Jump to content

Talk:Piper PA-28 Cherokee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Question

What about the PA32-260 and PA32-300 models in the late 60's and early 70's? They, too, were called "Cherokee 6's".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.116.11 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 January 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup on Aisle 5!

This article needs some clean-up and better re-wording, especially after the Cherokee 140 entry was merged with it. It has several confusing redundancies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.10.235 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 December 2004 (UTC)

Hershey Bar Wings

Does anyone have any actual performance figures for Hershey Bar wings? I know that there are a lot of tall tales floating around about stall performance and cruise speed, but we have to leave those heavily qualified until we find something more than hangar talk to back it up. The semi-tapered-wing planes do fly a bit faster than the equivalent horsepower hershey-bar planes according to the official published figures, but there were many other changes (better fairings, longer fuselage, gap seals, much improved wheel fairings) which make a comparison tricky. Most people describe the Cherokee stall as very docile with either kind of wing, though, presumably, the hershey-bar has a shorter flare (again, though, this is from hangar talk, not any reliable source). David 02:16, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)


I'll chime in with some performance figures in a little bit. I have a Cherokee 235 and am pretty familiar with both types of wings. I will get the pilots handbook out next time I'm out at the airport.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Piper_Cherokee"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iflyprops (talk • contribs) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-org reqd

The article is schizophrenically organised. It seems to want to run as one historical account, year by year, yet it has the model names as section headers. One or the other. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Push-pull POV

In answer to a question on my Talk page, I removed the words "more modern" because many modern aircraft have the push-pull controls. They aren't more modern, they're just different. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact tagging

I have fact tagged just about this whole article. Other than one minor citation of one fact, it has no references at at all. It has been tagged with a header for some time but that hasn't motivated anyone to add references.

Hopefully the fact tags will help editors identify where the refs are needed. For anyone who doesn't think it is important for Wikipedia to be scrupulously referenced, I suggest that you read this CBC article.

Please do not remove the fact tags unless you are replacing them with references. At least they will alert readers that this article is unreliable. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put in quite a number of refs and also reformatted the existing refs to comply with the Wikipedia Aircraft Project guidelines. I think the ref situation is now to the point where the warnings can come off the page. If anyone has any refs for the remaining tagged places, please add them! There is still lots of scope for additional information to be added to this page and also some serious reorganization. It is getting better over time. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Distance

How far can it go? why is there no mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.148.22 (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Range is listed in the specs under Piper_Cherokee#Performance - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Piper PA-28-161 Cadet

I used to fly Piper Cherokee Cadets and I've seen no mention of this variant on this page. I can't recall all the differences but I remember there was a gear handle in the plane, though no retractable gear, and the rearmost windows did not exist. The Warrior IIIs my flight school replaced them with were far nose heavier on neutral trim than the Cadet. Other than that, anyone else know any key differences from the rest of the Cherokee series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskanFlyboy (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Image added

Piper PA-28-181 Archer II built in 1979

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Images I suggest that this new image be removed from the article for three reasons:

  1. the technical image quality is very poor - washed out colours, poor focus, etc
  2. The primary focus of the picture is of a woman posing in front of the aircraft and not the aircraft and
  3. The aircraft is obscurred by the person standing in front of it.

This is really a "tourist photo" and not of the normal image or subject quality one would expect in an encyclopedia. If anyone objects to removing it please indicate your reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any objections it will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hershey vs. Tapered Wings and Turbo vs Non-Turbo

Should mention, although I can't verify it that you can tell the wing type from the model. It's all to do with a 1 at the end. So a PA-28-140 will be a Cherokee with a hershey bar wing. A PA-28-141 will be a Cherokee with a tapered wing. Same works for the arrow - PA28-R200 would be an arrow with a hershey bar wing (the R meaning retractable gear). A PA-28R-201 would be an arrow with a tapered wing. Next you have a turbo/non-turbo. On an arrow this is indicated with a trailing T. So a PA-28R-201 would be an arrow (retractable) with a taper wing. A PA-28R-201T would be a turbo arrow with a tapered wing. And finally we get onto the arrow IV which has a T in the middle to show that it's a T-tail. My arrow is an PA-28RT-201T so you can tell that it's got a T-tail, a tapered wing and a turbo all from the model number. Did this confuse? I don't have any back up material on this so if anyone knows of some? Anyone want to take on writing this one up? Barclaac (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Piper has discontinued production of the Archer variant

This should probably be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.2.122.148 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, they do seem to have dropped it from the line, but there is no press release on that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref found and text adjusted accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Throttle quadrant year

Howdy! this edit changed the date of the throttle change from 69 to 68. Anyone got a cite either way to verify? Maybe I'm suspicious because I stumbled onto the change during RC Patrol and it's by an anon user, but a cite or confirmation by someone who knows might not hurt. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

--Throttle quadrant is available in each illustrated parts catalogue for the model you wish to study. Pick your model, then go to the IPC for that airplane, take the serial number, and go to the FAA registration website to get your date of manufacture. You will note that for the Cherokee 140 there was overlap, and the quadrant was available to a serial number range that also was available with the original push-pull controls.

