Piper Cherokee 180 B Manual
Check out the! Rules. Read the before posting. Certain questions, such as 'how do I become a pilot' and the like have been asked repeatedly in the past. Refrain from posting anything that does not pertain to pilots, students, instructors or other aviation professionals. Post something that you would like to discuss!
Any Piper Cherokee 180 owners here? The maintenance on a manual retract vs. A motor driven isn't even comparable tbh. The mooney gear is very easy to work on just so you know. By the way, the big hp 172s are 180hp, the Piper 180 is 180hp and the Tiger is 180hp. Unless you're mostly operating at sea level these. The Piper PA-28 Cherokee is a family of light aircraft built by Piper Aircraft and designed for flight training, air taxi and personal use. In 1962, Piper added the Cherokee 180 (PA-28-180) powered by a 180-horsepower (134-kW) Lycoming O-360 engine.
If posting a photo, video or link, you must include a relevant comment to start conversation. For example, a story from your checkride. Blogspam isn't welcome here. PLEASE no memes. Is a meme-free zone. Cite sources when appropriate.
Posts about the non-aviating aspects of airlines (planespotting, passenger experience, frequent flyer programs) do not belong here. Be nice to each other. Is intended to be a friendly and accepting place; check your ego at the door and take your snark and attitude elsewhere. We strive to keep as commercial-free as possible.
If you are about to post something that involves the exchange of goods or services for money, run it by the mods first. This includes requests for donations. If you want to sell an aviation-related item or aircraft, post it in. The moderators have the final say in disputes. Info and FAQs. Updated daily from flair; see for requests/issues.
You will find many answers to questions you may have, such as how to become a pilot. Pilot Certificate Badges. SIM - Simulators only, or pre-student interest. ST - Student.
SPT - Sport Pilot. UPL - Ultralight Pilot (EASA). RPL - Recreational Pilot.
LAPL - Light Aircraft Pilot (EASA). PPL - Private Pilot. CPL - Commercial Pilot. ATP - Airline Transport Pilot. CFI - FAA Certified Flight Instructor.
FI - Flight Instructor (non-FAA Country). MIL - AF,N,A - Military pilot, AF, N, A, etc. I have owned a 69 180 for the last 2 years. It definitely can carry quite a bit but it will never win a race.
I tend to fly around at 105-110 indicated, at altitude it will true out to 115. Rarely will we end up burning more than 9 gph in cruise. Useful load in mine is 952 lbs and we rarely fill the tanks above the tabs.
All graphs, tables and diagrams are from AQA GCSE exam questions including Biology, Chemistry and Physics. I have carefully selected topics so they can be used for old or new specification (first exams 2018). Study guide science skills interpreting graphs. Interpreting graphs Describing patterns Understanding and identifying patterns in tables Using information from diagrams Using physics formulae Command words All command words are highlighted/underlined to promote discussion. Worksheets to help students practice key skills required for exams.
It flies much better with the CG aft and you tend to run into the forward CG limits because the fuel tanks are ahead of things. So make use of the baggage area. Speaking of which the 180 has a rear baggage door which is very handy. Mechanics love them as they are simple and easy to inspect and repair. The AD's tend to go on an 8 year schedule. Nothing big just things like oil cooler hoses. Insurance is dirt cheap and it is tough as nails.
Hmm, every report I've read has said you can expect 120kts at 8-10gph for a 75% cruise, but thanks. What did you usually see? I've heard a report of 118kts at 75% from a few owners as well, but 2kts is negligible. No, I haven't looked into the manual gear Mooneys too much as far as insurance goes. Maintenance costs will be more expensive than a Cherokee and they're harder to work on, so I'm just not sold on paying more money to own and maintain just to gain 20kts in cruise. Of course, there are preferences to consider (cabin space differences, for example). I have a friend trying to convince me to go in with him on a Mooney.
I had a 180, 1963. Honestly, it was a great plane. Easy and fun to fly. I based out of stead with a 5000' elevation strip.
It worked great. 3-4 people with lower fuel, decent cross country plane. Never really put more than 3 in it, but I hardly ever put more than 3 in my bigger plane now.
Maybe I need more friends. My 180 had the Johnson bar flaps.
They were great. Pull em down and sink like a rock. I think in 3 years I rebuilt a strut and had to fix the seat recline mechanism. Mine had just basic radios. There is nothing to 180 to really break. Annuals were cheap in the sub 1k range with any parts, labor, AD's and BS (I don't remember exact details).
Sorry, I don't remember the cruise or fuel burn on it. I upgraded to the Comanche I have now and love it. I still miss the simplicity of the 180. The club I used to be in had two older Cherokee 180s. On paper they looked attractive - not super fast, but decent, and a damn good-looking useful load.
