cruise speed cherokee 180

• Brands/Models
• Buyer’s Guide
• Glass Cockpits
• Auto-Pilots
• Legacy Instruments
• Instruments
• Safety Systems
• Portable Electronics
• Modifications
• Maintenance
• Partnerships
• Pilot Courses
• Plane & Pilot 2024 Photo Contest
• Past Contests
• Aviation Education Training
• Proficiency
• Free Newsletter

PIPER CHEROKEE “180”€/”ARCHER”€

1963’€“Present

By Plane and Pilot Updated January 28, 2016 Save Article

The 180-hp Cherokee 180 was unveiled in 1963, one year before the Cherokee 140 made its debut. It uses the same basic Cherokee airframe and wing that serves the entire series from the 140-hp two-seat trainer to the 300-hp fuel-injected Cherokee Six. The Model 180 utilizes a slightly longer wing, a wider horizontal stabilator, and a more spacious cabin. In recent models, handling and stability improved, while the heavy airliner feel changed to a light control response. The first year in which the Cherokee 180 received a name was 1973, it was dubbed the Challenger. The following year it was renamed Archer, and in 1976 it became Archer II. The 1976 Archer can carry up to 1,160 pounds of people, luggage, and fuel. Starting in 1977, Archer got an upgraded designator, the PA-28-181, because of a new semi-tapered wing. This wing deserves much of the credit for the 181’s payload and speed increases. The modernized Archer III began in 1995, still sporting the original 180 hp.

Related Stories

Boeing 737 200–900.

What‘s Going On with Cessna Denali Turboprop?

Daher TBM 940 Achieves Milestone

Stay in touch with Plane & Pilot

America’s owner-flown aircraft enthusiasts and active-pilot resource, delivered to your inbox!

Save Your Favorites

Already have an account? Sign in

Save This Article

• AVwebFlash Current Issue
• AVwebFlash Archives
• Aviation Consumer
• Aviation Safety
• IFR Refresher
• Business & Military
• eVTOLs/Urban Mobility
• Experimentals
• Spaceflight
• Unmanned Vehicles
• Who’s Who
• Video of the Week
• Adventure Flying
• AVWeb Classics
• CEO of the Cockpit
• Eye of Experience
• From The CFI
• Leading Edge
• Pelican’s Perch
• The Pilot’s Lounge
• Brainteasers
• Company Profile
• Flying Media Offers
• Question of the Week
• Reader Mail
• Short Final
• This Month In Aviation Consumer Magazine
• This Month In IFR Magazine
• Farnborough
• HAI Heli Expo
• Social Flight
• Sun ‘N Fun
• Women in Aviation
• Accidents/NTSB
• Aeromedical
• FAA and Regs
• Flight Planning
• Flight Schools
• Flight Tracking
• Flight Training
• Flight Universities
• Instrument Flight
• Learn to Fly
• Probable Cause
• Proficiency
• Risk Management
• Accessories and Consummables
• Aircraft Upgrades
• Equipment Reviews
• Maintenance
• Refurb of the Month
• The Savvy Aviator
• Tires/Brakes
• Used Aircraft Guide Digest
• Electronic Flight Bag
• Engine Monitors
• Portable Nav/Comm
• Specifications
• Sign in / Join
• Register Now
• Customer Service
• Reset Password

• Sign up for AVweb Flash
• Read AVweb Flash
• Aviation Publications
• Contact AVweb

Starliner Crewed Launch Scrubbed

Joby Completes Pre-Production Flight Testing, Eyes Air Certification For Electric Air…

LSA-Based Exploding Drones Used In Attacks On Russia

Archer Reports Success With Battery-Pack Drop Testing

A California Mom May Tip The Fuel Battle Scales

Guest Blog: Beloved Late Southwest President Colleen Barrett Led With Heart

NATA’s Hard Line Complicates Fuel Quest

CEO Of The Cockpit: Master Of My Domain

Picture Of The Week, May 17, 2024

Best Of The Web: Washington Flyby

Best Of The Web: Pure Power

Picture Of The Week: May 3, 2024

Short Final: Seeing The Light

Short Final: Quick Avionics Upgrade

Short Final: Better-Than-Passing Grade

Short Final: Student Workout

NTSB: Rule Violation Contributed To Fatal Midair Collision At EAA AirVenture

Alaskan Instructor Wins Martha King Scholarship

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Bose A30 Headset

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Garmin VHF Radios

Bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act Signed Into Law

Senate Confirms Homendy To Continue As NTSB Chair

Instructor Dies After Texan II’s Ejection Seat Activates On Ground

Citizens Group Targets EAGLE Co-Chair And NATA Head Castagna

Court Action Looms Over California Unleaded Fuel Availability

‘Climate-Smart’ Corn-Based SAF Rules Defined

G100UL Maker Refutes NATA Claim That It’s Not Ready To Sell

Unjammable ‘Quantum Navigation’ Tested in U.K.

ForeFlight Introduces Reported Turbulence Map

uAvionix Gets FAA Airport Surface Situational Awareness Contract

• features_old

Piper Archer/ Cherokee 180

Pipers pa28-180/181 is a safe, stable airplane. there are plenty of archers to choose from on the used market..

The Piper Archer, aka the Cherokee 180, is a four place, low wing, single-engine airplane. It is a common upgrade from entry-model trainers. Slow with unremarkable handling characteristics, the Piper Archer is a safe, stable plane, that is easy to land even on short runways.

Piper Cherokee Beginnings and Competition

In the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s, personal airplane manufacturers were heavily invested in marketing their products the same way Detroit had been selling cars: Get new owners hooked on an entry-level model, offer several step-up models and make annual but incremental improvements. Just as Detroit’s Big Three had dealer networks, Beech, Cessna and Piper had them also, offering everything from primary flight training to maintenance, rental and charter.

Rarely would a new pilot trained in, say, a Cessna 150 look at another manufacturer’s product as a step-up airplane, because a larger, faster version of what he or she was already flying was readily available. Brand loyalty was important to general aviation’s Big Three back then, just as it was to Detroit.

But times changed, models were eliminated and some brands went out of production entirely, at least for a time. Despite economic upheavals, the microcomputer revolution and the advent of modern composite airplanes, the realities of aerodynamics, along with design, certification and manufacturing costs mean some models first conceived in the 1950s are still popular today. But that’s true only because those older designs perform well enough that potential new entrants know they’d encounter stiff headwinds trying to bring a new model to market.

For proof, look no farther than the market for new, four-seat, fixed-gear piston singles of less than 200 HP, which has long been dominated by Cessna and its 172. Along the way, Piper carved a deep niche with its Warrior and Archer. No viable competition has emerged, despite both designs having originated during Eisenhower’s years in the White House. And until the mid-1990s, the 172 wasn’t available fresh from the factory with a fixed-pitch propeller and more than 160 HP, while Piper offered the Cherokee 180, a model besting the basic Skyhawk in almost every category and which remains available today as the Archer III.

The original Piper Cherokee 180/Archer (PA-28-180) was powered by a Lycoming O-360, which has proven to be a durable powerplant well suited to the airplane’s weight and performance. Before becoming the Archer in the mid-1970s—and before gaining a tapered wing and becoming the Archer II—it already was among the most popular Cherokees.

For many, the Piper Cherokee 180/Archer is about as close as mere mortals can get to the perfect airplane. It has simple systems, a stone-reliable engine, sufficient room that four adults won’t commit immoral acts and economics good enough to serve as a basic trainer. For cross-country work, it has enough speed to make most headwinds only a slight nuisance and long-enough legs to be a decent though entry-level instrument platform. All of which means a good Archer will command a healthy price on the used market and, depending on year, generally will cost a bit more than an equivalent Cessna 172.

Of course, the 172 isn’t the Archer’s only competitor: Cessna’s own fixed-gear Cardinal, the Grumman/American General Tiger and the Beech Sundowner abound on the used market, often available for fewer dollars. But the Archer’s mix of good numbers, good looks and ongoing production—which usually translates into excellent parts availability—means its popularity likely will continue. Prospective owners know that and usually are prepared to pay the premium required.

Piper Archer Model History

The PA-28-180/181 series, of course, can trace its roots back to the basic Cherokee 140 and point to close relatives like the Arrow, Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga and even the Seminole twin. All owe their existence to the first Cherokee airframe originally designed by the late John Thorp, best known for the crank-winged Thorp T-18 homebuilt, among his many other designs. He reportedly considered the PA-28 among his favorites and, if viewing an original copy in plan form, one can easily see the resemblance between the first Cherokee and the Thorp T-18.

And this Piper’s lineage highlights something Piper has always done well, perhaps better than everyone else: Build a good basic model and evolve it into improved follow-on products without greatly increasing manufacturing costs. First rolled out in 1963, the original Cherokee 180 has been upgraded considerably, but is fundamentally still the same airframe, with some 10,000 flying.

The first Piper Cherokee 180 had the constant-chord Hershey-bar wing (span 30 feet)—so-named because of its resemblance to the candy bar—and a Lycoming O-360-A3A engine. That early engine had a TBO of only 1200 hours, mainly due to a weak valve-train design, including 7/16-inch exhaust valves, which was far from Lycoming’s best effort. Later, those engines were switched to -inch valves, which increased the TBO in part by eliminating chronic issues with excessive wear and heat-induced damage. The smaller valves long ago should have been flushed entirely from the market by overhaul or remanufacture, but prudent buyers will check anyway if looking at an older engine.

