, I've seen a Cherokee 180 or two nicely equipped and more in line with the prices I have budgeted for.

I know the Cherokee 180 will have a shorter fuselage and thus less rear seat legroom. I *think* that useful load is usually a little better for the 180s vs. the Archer.

What other significant differences should I be weighing as I consider the tradeoffs between the two models?

Thanks-
Jim

PaulR

Usually most Archers have an AP,the 180 most often doesn't have one although I have seen a few with them for sale on occasion. I have a 82 Archer and love it, and the AP is a real nice feature of course.

jruhnke

Actually, I've seen older 180s with modern (aftermarket) A/Ps installed at better prices than Archers with original Century I-style A/Ps. That's one of the reasons I'm reconsidering my decision to focus on Archers...

gene myers

The extra 5" is mostly in rear seat leg room. Big help if you are really going to have adults in the back. The taper wing is a selling point, though I don't think it is that big a deal. Used to have a '68 Arrow. Now have a '79 Archer. Big help is the virtually bullet proof Lycoming 180.

I am thinking about leaving the rear seats behind as now it is only my wife and me when we travel.

Good Luck on your search

CaptKirk

I dunno. I prefer the looks of the straight wing. The tapered wing is longer, so more chance of hanger rash. Also, the tapered wing has "not so pretty" rivet lines. To me, it looks a bit franken-wing-ish. That being said, only Cherokee junkies would notice the difference. For me, though, the last one...the 180G is the way to go...standard six pack, sexy wings and 80,000 pounds of thrust (with the solid rocket booster attached).

BillCampbell

CaptKirk, have you been spending too much "quality time" in the turbolift with Spock? The wings on my 78 Archer are beeeeuuuuuuteeeeful. Graceful, falcon-like, lifting me effortlessly from terra firma or sometimes not so firma. I agree with the other post the O-360-A4M is, indeed, bulletproof. In the final analysis, returning to the original question, its a matter of finances and its a Cherokee, can't go wrong there. Though, "Center, Archer 35 Mike doing whatever" sure sounds sexy.

gene myers

Rear legroom is about the only serious question. Kids above 15 years and 8 months may not fit. Hersey bar vs. taper is a "who cares". The real deal is the Lycoming 180. I would like to fly behind it even in a Boeing 747. Climb might be a little shallow though.

OLDBABYBOOMER

BINGO! Useful load. Take a look at the numbers. 1966-68 seem to be the best bang for your buck. I'm looking for one with my 3 partners. We've really studied hard. One of the partners is an A&P and another a CFI. A 6pk in the 68 is nice...but, the 67 is looking OK. We're also looking for an additional partner in Upstate South Carolina. Have it narrowed down to 2-3 planes. Now..if the weather just holds.

By the way ..study hard. When you find a candidate:
Has this past summers' yolk AD and others been completed?
Wing fuel tank seals been done properly?
Stabilator bushings OK?
Cracks in the skin on the wing in front of loading area?
Static system OK?
Everything work?
All door seals OK? Check in baggage area under floor covering.
All antennas OK?
Mode C transponder? Been checked in the last 24 months?
Old radios- have avionics shop check them out.
Log books
Accident history
Tires?
Rigged properly? Fly crooked?
Seat rails OK?
etc etc.
Be careful and thorough. Both the A&P and I have owned planes before. And the A&P currently owns an Aircoupe.
AOPA has a bunch of info that is well worth reading.

Good luck.

gclover

I recently purchased a 1973 model, and really loving it. That is the "tweener" they call the "Challenger." Not as expensive as the Archer and has the extended cabin for the rear passenger comfort factor. It is not quite as fast as my old Comanche, but I like the maintenance bills much nicer!

jruhnke

Well, since this thread got resurrected and I'm the OP, I guess I'll follow up with the results of my search: About this time last year, I purchased a '73 Challenger, and (like gclover) I'm really happy with my choice. I don't have any experience with the shorter Hershey-bar variants, but my longer wing *does* give me a little bit of the heebie-jeebies when I'm putting it back in the hangar by myself. Takes a fair bit of shoulder to get her over the door rails and floor lip, even with ramps, and while I know I've got 2-3' of clearance on either side...that just doesn't look like a whole lot when you're up at the nose, head-down and putting your back into it to build up a head of steam!

