Piper singles we love.

[Old Dog Flying]

I've flown many of the Piper singles and they each had their pros and cons: J-3 cold, slow, Oh Hum; PA-11, -12-14-..slightly better than their baby sister; PA-18..fun but the Husky beats the hell out of it; Short wing -16, -20..not bad but ..., PA-22..fairly fast and comfortable once you crammed youself into it; PA-28-140, 150,180, 235/236 (This one is a heavy hauler with 1400 lb useful load)-236 Turbo ..a disapointment as it was just an Archer with a turbo charged 210 hp Continental; The Arrow was a good solid aircraft but it would have been better with the 235 hp Lycoming; Cherokee 6 260 (underpowered)/300 ( now that's better); Turbo T-tail Lance nice heavy hauler but the "t" only added 600' to the t/o distance; PA-24 Comanche 180/250/260 a really great aircraft but the damned door would never stay closed on any version that I flew.

And then there was the Tomahawk..a good training aircraft that you had to fly but the coffee shop cowboys really knew how to bad mouth this one.

But they were all well built solid flyers.

[adhc2]

I owned a Cherokee 180 for 14 years and really liked it for its versatility and economics. Fill the chairs, tanks and cargo and good to go. With 1150 useful 300lbs full fuel left 850 payload. worked out to 4 hrs with just under 1 hr reserve at 120+ knots optimum alt.(9.5- 10.0 gals per hr) You can buy a good one these days for 30 to 40 K cheaper to buy than C172. Best buy 68- 72 pre Archer on account of extra couple inches cabin room. If I could afford it I'd buy another one, but right now I'm livin with a C150 cause second class flyin is way better than 1st class drivin.

[Beefitarian]

The recession has hit used cessnas much harder because they were so over priced before. The difference in cost must be much less now. It's pretty common to see 172s for under $50000.

[DHC2eater]

IMHO

The long wing Pipers ie: the cubs are unbeatable for off airport work and just `plane `old fun....the rest of the Pipers including the turbo props are the low end of the big three general aviation manufacturers again IMHO

DHC2eater

[5x5]

Always liked the Arrow

+1

+2

The combination of load/speed/fuel burn/comfort make these very nice personal aircraft. And even with the retractable gear they are relatively low-cost maintenance wise. All around good units.

[guyindasky]

I like all the short wing pipers and their lineage from the Cub, but I think in Piper's line up one of the biggest mistakes they made was losing the Commanche in favor or the Cherokee line up. The Cherokee six and Saratogas are good working planes, but lacked in style compared to the Commanche 260 which I found is a better cruising airplane, and especially a rock solid IFR ship. While I've never flown one, the Commanche 400 is one of the best sounding Piper ships.

I'm with you, the Commanche line was just beautiful. I'd love to have a '71 260C. Great lines, love the tigershark cowl. Has some great mods available for it, and it just goes.

[Beefitarian]

IMHO

The long wing Pipers ie: the cubs are unbeatable for off airport work and just `plane `old fun....the rest of the Pipers including the turbo props are the low end of the big three general aviation manufacturers again IMHO

DHC2eater

Piper, Cessna... Who's the third?

[Shiny Side Up]

Beechcraft, if one is talking about the traditional "big three" when it comes to American general aviation manufacturers. Analogous to Ford, GM and Chrysler which three are which is up for debate.

[Moose47]

G'day Fellow Wing Nuts

I loved flying the PA-22-150 Caribbean (CF-MNI) and PA-23-250 Aztec E (CF-GNA).

Cheers...Chris

[robertsailor1]

Another lover of the famous tri-smasher, take the nose gear off and it looks real pretty as the pacer but for an all arounder the tri-smasher is hard to beat.

[Colonel Sanders]

I always have been fond of the Aztec. Not as fast as the
Baron or 310, but easy to fly and would carry anything.

Cons: hard to hot start, hydraulic pump only on left engine.

Never understood the fuss about the raw-wing Pipers either.
T-craft, Aeronca, Bellanca are just as good IMHO.

[FlyGy]

I've been waiting for someone to post their thoughts on the Saratoga or Turbo Lance. I guess I shouldn't be too concerned, at least there's nothing negative said about them either.

[Colonel Sanders]

Never understood the T-tail on any GA aircraft.

Added weight, took the elevator out of the prop
slipstream so it flew worse, and harder to preflight
and maintain.

A loser on three engineering points, but a marketing
winner, I am told. I guess I should finally go back
and get that MBA and drink the suit & tie Kool-Aid.

Yeah, what we need is a paradigm shift. And some
power ties.

[FlyGy]

That was my understanding as well and my main reason for favouring the 'toga over the T-Lance should I ever buy one.

[Old Dog Flying]

I've flown the T-tail turbo Lance with the fat-boy wing and as I mentioned earlier the only thing that the T tail did was increase the t/o distance by 600 ft. The Saratoga on the other hand with the long wing and standard stab would be a much more pleasant aircraft to fly.

Just comparing the older fat wing 235 to the long wing 236 and there is a big difference in handling.

Barney

[oldtimer]

Read an article in Flying magazine that said the Lance was not all that much faster than a plain old fixed gear 300 hp 6 with wheel pants and in fact some drag reducing mods could bring the speed to within 10 kts of the retractable gear Lance so the maintenance and insurance was hardly worth the expense. I also flew (one brief flight) a 300 hp 6 on floats and it was a real pig. Pilot, 3 passengers and 2 hrs fuel was all it would take. A look through the log from the previous owner (out of Vancouver) showed the same loads but once back on wheels, pilot, 5 passengers, baggage and fuel, a normal load.
The T tail was a Piper goof that did little for the airplane except reduce its acceptance. The Sagatoga has a different wing that is supposed to fix the shortcomings. I have flown both a 300 hp fixed gear 6 (lots) and a retractable Lance (twice) and I found little to justify the extra cost of the retractable gear.
With a couple of thousand hours in a C206, I would seriously consider the 6 over the 206.
That is if I were ever to win the lottery.

[beaverbob]

I have flown a number of the single Pipers, pa-18, pacer, clipper, Cherokee 140, 160, 180 235, and 6 - 265 and 300.
I owned a pacer, and Cherokee 235 and 6 - 265
I have also flown a lot of hours in C-180/185/and C-206. I owned a Cessna 206. (new from cessna for $40,000) I just threw that price in for the younger crowd on here dreaming of ownership.
No matter what piper Cherokee I have flown, I would rather have had the equivilant powered Cessna any day for the better take off and climb performance.

I would, however, love to have another pacer,(PA-20 with 125 hp and flaps), just for the fun I remember having with it those many years ago.
Bob

[Beefitarian]

I started with a "best model 172" thread and a bunch of people were talking about Pipers so I thought there should be this one. It has been so long since I flew warrior II, I can't compare them fairly. If the right plane showed up and I had more "wasting on myself" money I don't know if brand would make much difference. I tend to fly off pavement nearly exclusively though lately most of time I'm going to the practice area in a 172 dual.