The newer engines all carry Lycoming’s more-or-less standard 2000-hour TBO, and the overall engine has a well-earned reputation as one of the company’s—if not the industry’s—more bulletproof designs. In fact, the engine’s reputation is one of the reasons for the Archer’s ongoing popularity. Throughout its history, the PA-28-180/181 has used essentially the same Lycoming O-360—still 180 HP—with only minor variant changes, although many wish for fuel injection.

After five years of production and few airframe changes, the instrument panel was modernized and a third, trapezoidal window was added to each fuselage side in 1968. This resulted in the airplane’s current ramp presence while admitting more light into the cabin. A longer wing came along in 1973—still with a constant chord, though—accompanied by a bigger stabilator and a five-inch fuselage stretch. The extra inches made a noticeable difference on cabin space.

At the same time, a modest, 50-pound boost in gross weight (to 2450 pounds) improved the airplane’s payload by half a person while a larger door, more-crashworthy seats and additional panel improvements rounded out the cosmetic improvements.

For 1973, the Cherokee 180 became the Challenger, but that wasn’t a Native American name, so Piper quickly changed it again—to Archer, beginning with the 1974 model year—continuing its ongoing theme. (Neither of those strictly are Native American names either, but despite the illogic, Piper’s are perhaps easier to follow than Mooney’s. )

It wasn’t until 1976 that the new tapered wing—still the standard configuration today—was introduced to the 180-HP airframe, resulting in the type-designation change to PA-28-181, which also continues with the current model. This change was so significant the model received yet another name: Archer II. Subsequent-manufacture PA-28-181s are known as Archer IIIs, while the latest Archer is the LX.

The basic tapered wing first was installed on the then-new 1974-era Warrior and, after a few tweaks involving the aileron control system, was added to the company’s other PA-28 models and, eventually, to the PA-32. The new wing’s inner panels were still constant-chord, while the outer panels were both lengthened and tapered. Wing-mounted fuel tanks remained in the same location, although total unusable fuel increased to two gallons.

The Piper Archer II got a powerplant change as well, to the -A4M version of the 180-HP Lycoming O-360. That same engine is installed in new Archers today. These changes, of course, brought escalating prices. An original, 1974 PA-28-180 Archer with average equipment brought in $23,495 to Piper’s coffers while a typically equipped 1980 Archer II sold for $47,610.

There was no 1991 Archer, as Piper became ensnared in the light-aircraft industry’s overall economic troubles but by 1995, a reinvigorated and rebranded company—New Piper—rolled out the Piper Archer III. It sold for $181,700, again with average equipment installed. We’ll always remember plucking one of the first Archer IIIs from the Vero Beach factory ramp during a ferry mission, while marveling at its modern appointments, compared to the early ones we grew up with.

By then, the New Piper Archer III got an upgraded cowl, an all-metal instrument panel, factory-installed Garmin GNS430/530 navigators, new paint schemes, air conditioning, better seats and an improved exhaust system. A 2010 model retailed for $299,500, and came standard with an Avidyne Entegra glass panel, an S-TEC 55X autopilot, air conditioning and two Garmin 430W navigators.

Priced in the low $300,000 range, the current Archer LX has Garmin’s G1000 integrated avionics (standard are two 10-inch displays), electronic engine indication system, a backup EFIS system, plus an ultra-modern paint scheme. It still has Lycoming’s O-360-A4M engine mated to a Sensenich two-blade propeller.

Speaking of engines, in 2014 Piper unveiled the Archer DX at the Aero show in Friedrichshafen, Germany. It has Continental’s 1200-hour TBO and FADEC-controlled CD-155 diesel. We covered it in the June 2014 issue of Aviation Consumer .

Piper Archer Market Scan

Any would-be owner wanting to upgrade from a basic trainer—or even looking for an affordable entry-level airplane to use as a trainer, then as a platform with which to perform the weekend getaway—always should at least consider an Archer. It’s a bit faster than a Cessna 172, it climbs better and it carries a smidge more, all without gulping fuel the way a 182 does. Maintenance costs are on the low side of reasonable. On the flip side—at least when compared to the Skyhawk—there’s only one door and passengers may not like clambering up on the wing to gain entry.

Despite the tapered wing’s better looks and—as many pilots confirm—its improved roll response, the market hasn’t always treated the Piper Archer II well. In fact, there’s not much difference in performance between the Hershey-bar-winged versions and the tapered wing. The original Archer wing’s span of 32 feet increases to 35 feet, five inches on the Archer II after it’s tapered, while the service ceiling decreases and takeoff ground roll increases. Distance to clear a 50-foot obstacle is markedly reduced by tapering the wing, however, as is stall speed.

Those numbers—and perhaps the ability to use a smaller hangar—probably explains why early Archers—the 1974 and 1975 models—today sell in the $45,000 range, according to 2015 trends, while their slightly younger brethren fetch less, on average. The deficit isn’t overcome until the 1980 model but—all things being equal—prices start escalating from there. By comparison, a 1980 Cessna 172 retails for about $42,000 while a Grumman/GA Tiger of about the same vintage sells for around $50,000. You can’t touch a newer Archer III for under $80,000, in general.

Given the wide range of model years and histories of used Archers, it should be expected they will vary widely in installed equipment. Unlike Cessna—which only installed its house-brand ARC avionics in new piston singles until selling the unit in 1983—Piper put into its Cherokees either King or Narco products for quite some time. A recent scan of Trade-A-Plane revealed quite a few earlier models still equipped with orphaned avionics, plus a mix of old and new.

Piper Archer Loading/Performance

For 180-HP airplanes, Piper Archers haul respectable loads. Empty weights vary by year and example, of course, but one owner told us his PA-28-180’s empty weight was 1452 pounds on a gross weight of 2400 pounds. With full tanks, that allows 650 pounds of people and stuff, or three husky people and a bit of baggage. Not bad.

Later Archers allow a 2550-pound gross but empty weights are often higher, so payloads are lower. A 2010 Archer III with standard equipment, weighs in at a hefty 1688 pounds empty with a ramp weight of 2558 pounds, for a useful load of 870 pounds. Older Archers might beat that by 75 pounds or more. With four people in the airplane and, say, 50 pounds of baggage, a typical example has room for 35 to 40 gallons of gas, or about three hours’ endurance with 45-minute reserves. Again, not bad for a modest airplane. If the passengers are light, full fuel and full seats may be possible.

Performance-wise, the Piper Archer is respectable, but no one will mistake its numbers for a Bonanza’s, or even an Arrow’s. How fast you go on 180 HP depends on the year of manufacture and the equipment. Specifically, the semi-tapered wing on the 1976 and later Archers yielded benefits at both ends of the airspeed spectrum. The stall dropped by four knots and cruise speed went up by about the same amount. The large wheel pants available in 1978 add another four knots or so to cruise speed.

Even so, a late-model Piper Archer with wheel pants will cruise at only about 120 knots, although some owners insist they see 125 to 130 knots. (We suspect erroneous airspeed indicators or tachometers.) The airplane gives up 10 knots to a Tiger but pulls ahead of a Cessna 172. Climb rate, while better than a 172, isn’t stellar. According to the POH, the airplane will climb out from sea level at about 740 FPM but, by the time it reaches 6000 feet MSL, upward mobility has trended off to around 450 FPM. As noted earlier, original Archers with the Hershey-bar wings eke out slightly better rate-of-climb numbers than later models with tapered wings.

The nosewheels are steerable on the ground, and the rudder pedals come with conventional toe brakes. Parking or emergency braking is controlled by a meaty handle and locking mechanism just to the left of the center console and easily manipulated with the pilot’s right hand.

Unless the airplane is air-conditioned, summertime cooling of the occupants can be a problem on the ground and at low altitude. Fresh-air ventilation is via wing-root inlets with outlets above the floorboards, supplemented by fan-driven overhead vents getting fresh air from an inlet at the top of the vertical stabilizer. Neither works well on the ground, requiring an open-door policy until right before takeoff. The good news is the Archer’s heating system usually works well.

Piper long ago abandoned its overhead pitch trim control—pilots never could remember which way to turn it to get what they wanted—and put a conventional wheel on the center console, between the seats. Below the instrument panel, in a center pedestal, is a rudder trim knob, though it’s not always necessary.

Early airplanes came with a double stack of avionics, with less-critical boxes mounted in a second column to the right of center. Again, many of these airplanes have since seen an avionics shop for upgrades, but many others haven’t. Reaching to the far side of the panel isn’t a chore, but it’s surely an inconvenience and something you should consider when inspecting a potential purchase. Recent upgrades may have eliminated boxes from the right stack, but unless the entire panel was redone, cosmetics may suffer.

Wing flaps are controlled with a Johnson-bar handle between the seats, including detents. It’s an easy system to deploy smoothly, while also affording the ability to immediately retract or extend flaps, depending on your needs, without having to wait for an electric motor. And, of course, they’re fully available even in the event of an electrical failure. Deploying flaps does result in an upward pitching moment, but it’s relatively easy to counteract with forward pressure on the yoke. Most crosswinds are easy to handle, thanks to the low wing and wide gear.

