Pa-28-140 Performance question

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
CessnaDriver
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:07 pm

Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by CessnaDriver »

Hello, I have been looking into the purchase of my first fixed wing aircraft for over a year now. I am relatively low time (approx 50hrs airplanes). Mostly flying cessna 152 and 172. I am a commercially rated helicopter pilot. With 600hrs flying light-medium helicopters. I have not previously flown a Pa-28-140. But I am told handling and performance is similar to a 172.
I would like to periodically operate the aircraft from two different strips. One is 1800' rolled grass and the other is 2000' crushed gravel. I know on a hot day loaded with fuel and a passenger. I am likely asking for trouble. But solo with 1/2 tanks (light gross weight) or less. Will the cherokee safely handle these strips? Is it a solid reliable airplane?

Thanks
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
andy_mtl
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:47 am
Location: Yul!

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by andy_mtl »

Hey, about the Take off distance required , this is what i could find out

POH states that, for a normal takeoff under standard weather conditions,
1,800 feet is required to clear a 50-foot obstacle. That increases
to 2,550 feet with a 10 knot tailwind. The obstacle clearance distance
with 25 degrees of flaps is 1,600 feet, and 2,300 feet with a 10 knot
tailwind. The Air Safety Foundation recommends adding 50 percent
to allow for less than perfect performance from the aircraft or the
pilot. For example, if it takes 1,800 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle,
the recommended takeoff distance is 2,700 feet. This also allows the
pilot to reject the takeoff and stop on the remaining runway.

Now, it also varies with the time you get on the A/C, the more used to it you get the better performance you can have.

Hope this is usefull

Andy
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by photofly »

Andy, you didn't say whether those figures are for tarmac; if so, there's a significant multiplier for grass or gravel.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
Team Firecracker
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by Team Firecracker »

half tanks with 1 or 2 people and it'll do it. At least my old one did. the 140 seemed pretty underpowered tho. Try to take off downhill.... :D

Edit: 1 or 2 people total!
---------- ADS -----------
 
dcabrown
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by dcabrown »

Not a 140, but I operate a Piper PA28-161 Warrior. Basically a 160hp Cherokee with a tapered wing.

Picked up fuel at an airstrip last night, field elevation 950ft, density altitude was probably close to 2500ft.
Loading up with full fuel and a passenger put us at about 2200 lbs vs. 2450 gross weight. Surface at the strip is short grass, high quality, length is 2600 feet. Taking off downhill and with a 8kt headwind we used up the entire 2600 ft and limped higher at just over 60 knots at probably only a 400 feet per min. Luckily there were no obstacles in that direction however IF we had to take off in the opposite direction there are trees and we probably could not have done so safely (fortunately my passenger was familiar with the strip and some pre planning allowed us to determine that. (Landing, we used up about 2100 feet) - The book says I can do a bit better by a few hundred feet on both, but I have similar hours to you (under 100) so my results are probably more realistic(?) for your analysis.

If you have NO obstacles whatsoever in either direction of the strip, you can probably get away with the 140 under the conditions you described. Although personally, it feels like you would be cutting it close. Maybe a 180 would be better?

Here's a question for you... Given the field conditions, and the fact you probably won't ever be able to carry 4 people and any reasonable amount of fuel, would a 2-seat 150/152 better suit you? I'm not sure if it has better or worse takeoff performance compared to a 140, but I'm guessing it would get off the ground in a shorter distance?
---------- ADS -----------
 
CessnaDriver
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:07 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by CessnaDriver »

Thank you for the responses. Ideally a 150 or 152 would be exactly what I would like to have. But unfortunately I am having trouble finding one at a reasonable price. Sounds like the Cherokee may struggle a bit with the conditions I described.
---------- ADS -----------
 
niss
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
Contact:

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by niss »

My POH doesn't specify different surfaces but my airport is (crapilly) paved 2100' at ~1000' ASL and she does it no problem with 2 people and at tabs (36 gal). Crushed gravel I would think you would be fine and depending on the circumstances 1800 grass might be ok, but that makes me a little nervous especially with any obstacle.