The quadrant arrangement was standard in the Arrow from the first models in 1967. I know because I own a 1967 model (S/N 28R-30046, airworthiness certificate September 1967). See also Fuchs, Alice: "The Cherokee That Lifts Its Feet," AOPA Pilot, July 1967. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.212.62 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

ARROW stretch

Some mention should be added to indicate when the arrow fuselage was stretched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.121.85 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The stretch occurred with the introduction of the Arrow II in 1972. See Twombly, Mark: "Piper Arrow" in AOPA Pilot, June 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.249.14 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chile Dakotas

The article says Piper Dakotas were also assembled under licence by the Maintenance Wing of the Chilean Air Force. 20 had been completed by September 1982 and gives Janes as a source. The 1987 Air-Britain book Piper Aircraft says that one pattern PA-28-236 aircraft was delivered and 24 kits was assemblied by ENAER for the Chilean Air Force. Did ENAER assemble them or the Chilean Air Force? MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ENAER was formed in 1984 from IndAer, set up by the Chilean Air Force in 1980.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I presume then that Maintenance Wing of the Chilean Air Force is actually ENAER! MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
ENAER grew out of and was split off from, the Maintenace Wing.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Construction number outdated

The number of 32700 is still based on information from the early 1990s. Meanwhile there have been moren than 51700 built. I have no where found the correct number so asked Piper directly and they confirmed this number by email. Now the question is how to publish the correct number and sticking to correct wikipedia quidelines. Does anyone have a source that complies with Wikipedia? Because I feel the information provided should be correct and not misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha320 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

For example here you can see aircraft 43285: http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7695053&nseq=9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha320 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:V we need a proper ref. A non-published e-mail doesn't cut it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Apart from images not being reliable sources PA-28 construction numbers dont run up in sequence, Archer IIIs are 2890206 through 2890231, and then 2843001 and up so it was probably the 285th aircraft of the batch built by "New Piper Aircraft" but not the 285th of all Archer IIIs and certainly not the of 43,285th of all PA-28s built. MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Have we got an actual reference for the 32778+ number used in the infobox? Jane's 2003–2004 (p. 692) states that "Piper has built some 30,000 of PA-28 series since prototype Cherokee flew on 10 January 1960". It also states (p. 694) that Piper had built over 7,200 PA-32 series aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The Air-Britain "Piper Aircraft" has totals but it is now a bit dated (1987):
  • PA-28 Basic/Challenger/Archer - 10,896
  • PA-28-140/Cruiser - 10,089
  • PA-28 Warrior - 4,842
  • PA-28-235/Dakota - 2,913
  • PA-28R Arrow - 6,694
  • PA-28R-300 2

Which equals 35436 in 1987. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Also I only have a first edition of Simpson's General Aviation (1991) but it gives 29,285 PA-28s and 6785 PA-28Rs plus the two Pillans, which equals 36,072. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Jane's 2003 also gives more detailed production figures for New Piper (i.e. 1995 on) to June 2002. These are: Warrior III; 151. Archer III; 524. PA-28R; 72. Combined with the numbers from Simpson - which should be OK for production before Piper's four years in Chapter 11, would give 29960 PA-28s and 6857 PA-28Rs.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Nigel: that adds up to 36,817 by June 2002. It is pretty unlikely that they have built another 14,933 since then (51,750-36,817), since they have been only building a couple of dozen a year, so something doesn't add up. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As the quote from Piper marketing talks about "the number of Cherokees..." it may include production of the PA-32, originally the Cherokee Six - Jane's has ~7200 by 2002. There is also the licence production in South America (i.e. Argentina, Brazil and Chile) - these may or may not be included in the above figures.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Most if not all of the South American production were actually kits from the main production batches so should already be included in the totals. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That was kind of my point, that number of 51,750 may include all kinds of aircraft types that we aren't aware of, it seems apocryphal and isn't referenced or explained. I think we really need to quote the last reliable number and indicate the date and ref. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Embraer production figures - from [1]
  • EMB710 (Cherokee 235 Pathfinder) : 288 (1975–1983)
  • EMB711 (Cherokee Arrow II) : 477 (1975–1990)
  • EMB712 (Archer II): 145 (1979–1992)
  • EMB720 (Cherokee Six): 293 (1975–1996)
  • EMB721 (Cherokee Lance): 208 (1976–1985)
i.e. 710 PA-28s and 501 PA-32s.
The Embraer site suggest that from 78 at least production was increasingly local "... except for a few items...".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The Piper numbers may include some of those (kits) or all of them. Hard to say, which makes the answers all pretty unreliable. In dealing with aircraft manufacturers first hand as an aviation journalist, I found that many of them really didn't know how many of each model they had produced. They have individual records on each airframe built, like inspection reports and customer delivery documents, but often just file them and don't keep any sort of running record. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why the actual numbers are not published on the web. Anyway this is the answer I recieved: Marketing <Marketing@piper.com>:

"The number of Cherokees manufactured is nearing 51,750.