Early airplanes mounted the circuit breakers to the far right of the instrument panel, about as far from the pilot as possible. Same with the heat/defrost controls. On the upside, frequently needed switches—master, fuel pump, beacons and the like—are mounted just above the engine controls. Systems gauges are just below the flight instruments, with an idiot-light annunciator panel above them. The tachometer is mounted in front of the pilot’s right knee, which often makes for unnecessary head motion during takeoff.

Piper Archer Comfort, Handling

Occupants should have no trouble remaining comfortable during a three-hour leg, although pre-1973 back seats—before the five-inch fuselage stretch—are somewhat tight. Pipers have decent but not exceptional front seats with an S-shaped frame designed to absorb energy in a crash. The height adjustment uses a gas-assisted spring and when this wears out, the seat automatically falls to its lowest setting, giving a short pilot a good view of the glareshield, but little else.

The seat stuffing tends to compress with use, causing sags, and the plastic back trays on the seats aren’t at all durable and fall apart with use. The aftermarket is your friend, as relatively inexpensive solutions exist for both well-known issues. There’s an adequate baggage compartment behind the rear seats that’s accessible in flight, but can’t be opened from the inside.

Cabin appointments can range from the original avocado green or bright orange upholstery and sub-panels dating from the 1970s to more tasteful and less jarring designs, including what seems to be the new industry standard: light gray fabric or leather. Later models came with all-metal instrument panels—the Royalite plastic overlays were finally banned.

The Piper Cherokee didn’t get to be an industry-standard airplane by having handling quirks; it simply has none. Its flight controls are relatively well balanced, with roughly equivalent pressures required in all three axes. The Archers are safe, stable and predictable and easy to land, even on short runways. In slow flight, the airplane has no bad habits, nor does it build speed in unusual attitudes.

Piper Archer Maintenance

Piper Archers don’t have much AD baggage. It was the target of a controversial AD in 1987 calling for an expensive inspection of the wing spar for cracks. This procedure required de-mating the wings and cost some $1200 at the time. In typical FAA overreaction, it was an emergency measure brought about by the crash of a 7000-hour Archer used for pipeline patrol. That AD was rescinded when the expected rash of cracked spars failed to materialize.

However, in reviewing recent service difficulty reports, we noted that mechanics are finding evidence of corrosion in the spars, at least one of which required replacement. This corrosion is often discovered when leaking fuel tanks are removed for repair. Make sure a pre-buy includes an inspection and check the wing-attach fittings, too.

Check the baggage door for a leaking seal; the tell-tale sign is wet or waterstained carpet on the baggage floor. By now, early Archers should have been through at least one interior refurbishment, so pulling up the floorboards in that area to inspect for corrosion is a good idea.

While you’re back there, take a few extra moments to inspect the battery box just aft of the baggage compartment. Piper placed it there, presumably to help with loading. But in a misguided effort to save weight, the company at one time equipped its airplanes with aluminum battery cables, which proved susceptible to corrosion. Given the lengthy cable run from the battery box to the engine compartment, many owners have encountered starting issues. Aftermarket kits and a Piper service bulletin are available to help replace the aluminum cables with copper, which isn’t as prone to corrosion and high resistance.

Another problem is leaky fuel tanks, particularly on older airplanes. An airworthiness directive (AD 79-22-02) addresses peeling tank sealant, with which owners long ago should have complied. It’s not much of a problem any more, certainly nothing like the hassle of owning a Mooney. The vents are also a source of maintenance trouble. One SDR found they had been installed incorrectly.

Otherwise, maintenance hotspots have to do with typical Lycoming issues, such as cracked cylinders, corroded cams and problems with Bendix and Slick magnetos. Also, on older airframes, the stabilator bushings may need work. Have them checked during pre-buy. Another area to look at, according to the SDR database, is cracking in the skins of the forward wing walk. One SDR submitter reported six high-time airframes with this damage.

Piper Archer Mods, Type Clubs

Various aerodynamic mods are available from LoPresti Aviation ( www.speedmods.com , 772-562-4757) and Met-Co-Aire ( www.metcoaire.com , 800-814-2697). LoPresti has flap gap seals, wheel pants and flap hinge fairings. Met-Co-Aire offers replacement wingtips, tailcones and dorsal fins. LoPresti also offers its BoomBeam landing-light enhancement.

Knots 2 U ( www.knots2u.net , 262-763-5100) also sells a range of Cherokee mods, including gap seals, wingtips and wheelpants. The company also offers upgraded strobe lights, engine air filters and aftermarket control wheels, among other products.

Laminar Flow Systems ( www.laminarflowsystems.com , 386-253-8833) offers a wide range of gap seals, wheel fairings and other aerodynamic clean-up kits for the Cherokee. For fiberglass parts to replace broken or cracked plastic exterior fairings, of which the Cherokee has many, try Globe Fiberglass ( www.globefiberglass.com , 262-763-5100).

There are two type clubs serving the Piper Archer models. The Piper Owner Society (POS, www.piperowner.org ) consolidated its efforts with the Cherokee Pilots Association (CPA) several years back. The Piper Owners Society serves all Piper products and is a good source of tech and operating information. Meanwhile, the Piper Flyer Association (PFA, www.piperflyer.org ) offers services similar to POS’s. There’s also www.piperforum.com, with plenty of good discussion about these aircraft.

Piper Archer Owner Comments

I bought my first airplane, a 1966 Cherokee 180, in May 2014 almost as an impulse purchase when I saw a really good deal on Barnstormers.com . That was one impulse buy that I haven’t regretted for one second. In the year and a half I have owned the Cherokee, I have visited 37 airports in seven states and two provinces. It has been a vehicle for exploration and travel that never would have been possible while I was renting.

With a four-cylinder Lycoming and fixed-pitch propeller riding on fixed landing gear and with manual flaps, the Cherokee’s systems are stone simple and so far I haven’t encountered any mechanical issues worth mentioning.

Insurance was easy and not overly expensive. I had about 160 hours (mostly in Cessnas) when I bought the airplane. The insurance company required a basic checkout from a flight instructor, then I was free to go on my own. My first year’s insurance was about $1200 (Canadian) for $45,000 hull value and $1 million liability. All of the quotes I received were in that range, but some required up to 10 hours of dual before they would insure me. It pays to shop on more than just price.

The Hershey-bar wing has certain advantages and disadvantages. It feels solid in the air—much less kite-like than the Cessnas I was flying before—and it rides turbulence very nicely. In rough air it feels like a much larger airplane than it is. On the downside, it can be a bit of a groundlover when heavily loaded at high density altitude days, so I am planning on adding vortex generators.

At high altitude it doesn’t climb as quickly as I would expect given the power and weight. Hershey-bar Cherokees are known for their prodigious descent rate and the 180 is no exception. I actually like this quality as it makes doing a tight circuit with an approach at nearly any speed you like very easy. It’s easy to slip off any excess airspeed on final (being able to slip with full flaps is a nice change coming from flying 172s). Float is non-existent with the Cherokee. Keep in mind that if a Hershey-bar airplane floats at all you are coming in way too fast. When I observe others landing Cherokees, there seems to be a tendency to fly the approach too fast (probably out of fear of the sink rate). Fly a nice approach speed and the Cherokee will reward you with a precise, short landing every time. My exit on the runway I usually land on is 1800 feet from the threshold, and light braking is all that’s required to make the turn. Arrivals can be firm if the flare isn’t timed right and holding a touch of power right to touchdown can do a lot to smooth things out. A touch of power (sometimes a blast of power if sink rate on final is high) can really help with stabilator authority, which is sorely lacking at low speeds on these early birds.

One of the Cherokee 180’s strongest suits is useful load. My airplane has a full fuel payload of 800 pounds. There aren’t many four-cylinder, four-place singles that can haul weight like a Cherokee 180. Unless you are hauling lead ingots you will cube out before you gross out. Front seat space is comfortable, and two grown men can sit side by side without touching shoulders.

The rear seat is comfortable also, but rear legroom is non-existent (something corrected in the longer wing airplanes). Though the airplane will readily haul the weight of four adults, at least two of them had better be short-legged because the cabin just isn’t long enough to accommodate two sets of long legs one in front of the other.

The baggage area is adequate, but not generous. Packing in small soft bags works much better than large suitcases. With the single cabin door on the wrong side, loading isn’t easy. Less able people can have real trouble getting in and out of the airplane. I’ve flown it nearly 200 hours now and still haven’t figured out how to get in and out gracefully. I think that in the event of a forced landing, the single door could seriously impede egress if the person in the right seat is injured or has mobility issues.

No one will ever call the Cherokee 180 a speedster, but I get where I need to go in good time. Firewalled at sea-level density altitude, my airplane will do 127 knots. Most four-cylinder Lycomings will run lean of peak without any trouble and the O-360 is no exception. I typically cruise at 2450 RPM and 117 knots, burning 9.3 GPH.