Charts are for my '66 140 Max Gross 2150

PA2814TO.jpg
PA2814TO.jpg (225.62 KiB) Viewed 3557 times
PA2814Landing.jpg
PA2814Landing.jpg (296.89 KiB) Viewed 3557 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.

Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
dcabrown
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by dcabrown »

From my experience (just purchased the Warrior in October 2010), finding a 150/152 is going to be a LOT easier than finding a PA28-140.

I searched for 2 years for a PA28 and over that time I would say there were probably 4-5 times as many 150/152 for sale compared to the PA28-140's/151/161 combined.

HOWEVER, Just doing a quick check now and for some reason, at this time, there are a bunch more 140's and 180's for sale (especially 180's), and far fewer 150/152's. Maybe with fuel prices being as high as they are, people are opting to stick with (or downsize to) the "little" Cessna, rather than haul around the 2 extra seats, which never get filled for most flights and which are always going to cost you a few extra gals an hour in fuel..

In any case, given their dominant role in the training environment, 150/152's seem to come and go on the market far faster than the PA28's, so if thats the model that works for you, just be patient.

Hopefully you subscribe to COPA? There are many aircraft for sale there that don't show up in Controller, ASO etc...
---------- ADS -----------
 
dcabrown
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by dcabrown »

Just looking some more at whats for sale out there and I'm shocked.

You're correct, VERY FEW 150/150's for sale. It wasn't like that just last year. There were 150/152 ads everywhere!!

Thats gotta be people taking a liking to the low fuel consumption.

But also keep in mind, it's literally the middle of flying season so the pickings are slim. From what I remember, you start seeing more for sale in October/November (flying done for the season, don't want to pay for hangarage over the winter) OR in early Spring (Wife says "no more flying, get rid of 'er and buy a boat instead")
---------- ADS -----------
 
comfail
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by comfail »

Sorry for my part in the thread derailing operation, but i have been looking myself for a 172 for a while now and it seems that all the good ones sell by word of mouth before they have a chance to even get advertized. It's a small community so networking is the key. There may be a low time 150 for sale soon around where I am (edmonton), i'll post if it's worth anything.
---------- ADS -----------
 
straightpilot
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:13 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by straightpilot »

I can't believe no one so far has even bothered to mention

http://www.microaero.com/CS_PDF/Piper/Cherokee_CS.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY-SITE1Yks

It's like no one has heard of Google.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Pratt X 3
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:19 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by Pratt X 3 »

And now a reading from the Airman's Bible; From the Ground Up. Part V; Airmanship.
Landings and Take-Offs at Unimproved Airstrips
There are, however, some rules of thumb that will supplement the approved take-off and landing performance charts and increase the safety of operations at unimproved airstrips.
Surface: On a firm turf runway, add 7% to the ground roll/distance.
On a rough or rocky runway or on short grass (up to 4 inches), add 10%.
On long grass (more than 4 inches), add 30%.
Here endth the reading.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Have Pratts - Will Travel
CessnaDriver
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:07 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by CessnaDriver »

Ok Pa-28-140 performance aside. What is the reliability of the plane like? Assuming your scheduled maintenance is done properly. Are there any "snags" that like to appear on these airplanes. Are they alright to be stored outside with canopy, tail and nose plug covers? I am having an awful hard time finding any kind of hangar space!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Team Firecracker
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by Team Firecracker »

over 5 years i had not a single issue outside of AD's and atrocious maintenance outfits. I kept it ouside in front of the office!
---------- ADS -----------
 
niss
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
Contact:

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by niss »

UBC is a ramp girl. No issues so far.

Cherokees had an issue here and there with low-alt high stress flying like pipeline patrol where the wings ripped off, but it didn't happen enough to create an AD just an SB concerning high hours and inspections:
http://www.piper.com/Company/Publications/SB%200886.pdf

Just get a really good look at the logs and see how she was flown and how she was handled.

I can trace the history of my plane back to when she first entered Canada. Old Dog Flying used to fly here in the moose jaw flying club back in the 70s and has some pics as well!