-Piper Marketing "

It makes sense to me that this is not allowed to be used, on the other hand everyone interested can ask them himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha320 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I hate to point it out, but "nearing 51,750" is a meaningless statement. It is the same case as this old story:
ATC: Alpha-Bravo-Charlie what is your location?
Pilot: Alpha-Bravo-Charlie is approaching the outer marker
ATC: Alpha-Bravo-Charlie, you have been approaching the outer marker since you took off. Where exactly are you?
- Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kits to Embraer Brazil:

  • PA-28-181 134
  • PA-38-235 266
  • PA-28-236 24
  • PA-28R-200 219
  • PA-28R-201 30
  • PA-28RT-201 44
  • PA-28RT-201T 160

Kits to Aeromerccantile Colombia:

  • PA-28-180 8
  • PA-28-181 17
  • PA-28-140 16
  • PA-28-161 7
  • PA-28-235 20
  • PA-28-236 16
  • PA-28-201T 1
  • PA-28R-180 1
  • PA-28R-200 2
  • PA-28R-201T 14
  • PA-28RT-201T 7

Kits to Aero Salfa Chile:

  • PA-28-181 1
  • PA-28-161 1

Kits to Enear Chile

  • PA-28-236 24
  • PA-28R-300 87 with another 33 due in 1987

Kits to Chincul Argentina

  • PA-28-180 21
  • PA-28-181 48
  • PA-28-140 64
  • PA-28-161 6
  • PA-28-235 8
  • PA-28-236 15
  • PA-28R-200 17
  • PA-28R-201 15
  • PA-28R-201T 15
  • PA-28RT-201 5
  • PA-28RT-201T 3

These are from Air-Britain's Piper Aircraft in 1987. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That said we can as Nigel suggested use the Simpson ref for original Piper production and Janes 2003 for New Piper which appear to be the only reliable sources we have at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with G-ARRP

NO ACTION
No basis for merge. G-ARRP sent to WP:Articles for Deletion. clpo13(talk) 17:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information on this plane (allegedly the oldest PA-28 still operating) could be included in the Piper PA-28 Cherokee#Aircraft on display section if sourced. clpo13(talk) 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not notable enough for either an article of its own or even a mention in this article. I'll send it for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. TBH, I'm not sure the "aircraft on display" section here is worthwhile at all. clpo13(talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the article is isn't on display, it seems to be still flying privately. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What does two/four place mean?

is it the seating arrangement? All the variants have two/four place listed first and there's no explanation what it means. If it is seats then why not just use two/four seats?

Its just the American way of saying seats, no reason why we can not change it to make it understandable to us foreigners. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Seaplane vs Landplane 160 Cherokee and 180 Cherokee

I do not believe that the 160 and 180 cherokee should be referred to as a seaplane, they are primarily a land plane that is capable of having floats. Similar to the Piper Cub, the Cessna 172, and many other small airplanes. I read through the cited source document number 15 but I was not able to find anything referring to the plane as a seaplane. Having this plane referred to as a seaplane implies that it is an amphibious design similar to Lake Aircraft which it is not. The 160 and 180 are no more of a seaplane than a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cub. Sunfishtommy (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the FAA says that a seaplane is any aircraft that can be equipped to operate from the water, not just a flying boat. The cited ref indicates under the PA-28S-160 and PA-28S-180 that these are "4PCSM" indicating, in FAA terminology, that it is certified as a four place seaplane. That is what the "S" indicates, that it is a seaplane-only model. The type certification data sheet spells this out in detail in Note 3 on page 40: "The Models PA-28-160 and PA-28-180, S/N 28-508 to 28-1760, and 28-1760A may be converted to the seaplane configuration, PA-28S-160 and PA-28S-180, in accordance with Piper Drawing No. 62008. The Model PA-28-180, S/N 28-1761 through 28-5859, and 28-7105001 through 28-7205318, may be converted to the seaplane configuration, PA-28S-180, in accordance with Piper Drawing No. 65680." As editors we don't get to define what is or isn't a seaplane, that is left up to reliable sources, like the FAA in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I think i misunderstood the way you organized the bottom of the page, I did not see that you had placed the 160/180 S in a different category from the 160/180 normal. I guess this has been resolved then. Also has there been any consideration in separating the Cherokee, Archer, Arrow, Dekota into separate pages. The Cessna 172, 182, and 205/206/207 all have separate pages even though they share similar designs, Maybe we should consider doing the same for this page, as there is a significant difference in performance between some of the planes on this page. I can create a separate thread on the Talk page if we want to consider doing this. - Sunfishtommy (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Cessna 172 and 182 etc all have different type certificates, while all the PA-28s are on one type certificate, meaning that the FAA classifies them as a single aircraft type. While we normally follow the FAA type certificates on defining a type, we could split them if a good case can be made for doing so and enough refs and text are available to make a good split article. - Ahunt (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Piper PA-28 Cherokee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Name

Piper PA-28 Cherokee instead of simply Piper PA-28 is disturbing when it is also called Cherokee (Cruiser/Warrior/Pathfinder), Warrior, Archer, (Turbo) Dakota, (Turbo) Arrow, Cadet. See also its redirects.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

While strictly true, this is a case of WP:COMMONNAME and the whole family is most commonly called the Cherokee. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piper_PA-28_Cherokee/Archive_1&oldid=1087971757"