I typically flight plan at 110 knots, and on a 3000-NM trip I averaged a block-to-block speed of 112.5 knots. Pulled back to sightseeing/long-range speed (2100 RPM) I true around 100 knots burning 6.2 GPH. The large fuel tanks on this machine give very good endurance and range. I recently tested the endurance of my airplane and climbed to 10,000 feet and flew a triangle pattern (to negate the effects of wind) at 2100 RPM. I landed 6.1 hours later with one hour and 20 minutes fuel remaining in the tanks, having covered 630 NM. This was probably the most boring flight of my life, but it proves that these Cherokees have legs.

A winterization plate is a good idea if you fly in a cold climate, as my airplane’s oil doesn’t get hot enough to burn off the nasty bits if it’s much below freezing.

I’ve developed an interest in backcountry flying and the Cherokee 180 works OK for this, provided you keep it light and respect its (and your) limitations. The nosegear on the Cherokee is quite robust, attaching to the engine mount rather than the firewall.

It’s far from a bush machine, but it’s gotten me into and out of several abandoned strips and great fishing spots.

Overall the Cherokee 180 is an economical, comfortable, versatile machine that I think would satisfy the (realistic) needs of most pilots well. It will haul a pile of weight, is easy and forgiving to fly, has adequate cruise speed for all but the longest trips and has simple, reliable, and easy-to-maintain systems that won’t break the bank. They offer excellent value and performance for the money.

The nearest competition in terms of payload and speed is a 180-HP Cessna 172. Check out the price delta between the two types—it’s staggering. The Cherokee is an excellent first airplane, but it has sufficient performance that it could be your last airplane, too. I’m very happy with my machine and I would buy it again in a heartbeat.

Brodie Otwas Prince George, BC Canada

I am in a 1974 Piper Archer partnership and from my experience, the Archer strikes a wonderful balance of performance, payload and efficiency. The Archer is no Mooney or Bonanza, but frankly, unless you are regularly flying 500-mile trips, you won’t notice much difference. I just keep thinking that with a faster airplane, I would get to fly less!

The stabilator makes the plane easy to fly in the pitch axis, making it a good instrument trainer. Our plane has a useful load of about 940 pounds and is nicely equipped with modern avionics, including Garmin GNS430. I’m surprised at how efficient the airplane is to fly. I often return from local flights having burned 6 to 7 gallons of fuel per hour. If you would have told me that this was likely in anything but a Cessna 152, I would not have believed it. Of course, I lean aggressively (including on the ground), which also keeps the plugs clean and the magnetos smooth.

This plane is perfect for just poking holes in the sky in an inexpensive way.

Hish Abouelleil via email

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Log in or Register to leave a comment

AVweb Insider

Featured video.

• Privacy Policy

• Piper Manuals
• CHEROKEE 180 E
• Owner's handbook manual

Piper CHEROKEE 180 E Owner's Handbook Manual

• page of 78 Go / 78

Table of Contents

• Control Systems
• Fuel System
• Electrical System
• Heating and Ventilating System
• Cabin Features

Section III

• Operating Instructions
• Starting Engine
• Approach and Landing
• Engine Power Loss
• Stopping Engine
• Operating Tips
• Weight and Balance
• Emergency Procedures
• Engine Power Loss During Takeoff
• Introduction
• Engine Power Loss in Flight
• Power off Landing
• Loss of Oil Pressure
• High Oil Temperature
• Loss of Fuel Pressure
• Alternator Failure
• Engine Roughness
• General Maintenance
• Landing Gear Service
• Brake Service
• Tire Inflation
• Battery Service
• Care of Windshield and Windows
• Fuel and Oil Requirements
• Care of Air Filter
• Leveling and Rigging
• Serial Number Plate

Advertisement

Quick Links

• Table of Contents 17
• Section III 31
• Table of Contents 45
• Section VI 67

Related Manuals for Piper CHEROKEE 180 E

Summary of Contents for Piper CHEROKEE 180 E

• Page 1 CHEROKEE 180 OWNER'S HANDBOOK...
• Page 2 WARNING The rudder pedals are suspended from a torque tube which extends across the fuselage. The pilot should become familiar with the proper positioning of his feet on the rudder pedals so as to avoid interference with the torque tube when moving the rudder pedals or operating the toe brakes.
• Page 3 CHEROKEE 180 E PA 28 180 This handbook for airplanes with serial nos. 28 5601 through 28-5859. Owner's Handbook Piper Aircraft Corporation, Vero Beach, Florida U.S.A.
• Page 4 A line opposite the page number will indicate that material was relocated. Additional copies of this manual, Part No. 753 806, may be obtained fromyour Piper Dealer. Published by PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT Piper Aircraft Corporation...
• Page 7 INDEX SECTION I Page Specifications: Performance Weights Power Plant Fuel and Oil Baggage Dimensions Landing Gear SECTION II Design Information: Engine and Propeller Structures Landing Gear Control Systems Fuel System Electrical System Heating and Ventilating System Cabin Features SECTION III Operating Instructions: Preflight Starting Engine...
• Page 8 INDEX (cont) SECTION III (cont) Page Engine Power Loss Mooring Weight and Balance Operating Tips SECTION IV Emergency Procedures: Introduction Engine Power Loss During Takeoff Engine Power Loss In Flight Power Off Landing Fire Loss of Oil Pressure Loss of Fuel Pressure High Oil Temperature Alternator Failure Engine Roughness...
• Page 9 INDEX (cont) SECTION VI Page General Maintenance: Landing Gear Service Brake Service Tire Inflation Care of Windshield and Windows Battery Service Fuel and Oil Requirements Fuel System . Care of Air Filter Leveling and Rigging Serial Number Plate 753 806 740118...
• Page 11 SECTION I SPECIFICATIONS Performance Weights Power Plant Fuel and Oil Baggage Dimensions Landing Gear 691015...
• Page 13 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION I SECTION I SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE Published figures are for standard airplanes flown at gross weight under standard conditions at sea level, unless otherwise stated. Performance for a specific airplane may vary from published figures depending upon the equipment installed, the condition of engine, airplane and equipment, atmospheric conditions and piloting technique.
• Page 14 SECTION I CHEROKEE " E " SPECIFICATIONS (cont): WEIGHTS Gross Weight (lbs) 2400 Empty Weight (Standard) (lbs) 1310 USEFUL LOAD (Standard) (lbs) 1090 POWER PLANT Engine (Lycoming) O-360-A4A Rated Horsepower Rated Speed (rpm) 2700 Bore (in.) 5.125 Stroke (in.) 4.375 Displacement (cu in.) 361.0 Compression Ratio...
• Page 15 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION I SPECIFICATIONS (cont): DIMENSIONS Wing Span (ft) Wing Area (sq ft) Wing Loading (lbs per sq ft) 15.0 Length (ft) 23.5 Height (ft) Power Loading (lbs per hp) 13.3 LANDING GEAR Wheel Base (ft) Wheel Tread (ft) Tire Pressure (psi) Nose Main Tire Size...
• Page 16 SECTION I CHEROKEE " E " 691015...

Page 17: Table Of Contents

• Page 19 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION II SECTION II DESIGN INFORMATION ENGINE AND PROPELLER The Cherokee " E " is powered by a Lycoming O-360-A4A four cylinder, direct drive, horizontally opposed engine rated at 180 HP at 2700 RPM. It is furnished with a starter, 60 ampere 12 volt alternator, shielded ignition, vacuum pump drive, fuel pump, and a dry, automotive type carburetor air filter.
• Page 20 SECTION II CHEROKEE " E " the rear spar and at an auxiliary front spar. The wing airfoil section is a laminar flow type, NACA659- 415 with the maximum thickness about 40% aft of the leading edge. This permits the main spar carry-through structure to be located under the rear seat providing unobstructed cabin floor space ahead of the rear seat.

Page 21: Control Systems

• Page 22 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION II CARBURETOR VENT FUEL PRESSURE GAUGE FUEL QUANTITY GAUGES VENT ENGINE FUEL PUMP VENT ELECTRIC FUEL PUMP DRAIN PRIMER GASCOLATOR FUEL SELECTOR VALVE LEFT TANK RIGHT TANK DRAIN DRAIN FUEL SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 691015...

Page 23: Electrical System

• Page 24 SECTION II CHEROKEE " E " Standard accessories include a starter, electric fuel pump, stall warning indicator, cigar lighter,fuel gauge and ammeter. The navigation lights, anti-collision light, landing light, instrument lighting and cabin dome light are optional. Circuits will handle an entire complement of communications and navigational equip- ment.
• Page 25 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION II ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 691015...

Page 26: Heating And Ventilating System

Page 27: cabin features.

• Page 28 691212...
• Page 29 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION II NOTES 691015...
• Page 31 SECTION III OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS Preflight Starting Engine Warm-Up and Ground Check Take-Off Climb Stalls Cruising Approach and Landing Stopping Engine Engine Power Loss Mooring Weight and Balance Operating Tips 691015...

Page 33: Operating Instructions

Page 34: starting engine.