Regardless, I'm glad I've got the longer wings, and I'm *really* glad I've got the extra legroom in back. I've carried several large adults back there (not all at once!), and post-flight comfort reports have all been positive. Several have expressed confusion along the lines of, "why would you think I wouldn't be comfortable?" It's not the back seat of a Cadillac sedan, but I don't have any concerns about carrying "big folk" on 2-4 hr trips.

Useful load was a bit of a surprise. Paperwork with the plane at sale indicated a 950-lb useful load, but had the plane weighed (on certified scales) during annual and the UL got revised down to 850 lbs. I'm still a little confused about that, because I can't figure out where all the "extra" weight is, and warm day takeoffs fully loaded still have a good rate of climb. It hasn't cramped my style, so I'm not going to complain about it.

My plane came with a low SMOH engine, a 430W, and a factory wing leveler (which were requirements on my shopping list). I do have a long list of future upgrades, but I'm not sure about priority yet. One thing I know I want is to put headset jacks in the back seat--I've been using a 3-place extension cord plugged into the copilot's side when needed, but that's a poor solution (always fighting volume and mic problems because the intercom isn't designed to support that kind of rig). I'd also like to get the electric trim back into operation, but I'm not sure how big a job that is; the switch on the yoke is (mangled? missing? honked up?)...a problem, and I know that alone can be pretty expensive. Since that switch is inop, I've got no idea what shape the clutch and drive mechanism are in (other than it's there and it moves freely when using the manual trim wheel). It bugs me to have a factory capability not functioning, but I also have trouble justifying the money to fix, since it'll be expensive and I can use the manual trim just fine.

I also have the idea that I'd eventually like to get a GPSS roll steering converter to help with single-pilot IFR flying, but I know that will be expensive too. I wonder if it'd be better to save up for a few years and go for a more ambitious upgrade, like a modern rate-based digital autopilot....

PropFan

Sounds like you did your homework and got a really nice aircraft.

jruhnke

Thanks! My plane will never be a speed demon, and few other pilots are likely to look at her with envy, but she's just about perfect for me and I hope to be flying her for a long time to come.

BillCampbell

Like new parents, our babie are always beautiful to us, as it should be.

PaulR

jruhnke

Congratulations on Challenger and sounds like you will be sinking some money into her and she will be pretty happy with as the new owner, never understood the Challenger thing as they didn't make them for long, some called them the first Archer but I always thought they were a cross between both the 180 and the Archer and somewhat in between. A really nice plane and I looked at one and tried to buy it and it was well equipped with your wish list, but I missed it (to cheap and stupid at the time) but was a really nice plane, bought an 82 Archer and very happy with it to date. Happy Flying in your new Bird, keep feeding it thousand dollar bills and it will take care of you.

jruhnke

Yeah, 1973 was a weird year for Piper names...the Cherokee 180 became the "Cherokee Challenger" and the Cherokee 235 became the "Cherokee Charger", but in 1974 they went back to Indian-inspired names and the Challenger became the Archer and the Charger became the Pathfinder.

There are big differences between the '72 180 and the '73 Challenger: A wider door and an extra 5" of rear legroom, and the longer straight wing and stabilator. The '74 and '75 Archers are nearly identical planes to the '73 Challenger; rounded corners on the windows are the biggest difference I'm aware of, so that's why some folks say "the Challenger was the first Archer". The next big change came with the '76 Archer II that got the semi-tapered wing and became the first PA28-181.

Rocky Landsverk

FYI on this, might help some people who are making this decision:

https://piperowner.org/download-your-cherokee-guide/