Know the history of any plane you look to purchase.
---------- ADS -----------
 
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.

Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
User avatar
kamikaze
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:56 am
Location: CYRO

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by kamikaze »

I own a PA-28-151 ...

"What is the reliability of the plane like?"

Excellent! Very simple plane, not much to break. The O-320 is an excellent engine.

"Assuming your scheduled maintenance is done properly. Are there any "snags" that like to appear on these airplanes."

There's a few SB's to be aware of. One around wing spar corrosion inspections, and one regarding the use of aluminium cables (actually I think that's an AD). The corrosion is fairly unlikely, unless it's spent a good chunk of its life near salt water. The MLG oleos can be a bit of a pain if they start acting funny.

"Are they alright to be stored outside with canopy, tail and nose plug covers?"

Absolutely, that's how I store mine.

Pluses: The manual flaps, very easy to fly and land, good visibility in the pattern thanks to the low wings, very comon aircraft, lots of parts and STCs and such to keep you going, and many AMEs familiar with the line of aircraft, tank switching (I think that's a plus), rock solid engine, easier to refuel than a high wing, easy to open cowl for easy access to firewall-forward.

Cons: only one door, tie downs and getting to the fuel drains under the wings is more painful than on a high wing. Some models don't have toe brakes, and have the trim on the ceiling, which strikes me as odd, but I imagine you get used to these things pretty quickly anyways.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CessnaDriver
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:07 pm

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by CessnaDriver »

Are any of you using a mogas STC's on your pa-28's? With the cost of 100LL at $2.00 a litre locally it has me concerned. I was told not to run 100% supreme alone. I should instead run a mixture of 70/30 mogas to avgas. A 70/30 mixture would bring my fuel operating costs to $43.00 hourly. If I were to run a 100% avgas blend. Then fuel operating costs would be $60.00 hourly. This combined with other costs of running the aircraft. Will make operation of a Pa-28 unaffordable for me.

Thanks
---------- ADS -----------
 
dcabrown
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by dcabrown »

Don't take this the wrong way, and obviously this is just my opinion, but if a $17/hr change in operating costs would make your ownership "unaffordable", you may want to take another hard look at owning.

Since the beginning of this year, our hourly fuel costs have gone up $9-10. It would be a shame if a similar increase going forward (likely over time in my opinion) would force you to fly far less than you would like, or not fly at all.

As a point of reference, our PA28-161 (same engine, and basically the same plane as the PA28-140) has an all in hourly operating cost of about $105-115. That includes tie down, insurance, annual inspection, oil changes, FUEL ($51/Hour)*, but also importantly it sets aside $20/hr for maintenance and $20 for the future engine overhaul which are non cash items each hour you fly, but sooner than you think, something will get snagged as is the case with any aircraft you own and it helps to have the money set aside rather than scrambling to find it, or paying via credit card. T

Are there other options that may reduce the cost? i.e. splitting the fixed costs with partners? a smaller aircraft? (Piper Tomahawk or C152?) - you referenced $2.00/L for avgas, are there other fields reasonably close that sell fuel cheaper? (I often fly from Toronto Centre to Burlington, Greenbank or Lindsay, solely for the purpose of picking up cheaper fuel - saves us $75-80 per fill up.

Looks like you budgeted about 8Gph ($60 divided by 3.78L/Gallon divided by $2/L) - you should be able to get that down to 7Gph @55% best economy...

Hopefully thats helpful.
*We burn about 7.5Gph x 3.78L/Gal x $1.78/L (Burlington self serve including HST)
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pa-28-140 Performance question

Post by CpnCrunch »

Just echoing what dcabrown says - think carefully about whether you can afford a plane. Bear in mind that you can easily have a nasty surprise resulting in a $5-10k annual. You may be lucky and end up spending $1-2k/year on maintenance, but don't count on it. Remember you're owning what is essentially an antique plane and things always break!

My ballpark figure is $50k: if you're earning much less than this, you probably can't afford to own an entire plane on your own.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”