• Page 35 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION 5. Engage the starter by rotating magneto switch clockwise and pressing in. 6. When the engine fires, advance throttle to desired setting. If the engine does not fire within five to ten seconds, disengage starter and prime with one to three strokes of the priming pump. Repeat the starting procedure.
• Page 36 SECTION V PERFORMANCE CHARTS Altitude Conversion Chart Takeoff Distance vs Density Altitude Rate of Climb vs Density Altitude Range vs Density Altitude True Airspeed and RPM vs Density Altitude Landing Distance vs Density Altitude Power Setting Table 753 806 740118...

Page 37: Climb

Page 38: cruising, page 39: approach and landing, page 40: stopping engine, page 41: mooring.

• Page 42 SECTION III CHEROKEE " E " ground. 2. The best speed for take-off is about 60 MPH under normal conditions. Trying to pull the airplane off the ground at too low an airspeed decreases the controllability of the airplane in event of engine failure.
• Page 43 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION III The shape of the wing fuel tanks is such that in certain maneuvers the fuel may move away from the tank outlet. If the outlet is uncovered, the fuel flow may be interrupted and a temporary loss of power may result.
• Page 45 SECTION IV EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Introduction Engine Power Loss During Takeoff Engine Power Loss In Flight Power Off Landing Fire Loss of Oil Pressure Loss of Fuel Pressure High Oil Temperature Alternator Failure Engine Roughness Spins Open Door 753 806 740118...

Page 47: Emergency Procedures

Page 48: engine power loss in flight, page 49: power off landing, page 50: fire, page 51: loss of oil pressure, page 52: loss of fuel pressure, page 53: alternator failure, page 54: spins, page 55: open door.

• Page 57 SECTION V PERFORMANCE CHARTS Altitude Conversion Chart Takeoff Distance vs Density Altitude Rate of Climb vs Density Altitude Range vs Density Altitude True Airspeed and RPM vs Density Altitude Landing Distance vs Density Altitude Power Setting Table 753 806 740118...
• Page 59 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION V PA-28-180 PIPER CHEROKEE THIS CHART SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE DENSITY ALTITUDE FROM EXISTING TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE ALTITUDE CONDITIONS FOR USE WITH PERFORMANCE CHARTS. 24000 20000 10000 12000 8000 4000 TEMPERATURE °F 753 806...
• Page 60 CHEROKEE"E" SECTION V PA-28-18O PIPER CHEROKEE MAXIMUM EFFORT 2 5 ° FLAPS PAVED LEVEL DRY RUNWAY 7000 1000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 1000 2000 3500 1500 2500 3000 TAKE Of F DISTANCE FT. 753 806 740118...
• Page 61 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION V PA-28-18O PIPER CHEROKEE 2400 LBS. GROSS WT. 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 1000 RATE OF CLIMB FT/MIN. 753 806 740118...
• Page 62 SECTION V CHEROKEE " E " PA-28-180 PIPER CHEROKEE 2400 LBS GR0SS WT 50 GAL. FUEL FULL TANKS LEAN MIXTURE 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 RANGE (STATUTE MILES) 753 806 740118...
• Page 63 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION V PA-28-18O PIPER CHEROKEE DENSITY ALTITUDE FT 740118...
• Page 64 CHEROKEE " E " SECTION V PA-28-180 PIPER CHEROKEE 2400 LBS GROSS WT. 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 1000 1200 1400 LANDING DISTANCE 753 806 740118...
• Page 65 CHEROKEE"E" SECTION V 753 806 740118...
• Page 67 SECTION VI GENERAL MAINTENANCE Landing Gear Service Brake Service Tire Inflation Care of Windshield and Windows Battery Service Fuel and Oil Requirements Fuel System Care of Air Filter Leveling and Rigging Serial Number Plate 753 806 740118...

Page 69: General Maintenance

• Page 70 In jacking the Cherokee for landing gear or other service, a jack kit (available through Piper Dealers or Distributors) should be used. This kit consists of two hydraulic jacks and a tail stand.

Page 71: Brake Service

Page 72: care of windshield and windows, page 73: fuel and oil requirements, page 74: care of air filter, page 75: serial number plate.

• Page 76 SECTION VI CHEROKEE "E" NOTES 753 806 740118...
• Page 77 CHEROKEE"E" SECTION VI 753 8O6 5 1 / 5 2 740118...

Rename the bookmark

Delete bookmark, delete from my manuals, upload manual.

• Regent Seven Seas Cruises

Best of Moscow by high speed train

By shuguley , February 15, 2014 in Regent Seven Seas Cruises

Recommended Posts

Sure would appreciate someone who has taken "Best of Moscow by high speed train" from St. Petersburg could please share their impressions of this shore excursion. From the description this sounds like a very long day.

Wondering how the 4 hour train trip was in terms of accommodations, etc. Also what time did you leave the ship and what time at night did you return? Were both legs of the trip on the high speed rail (I read that slower trains also travel the same tracks)?

My wife and I are considering this excursion. We thought that if we are making all the effort to go to Russia then how could we pass up going to Moscow, walking in Red Square, seeing St. Basil, etc.

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

If you are considering this on the 2015 June Baltic cruise on Voyager; my suggestion is don't. There is so much to do in St. Petersburg and although a train is one of my favorite ways to travel the time would be far better spent in St. P.

Thanks for the advice. Yes, this would be on the Voyager during the 2015 season but not yet sure exactly which cruise.

We did the Moscow excursion "on a different luxury line", but from your brief description it sounds very much like the same trip, so I will operate on that assumption. It is a VERY long day! We left the ship at 5:30 AM and returned at 12:30 AM. The highspeed train trip is comfortable, and while they call it "Business Class" it does not compare well to the equivalent class on say Rail Europe. When we did it in 2011, we did have highspeed both ways, and the trip back seemed much longer as the adrenaline and excitement had worn off!:D

Moscow itself is not that terribly different from any other big city in the world, but this Cold War kid never thought he would ever stand in Red Square, never mind walk the grounds of The Kremlin, or tour The Kremlin Palace, or see (but not visit) Lenin's Tomb, or visit The Armoury. But he did, and he loved every minute of it! Yes, it is a long day, and you barely scratch a scratch on the surface, but it is worth it. There is a tremendous amount to see in St. Petersburg, but every Baltic cruise goes to St. Petersburg, so you can go back if you choose to. Not every cruiseline offers you the chance to see Moscow.

I have not personally done this tour, but our last time in St Petersburg, the private guide that we hired for a day was leading the regent tour to Moscow on the high speed train the next day. He said it was way better than the previous alternative, which was flying to Moscow and back. He said that you actually got to Moscow faster because you didn't have to deal with airline checkin etc. it did seem like a very long day to me, and there is so much to see and do in st. Petersburg that I didn't consider doing it.

countflorida

We toured to Moscow from St. Petersburg via the hi-speed SAPSAN train last September, from a Baltic cruise on the Oceania Marina. You need to have a two-night, three day port call in St. Petersburg to take this tour because the tour typically leaves the ship around 5:00 - 5:30 AM and doesn't return until after midnight the next day. We didn't take the ship's tour; we made private arrangements with TravelAllRussia for three days of touring, the first and third days in St. Petersburg and the second day the tour to Moscow by train. Our cost for the private tour for three days was about the same as what the ship charged for the excursion to Moscow alone. There are a number of private tour agencies that operate in St. Petersburg and offer the Moscow train tours; we would strongly recommend them over the ship's tours.

All three days had private guides with car and driver. The second day, the driver picked us up at the ship and took us to the train, but we were alone on the train, and met in Moscow by the guide on the station platform. After our tour and dinner, we were brought back to the train and after the return train trip met by the driver and taken back to the ship. Because you are alone on the train you must have your own Russian visas.

If this is your first visit to St. Petersburg, I would agree there is much more to see there. We found Moscow somewhat a disappointment, particularly Red Square. The Kremlin and the cathedral in Red Square were also worth seeing. But the best thing we saw was the Moscow subway! I worked for the Washington Metro system back in the 1980s as it grew from 40 to 80 miles and although I was in the computer area, I learned a lot about the challenges of running a subway system. We used the Moscow system to get across the city from where we had dinner to the train station, and I was amazed at the cleanliness', speed of operation, the short headways maintained, and the courtesy of everyone involved. A very impressive experience!

We had been to St. Petersburg before, and so had the time to take a day and go to Moscow. Also, I really like trains, and the SAPSAN is a German train set running on Russian rails. Seats are like first class domestic air, spacious but not too plush or comfortable, but with enough room. Not too much recline, and almost 8 hours on the train in two shots is a lot for an old man. They come through and sell drinks, candy, etc. but the sellers don't speak English and no one around us helped, so we had just poor coffee once coming, and brought stuff with us for the trip back. Not too much to see from the train either, particularly on the return when it is night the whole way.

If you decide to go, take a private tour and avoid the overly expensive ship's tour. I'm glad we did it, but wouldn't bother to repeat the tour; we've seen Moscow.

Thanks so much to all of you for the thorough and thought insight. Yhe information you have provided is most helpful.

countflorida: Your detailed post is very helpful. We are not quite ready for a Baltic cruise but should do so within a year. Time enough to do our pre travel research, bookings and visa gathering.:) Thank you!

Emperor Norton

Sure would appreciate someone who has taken "Best of Moscow by high speed train" from St. Petersburg could please share their impressions of this shore excursion. From the description this sounds like a very long day.   Wondering how the 4 hour train trip was in terms of accommodations, etc. Also what time did you leave the ship and what time at night did you return? Were both legs of the trip on the high speed rail (I read that slower trains also travel the same tracks)?   My wife and I are considering this excursion. We thought that if we are making all the effort to go to Russia then how could we pass up going to Moscow, walking in Red Square, seeing St. Basil, etc.

I did this on Seabourn. IMO DONT. Take Aeroflop (er Aeroflot). The train has non folding seats where you are literally knee to knee with your fellow passenger (facing each other). Further they don't believe in air conditioning. It's also the worlds slowed bullet train. I think I would have found more enjoyment wandering around the St. Petersburg and Moscow airports.

Countflorida,

This is a little off topic,, however we had planned a river cruise in Russia but decided we would rather stay on land and have booked about two weeks with Travel-All-Russia using the private guide and driver. I'm curious as to how you found them as a tour company.

The guides they provided were fine. We had a different guide each of the days in St. Petersburg, but both were flexible, pleasant, knowledgeable and spoke English very well, as did the guide in Moscow, incidentally. She was a bit aloof, distant, not too friendly, but otherwise fine. In fact, she was the one who suggested taking the Metro, which unexpectedly became one of the highlights of the Moscow excursion. If I have a complaint with AllTravelRussia, it is with their plan and its execution (more later).

I had requested emphasis on World War II (in Russia, the Great Patriotic War) sites and info. In scheduling us, they weren't careful about dates and a couple of the sites we wanted to see were scheduled on the third day, after we'd been to Moscow. But both sites were closed that day of the week, and that info was readily available, right on web sites describing them. Also, the included meals (lunches in St. Pete, dinner in Moscow) were not what we asked for: light meals with some choices, so we could avoid things we didn't like and choose things we did like. My request was ignored; we were given full Russian meals with a fixed menu, no choice. On the first day, a fish dish was the entre, but I am allergic to fish. Fortunately, I had the e-mail I'd sent with me and showed it to the guide, and she was able to change my entre to chicken, which was very good actually. But we didn't want a 3-4 course lunches or dinner (in Moscow). We had the guide drop the lunch the third day, although we never got any credit or refund. But, particularly in contrast to the ship's tours, the prices were so reasonable we didn't worry too much about it.

The people who were on the ship's tour to Moscow saw us boarding the same train for which they were forced to queue up and wait on the way back, and asked us what we had done. I was candid and open so they were not happy when I explained what we had arranged and particularly what it had cost. Also, when we returned to the ship, we found they had laid on a late supper for those who had gone to Moscow, so up we went and had something. Well, it turns out the late supper was supposed to be just for those on the ship's tour, but we and others on 'independent' tours, there were a dozen or more of us, crashed the party, actually got there first, and they didn't realize it until the larger group arrived and there weren't enough tables/places set. By that time, the 'independents' had all gotten served and were eating; what could they do?

A couple from the larger group sat down with us and asked us about our tour, and they were the ones I told about our arrangement and its cost. They turned to others who’d been with them and announced the details, loudly enough so the whole room heard, which started a lot of bitching and complaining. I gathered they weren't very happy with the ship's tour to begin with, and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. We finished up and beat it out of there, but overheard later that one of the excursion staff came to check on something and ran into a real mess. I caught a cold on the trip, which forced me to bed the second day following in Tallinn, so by the time we reappeared we heard about the contretemps' but apparently no one recalled who started it, thankfully.

Because of what happened to us, I would probably not use AllTravelRussia if I were to go again, or if I did, I would be sure to get confirmation of every detail of the tour. They do have good reviews generally, and we were certainly helped by their visa department and liked the guides and drivers. Their weakness, I say now with full 20:20 hindsight, is that once the sales person who plans the tour, sells it to you and collects your money, he (or she) transfers the plan to their Russia office for implementation; there is no follow-up to make sure it gets done right. And that is where our problems arose; we paid for a custom tour but got a standard package with a few destinations switched, and no one checked them out, even to see when they were open the day we were scheduled to go. If you check every detail that’s important to you, it should be OK, but that’s a hell of a way to have to do business, in my opinion.

Thank you for the 20/20 hindsight observation on your Russian tour operator, and better priced than the ship's excursion cost.

Thanks very much for the feedback.

We had the same experience as you so far as price. We originally booked a Viking Cruise but, hearing some things about the river cruises that made us unhappy, looked into other options. T-A-R cost the same or less than a cruise and had us in hotels for 11 days. We opted for the private tour. They have three tour levels, based on hotels. We originally opted for the four star as it did not cost much more than the three star hotels. Finally we decided to throw it all in and upgraded to five star. In Moscow we will be at the newly opened Kempinsky which is two blocks from Red Square. In St. Petersburg it is the Grand Hotel Europe, one of the most vaunted luxury hotels in Russia. Location is important for us as the tours use up only part of the day so being in the center of everything for our independent touring is important. As with many other cities, the less you pay, the farther out of the center of town you are.

We have been working with our salesman in D.C. and he seems to get back to us with the changes we want. He recently returned from Russia so is up on everything. When I asked they said they paid the full TA commission if I wanted so I got my usual TA on board so he is watching our back and giving us that extra level of comfort. He also set up our air, which I know pays him little or nothing, and got us business class for much less than T-A-R wanted for economy, though it took working for a while with a consolidator. He's happy to get his 10 percent on this trip without having booked it. He also took care of the trip insurance. We've been doing a lot of research on the CC sister site Trip Advisor and will write a report there. We will, I guess, become a source of info for CC members after having spent 5 days in Moscow and 6 in SP.

• 4 months later...

scubacruiserx2

Anybody considering a day trip to Moscow from St. Petersburg on the Sapsan may want to look at our travelogue filled with pictures.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1927687

Very informative. Thanks dor sharing. Jeff

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

• Welcome to Cruise Critic
• New Cruisers
• Cruise Lines “A – O”
• Cruise Lines “P – Z”
• River Cruising
• Cruise Critic News & Features
• Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
• Special Interest Cruising
• Cruise Discussion Topics
• UK Cruising
• Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
• Canadian Cruisers
• North American Homeports
• Ports of Call
• Cruise Conversations

Announcements

• New to Cruise Critic? Join our Community!

Write Your Own Amazing Review !

Click this gorgeous photo by member SUPERstar777 to share your review!

Features & News

LauraS · Started Friday at 09:51 PM

LauraS · Started Friday at 08:47 PM

LauraS · Started Thursday at 03:31 PM

LauraS · Started Thursday at 02:21 PM

LauraS · Started Wednesday at 10:25 PM

• Existing user? Sign in OR Create an Account
• Find Your Roll Call
• Meet & Mingle
• Community Help Center
• All Activity
• Member Photo Albums
• Meet & Mingle Photos
• Favorite Cruise Memories
• Cruise Food Photos
• Cruise Ship Photos
• Ports of Call Photos
• Towel Animal Photos
• Amazing, Funny & Totally Awesome Cruise Photos
• Write a Review
• Live Cruise Reports
• Member Cruise Reviews
• Create New...

• Browse by Type
• Browse by Topic
• Magazine Issues
• For Members
• Join / Renew

Select Page

Piper PA 28 180 Review: Expert Analysis #2

Posted by Bill Cox | Apr 13, 2014 | Piper Cherokee 180 , Piper Cherokee Reviews

The PA-28-180 turned out to be more than “just another Cherokee”

This PA 28 180 Review was originally written in 2014.

Any pilot who’s been kicking around aviation for a while recognizes the names of airplanes identified as industry icons. Back in the 1930s, the Beech Staggerwing became a standard by which other models were measured. The Boeing Stearman was another airplane indelibly imprinted on the minds of thousands of aspiring military pilots. In the 1940s and 1950s, the model 35 Bonanza also assumed a place as one of the paragons of performance, though the type’s hundreds of tail failures later proved the V-tail model was not without its warts. (In fairness, many of these structural failures were probably precipitated by the airplanes’ pilots. Trouble was that many others were not.)

Then, there was the Cherokee 180. (“Give me a break, Bill. You’re not seriously suggesting there was anything special about the pedestrian Cherokee 180, are you?” Why, yes, in fact, I am.) The first of the true, four-seat Cherokees may not have been as legendary as the Staggerwing or Stearman, but it was indeed a special airplane in that it was Piper’s first four-seater truly capable of lifting four people. Yes, there had been the Piper Pacer and Clipper, marginal, low-powered, four-place machines of the ‘40s and ‘50s, and the modestly more capable 160 hp Tri-Pacer of the same period, but these were correctly considered “marginal performers” with a full load.

(Significant of not much, I logged my first few hours of flight time in an 85 hp “Super” Cub, and spent the rest of my private training in a Colt, a two-seat, 108 hp, economy version of the Tri-Pacer. A fun little airplane, but its stubby wings didn’t provide much glide with power off.)

Cherokee 180 Added More Power

Then too, the less powerful Cherokees that preceded the Cherokee 180 (the 140, 150, and 160), weren’t quite up to the job of lifting a quad of people. Performance with a full string quartet aboard was marginal—even without their instruments! In fact, Piper’s first semi-modern, fixed-gear, single-engine, people-mover of a quartet of humans was the Piper Cherokee 180. The collective brain child of John Thorp (of T-18 fame) and Fred Weick, an NACA airfoil designer and engineer, the PA-28 incorporated a purely rectangular wing with a constant chord and a conventional “Hershey bar” configuration, featuring a dramatically curved surface on top and a comparatively flat bottom wing.

Technically, it was known as an NACA 65(2)-415. The 415 referred to Fred Weick’s Ercoupe design of 20 years before which used a similar airfoil. From the outset, the primary goal of the Cherokee design was to produce an aircraft that could actually make a profit. The Cherokee series was configured with significant efficiencies of production that would allow Piper to build a safe, economical, aircraft at a low cost to allow sales at a reduced price.

When the Cherokee 180 was introduced in 1963, Piper’s average equipped price was only $15,100, whereas the Skyhawk (with normal options) cost $14,751. The Cherokee was a little dearer, but not by much.

Inevitably, the basic Piper 180 was improved as it matured. Later versions of the Cherokee 180 utilized the longer-span, semi-tapered Warrior wing, an obvious aesthetic success, but perhaps a less desirable aerodynamic section. Designer John Thorp commented about the later, tapered wing, “Tapered wings tend to stall outboard, reducing aileron effectiveness and increasing the likelihood of a roll off into a spin.” Noted aircraft designer Peter Garrison agreed that tapered wings were of limited value. “To prevent tip stall (with the semi-tapered airfoil), designers resorted to providing the outer portion of tapered wings with more cambered airfoil sections, drooped or enlarged leading edges, fixed or automatic slots or slats, and, most commonly, wing twist or washout. The trouble with these fixes is that they all increase drag, (often) canceling whatever benefits the tapered wing was supposed to deliver in the first place.”

The simple, original, rectangular design was intended to offer an extremely docile stall, and that was exactly the result. When Weick and Thorp were done with the PA-28 wing, its stall characteristics were little more than a gentle, hobby horse bucking up and down, with almost no tendency to drop a wing. Hold a Cherokee in a coordinated stall, and the airplane would usually mush toward the ground at 800-900 fpm in a roughly level attitude. Some instructors even criticized all generic Cherokees as being too easy to fly! Another benefit of the original wing design may have been slightly reduced drag. This resulted in perhaps a knot more real-world cruise than the later Warrior wing. Piper billed the followon, 180 hp Archer with the new wing as having “slightly quicker control response,” but again, few pilots could tell the difference. It looked sexier, and that’s what counted.

Cherokee 180 vs. Cessna 172

With 180 hp out front, Cherokee 180s were among the first Pipers to present real competition to the Cessna Skyhawk which had outsold everyone from the day of its introduction. The Cherokee 180 offered an answer to those pilots who preferred a low wing design rather than a high wing aircraft. (Yes, I know, there aren’t many low wing birds, are there? On the other hand, how many fighters fly beneath high wings?)

The Cherokee 180 was targeted at the man with a small family or the pilot who needed on-demand business or pleasure travel over short distances. Performance was adequate for operation anywhere in America (perhaps excluding the high Rockies or Sierra Nevada). Best of all, for pilots who purchased a Cherokee 180 to haul their family, the PA-28-180 featured one of the most reliable general aviation engines of all time, the Lycoming O-360-A1A. With a TBO of 2,000 hours, that doesn’t even begin to tell the story of its trustworthiness. These days, practically every dedicated general aviation engine offers the same 2,000 hr TBO. However, over the last 50 years, the Lycoming O-360 (and its injected cousin, the IO-360) has become something of a legend of endurance and trouble-free operation. It’s about as simple as an engine can be—a standard, wet-sump, horizontally-opposed, four cylinder mill fed by a carburetor—and owner/operators swear by it.

The Cherokee 180’s service ceiling was alleged to be 16,400 feet; though it’s unlikely anyone ever elected to check that number. A more typical cruise height was 7,500 feet, and you could usually see that altitude 15 minutes after departure from sea level. Climb was an initial 750 fpm, not bad for a 2,400 pound airplane with only 160 square feet of wing and 180 hp for encouragement. (In contrast, the comparable 172’s ascent was 645 fpm from sea level.) Even at 7,500 feet, the 180’s climb was usually 400 fpm or better. That is, unless it was summer and the airplane was tired.

Even the Cherokee 180 was weak when the density altitude was a little high and the pilot was a little dumb. One summer, while flying out of Big Bear, California (elevation 6,750 ft MSL) in a poor, defenseless, rental Cherokee 180, I learned (the hard way) that performance charts are only for ideal situations.

Takeoffs in Cherokee 180

With four folks to lift (fortunately two of them lightweight women), I calculated our takeoff run and rate of climb and concluded the departure “should be” no problem. The airplane obviously had never read the book! The typical departure out of Big Bear Lake features an initial leg over the lake itself. We survived, or I wouldn’t be writing this, but my rear seat passengers thought it was hilarious when I buzzed sailboats at 50 feet or less. Everyone was waving and having a good time – except me. I was struggling for every foot of altitude I could get. Fortunately, there was a dam at the west end of the lake. I cleared the power lines on top of the dam, and it was all downhill from there.

Excluding such stupid pilot tricks, the Cherokee 180 was an uncommonly safe and reliable four-seater. Gross weight was set at 2,400 pounds, and the Cherokee 180’s basic empty weight was only 1,230 pounds. With a full 50 gallons of fuel aboard, the airplane offered an impressive 870 pounds of payload. Even with an additional 100 pounds of avionics and other options, the 180 still offered a fourfolks-plus-baggage allowance. The baggage compartment behind the rear seats was limited to 125 pounds, but if Cherokee pilots needed to lift more, they could always opt for the PA-32 Cherokee Six.

An additional advantage was that the center of gravity envelope was wide and accommodating. You could load pretty much anything or anyone in any seat without concern for driving the balance point out the back of the envelope. That’s not to suggest the airplane paid no attention to the location of weight, but it did far better than you might expect.

Cruise performance in either airplane was nothing to write home about, but again, the Cherokee outpaced the Skyhawk, scoring 124 knots to the Cessna’s 114 knots. True, that’s a little unfair, since the Piper sported 180 hp and the Cessna had only 145, but those were the numbers in the early ‘60s. The more realistic comparison might be between the Cherokee 150 and the Skyhawk, but the 150 wasn’t really a four-seat machine. Landing characteristics were in perfect keeping with the airplane’s benign stall manners. The manual flaps allowed you to lever in 15, 25 or 35 degrees of under wing spoilers as fast as you could think about it. Approaches worked well down to any speed above 60 knots, and judging flare height was almost silly simple.

Piper’s oleo struts made even amateurs look good. However many folks you carried in a Cherokee 180, the model represented the precursor of things to come.

About The Author

Bill Cox took his first flight in a Piper J-3 Cub in 1953 and has logged some 15,000 hours in 311 different types of aircraft since. He has authored more than 2,200 magazine articles and was the on-camera host of the 1980s TV series “ ABC’s Wide World of Flying.” Bill is currently rated Commercial/Multi/Instrument/Seaplane/Glider/Helicopter. He can be contacted via email at [email protected]. Learn About Bill's Book Here

Related Posts

25-Year-Old Living the Dream in a 180

May 17, 2022

Piper Cherokee 180 Review: Expert Pilot

June 13, 2020

Piper Cherokee 180 Market Report and Tips

February 9, 2023

FAA Issues Final Rule on Wing Spar AD

November 24, 2020

Box A Zone 6

Box b zone 7, box c zone 8, box d zone 9.

https://www.facebook.com/PiperOwnerSociety?fref=ts

Free Sample Issue & Newsletter Signup

CHOOSE YOUR FREE DOWNLOAD: CHEROKEE GUIDE OR DIGITAL ISSUE CLICK HERE

You have Successfully Subscribed!

• Manufacturers
• PIPER PA-28-180G Cherokee

What feature of our site is most important to you?

• Aircraft for sale
• Operating Costs
• Performance Specs
• Used Aircraft Values
• Aircraft Sales and Accident History

1972 PIPER PA-28-180G Cherokee

Log in to compare." data-placement="left" data-activity="click on '+ add to compare piper pa-28-180g cherokee'" > view comparison.

Single engine piston aircraft with fixed landing gear. The PA-28-180G Cherokee seats up to 3 passengers plus 1 pilot.

View 335 PIPER PA-28 For Sale

PAPI™ Price Estimate

Market stats.

Performance specifications

Horsepower:

Best Cruise Speed:

Best Range (i):

Fuel Burn @ 75%:

Stall Speed:

Rate of climb:

Takeoff distance:

Landing distance:

Takeoff distance over 50ft obstacle:

Landing distance over 50ft obstacle:

Gross Weight:

Empty Weight:

Maximum Payload:

Fuel capacity:

Ownership Costs 1972

Total cost of ownership:.

Total Fixed Cost:

Total Variable Cost:

Total Fixed Cost

Annual inspection cost:

Weather service:

Refurbishing and modernization:

Depreciation:

Total Variable Cost ( 129.0 Hrs ) Cost Per Hour = $89.01 Cost Per Mile = $0.72

Fuel cost per hour: (9.0 gallons/hr @ $5.40/gal)

Oil cost per hour:

Overhaul reserves:

Hourly maintenance:

Misc: landing, parking, supplies, catering, etc

Engine (x1)

Manufacturer:

Overhaul (HT):

Years before overhaul:

Complete Walkaround

Also consider, cessna 172p ii skyhawk (1981 - 1986).

Typical Price: $120,843.00 Total Cost of Ownership: $19,103.51 Best Cruise: 120 KIAS ( 4 ) Best Range: 440 NM ( 70 ) Fuelburn: 8.0 GPH ( 1.0 )

Adjust ownership costs parameters

• Cost Per Mile
• Cost Per Hour

Leave Us Feedback PlanePhD is only as good as its community. Everyone wins if you share.

Please tell us: - Features that would be useful to you. - Aircraft data that you believe is inaccurate or have specific experiences. - Aircraft specific reviews and articles. Please send us your experiences on your aircraft. - Send us pictures of your plane. - Use this form or email to reach out to us: [email protected]

Thank you for contacting us!

One of our Planephd Experts will be in touch with you shortly.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Become a member
• Trip Reports
• Show Reports
• Exercise Reports
• Special Reports
• Aircraft Factsheets
• Airline Profile
• Order of Battle
• Event Calendar
• Out of Services
• Aerial Firefighting
• Civil Gallery
• Military Gallery
• Advanced Search
• Upload Photo's
• My Aviamagazine
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• expand-less Aircraft factsheet index
• chevron-right Tupolev Tu-144
• comments Comments 2
• comment Post Comment
• facebook Share on Facebook
• x_twitter Share on X
• mail Mail to
• print Print this page

Tupolev Tu-144

Not known by many people, the Tupolev 144 was the world’s first supersonic transport aircraft (SST) just two months before Concorde. It was also the first SST to exceed Mach 2. Very similar in design to Concorde, allegations were often made that the Soviets had stolen Concords plans. In this article we will look into the history, and present status of this remarkable aircraft.

During the 60s, the race was on between the West and the Soviet Union to develop a supersonic transport (SST). First to publish a SST study was Douglas in 1961. The US started a competition in 1964 to develop a SST. North America, Lockheed and Boeing competed. In 1967 Boeing was awarded a contract for two prototypes of the proposed model 2707. Only a wooden mock-up was build when the program was cancelled.

Meanwhile a Anglo-French consortium formed on September 1961 started the development of their own SST. The aircraft called Concorde was evolution of the Bristol 223 study. The 001 prototype construction started February 1965 with it’s roll out on 11 December 1967. It than took another 15 month before the first flight on 2 March 1969.

Like the West, the Soviets wanted a SST of their own. The plans were first published in 1962. Development of the Tu-144 started 26 July 1963 as a passenger version of the un-build Tu-135 supersonic bomber (called the Tu-135P). The canard layout, wings and nacelles were retained in the Tu-144 prototype.

The prototype called “044” was build in the MMZ factory in Moscow and assembled at Zhukovsky flight test center. First flight was on the last day of 1968, when test pilot Elyan made a test flight of 37 minutes. 6 months later the aircraft passed the Mach 1 marker, and on 26 May 1970 it was the first civil aircraft to reach Mach 2. During the test face, the first problems started to occur. The problems included severe vibrations and tail overheating due to the location of the engines. Only on the prototype the 4 engines were placed in one line, partly under the main fuselage. It was clear the design had to be changed.

The first pre-production aircraft, series “004” first flew 1 June 1971. The most noticeable change was the location of the engines. The engines, upgraded to the NK-144A model, were placed in pairs, next to the fuselage. This solved the heat and vibration problems. The wing surface was also increased to improve the aerodynamics. The fuselage was lengthened to support 150 passengers. Another improvement was the addition of two canard wings on the forward fuselage to increase stability on take-offs and landing.

Five Tu-144S preproduction aircraft were build. The last one, aircraft 03-1 was later the first Tu-144D model when she was re-engined in 1976.

Paris airshow crash

The first fatal accident occurred during the 1973 Paris Air Show at Le Bourget. The second pre-production aircraft (CCCP-77102) was shown together with Concorde. this airframe was the first build in the VASO factory. It featured an further improved wing area and new wingtips were fitted.

On the last day of the show (3 June 1973), the Tu-144 performed a demo flight just after Concorde impressed the 250.000 spectators present. What happened during the display remains controversial to this day and is still undetermined.

After a low pass over the runway, the engines were pushed to full power, to climb to 1.200 meters. The aircraft went into a sudden dive, some suggested due to low quality fuel. When the crew tried to recover, the left wing broke off and the aircraft crashed in the village of Goussainville, killing all 6 crewmembers and 8 people on the ground.

Another theory is that the crew tried to avoid a Mirage 3, maneuvering into a steep dive, pushing the structural limits. The Mirage 3 was chasing the Tu-144 to photograph it’s canards, state of the art during that time. The presence of the Mirage was denied in the early investigation reports, but was later admitted.

Until this day, the real reason for this crash remains undetermined.

Operational service

The first Tu-144S went into service on 26 December 1975, flying mail and freight between Moscow and Alma-Ata. The first passenger services not started until November 1977. The S model was extremely unreliable. During the 102 flights it suffered 225 failures, 80 of them inflight. During 1976 a pre-production Tu-144S was converted to Tu-144D model “044D”. The aircraft were fitted with new Kolesov RD-36-51 turbojet engines. This provided an increase in cruise speed, similar to the Concorde and improved range of 6.500 km.

Soviet leadership decided the Tu-144 had to enter passenger service in 1977 even when reports the aircraft was not airworthy for regular service. Another problem was the high levels of noise during the flight. Passengers sitting next to each other couldn’t have a normal conversation. The noise came partly from the engines, and also from the fuselage cooling system. The noise in the back of the plane was unbearable.

Another accident in 1978 marked the end of the passenger service. D model CCCP-77111 crash landed at Yegoryevsk, losing the whole plane in the following fire. Combined with the economical situation and high oil prices the days of operational service were numbered.

The Tu-144 program was cancelled by the Soviet government of 1 July 1983. Remaining aircraft were used as airborne laboratories. From 1985 until 1988 the aircraft were used to train Buran pilots and perform medical and biological research.

NASA involvement

In 1995, Tu-144D (CCCP-77114) was taken out of storage and converted at a cost of 350M US dollars. This aircraft designated Tu-144LL was later re-registered RA-77114. One of the improvements was the use of the Kuznetsov NK-321 engines, also fitted to the Tu-160 bomber. Tupolev, Rockwell, NASA and other US companies joined forces and used the Tu-144LL as a testbed for its high speed commercial research program.

A total of 27 flights were made between 1996 and 1997. Although a technical success, the program was cancelled in 1999 due to lack of funds. The aircraft is until this day stored a Zhukovsky.

Specification

Specifications listed for the Tu-144D variant:

Fleet overview

Aircraft build, and their current status:

Military use

During the course of the Tu-144 project, Tupolev designed a number of military versions, of which none was ever build. The Tu-144R was developed to carry up to three solid fuel ICBMs. This version was initially based on the Tu-144S, later changed to the Tu-114D. Plans for an air launched ICBM were dropped and a version was designed to carry the Kh-55 cruise missile. In the late 70s a study was made to develop a long-range interceptor. This project later evolved into an ECM aircraft called the Tu-144PP. In the early 80s an reconnaissance version was proposed, the Tu-144PR. The last proposed military version was the Tu-144MR, a long range reconnaissance version for the Navy.

This factsheet is based on information from Wikipedia.org and tu144sst.com

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• WK1 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 Discussion (2006-2010
• WK1 SRT8 General Discussion

Fastest srt in Moscow vid interesting stuff

• Add to quote

I like what they did to the interior.  

Joe needs to see this. That’s a primary color on his color palette. Lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk  

Probably the best SRT8 review video to date. Excellent piece.  

It seem like this guy is arguing with someone when he is just talking.  

• ?            
• 47K members

Top Contributors this Month

Contact | RisingUp Home

• Aircraft Specs
• Aviation Message Board
• FAA Regulations
• Aircraft Pictures
• Avation Links
• Practice FAA Tests
• Manufacturer List
• Piper Aircraft
• Advanced Search

Aircraft Performance Data

Piper pa-28 c 180 cherokee - performance data.

Related Specs:

• PA-28-235 C & D, E & F
• PA-28-235 B Cherokee
• PA-28 D 180 E,F
• PA-28 B 180 Cherokee
• PA-28 C 160 Cherokee
• PA-28 C 150 Cherokee
• PA-28 160 B 160 Cherokee
• PA-28 150 B 150 Cherokee
• PA-28 140 Cherokee Cruiser
• PA-28 140 B,C,D,E
• PA-28 140-4 Cherokee (high gross)
• PA-28 140 Cherokee (low gross)
• PA-28 D 180 G

Manufacturer Aeronca Aerostar American Champion American General Beechcraft Bellanca Cessna Commander EADS Socata Lake Luscombe Aircraft Maule Mooney Piper PZL Aircraft Model Search for aircraft meeting your performance criteria!

Copyright © 1998-2011 RisingUp Aviation . All rights reserved.