But the useful load was deceptive. At max gross, the CG envelope is pretty tiny, and I found that the loaded CG always tended to be way forward. I'm a larger dude, and trying to make a W&B work with me and another passenger up front, it was almost impossible to stay in the envelope - like, I had to play with basically loading the cargo area at its max permitted load just to make things work out. I never checked out in either of the planes for that reason - it was going to be virtually impossible to get any kind of utility out of them for me. Now, from some of my research, it seemed that this was a common thing with the old 180s, and I want to say that I read that there was a STC or something for the nose gear that would allow for a larger forward CG. Might be something to look into.
Now, I do have a ton of time in -181s (the Archer), and that plane I found to be a great little pickup truck. Trips I made in an Archer include a trip to the Keys with two other friends and a week's worth of luggage, and a trip to OSH with my SO and a week's worth of camping gear. To illustrate a little better, I dug through my cell photo archives from when I took photos of the relevant W&B pages from the POH of the 180 at the club. As you can see, the CG range at gross weight is only like three inches. The empty CG is in the 85' range - a point at which you can't go above about 1900# without going out of CG. Fortunately, the tank arm is 95', so adding fuel helps move the CG back, but not by a ton. Full fuel puts you at 1670# and 87'.
At that CG you're good for 2100#.but sadly, the front seat arm is 85', so once you add you and a friend, things start going south again. Realistically, I think the problem with the plane is twofold: The first is the kinda weird envelope that pretty aggressively cuts off the forward range as you get heavy. But there's also the issue that the empty CG is pretty far forward. I think I recall reading that this is partially due to these aircraft being originally manufactured with heavy-ish avionics located back behind the baggage compartment. That at least seems to plausibly point to why the planes now tend to be forward-CG with stuff like that ripped out. Throwing out an alternative (which is mostly based on my current bias): have you looked at Grumman Tigers?
Useful load isn't a big selling point, but they definitely will move pretty well for a 180-horse bird. The sliding canopy is nice, especially compared to the circus-act that is getting in the door of a PA-28.
And you can fold down the rear seats to make a nice roomy baggage area. If you have any interest at all in a Tiger, I can show you around my club's plane at SGR and maybe even take you for a demo hop. Thanks so much for digging into this. Yeah, one of the forum articles I found on the Piper forum mentioned that same thing on the avionics, that they were originally in the back and much heavier than what we have now.
I've had a couple of people mention the Grummans, I've never flown in one and have heard mixed reports on the nosewheel, particularly with landing and then the ground handling, but I'd be open to checking it out. The performance seems pretty solid. Thanks for the kind offer, that would be great. I'll buy fuel!
I'll PM you my cell number. Weather is supposed to improve later this week (hopefully.). Owned a Tiger. I'm into backcountry flying now so it's not a fit, but if you're going pavement to pavement in this class of plane, they are the absolute best.
Handling far surpasses that of either piper or Cessna equivalents, visibility is amazing, they're fast and super economical. True cruise for us was always 130 kts, total burn just shy of 10 gph. Cheap to maintain, super fun to fly. You give up some useful load is the only major downside, but we flew out of anywhere between field elevations of sea level to 7,300'.
Would absolutely buy another Tiger before a Cessna or Piper if it fit my mission. Can't remember any more, I think mine was about 850#. I would have been comfortable taking off with those loads at pretty much any temperature at airport elevations up to about 3000'. Above that I'd really start watching temps and I'd probably never take off with either of those loads by the time you get to airport elevations of 6000' or more. By the way, the big hp 172s are 180hp, the Piper 180 is 180hp and the Tiger is 180hp.
Unless you're mostly operating at sea level these planes are all going to kind of suck equally for the load you want to carry. None of them would be my choice for that load if you operate at altitude - you're really in 182 land or at least 200hp+ territory.
Check out the! Rules. Read the before posting. Certain questions, such as 'how do I become a pilot' and the like have been asked repeatedly in the past. Refrain from posting anything that does not pertain to pilots, students, instructors or other aviation professionals. Post something that you would like to discuss!
If posting a photo, video or link, you must include a relevant comment to start conversation. For example, a story from your checkride. Blogspam isn't welcome here. PLEASE no memes.
Is a meme-free zone. Cite sources when appropriate. Posts about the non-aviating aspects of airlines (planespotting, passenger experience, frequent flyer programs) do not belong here.
Be nice to each other. Is intended to be a friendly and accepting place; check your ego at the door and take your snark and attitude elsewhere. We strive to keep as commercial-free as possible. If you are about to post something that involves the exchange of goods or services for money, run it by the mods first. This includes requests for donations. If you want to sell an aviation-related item or aircraft, post it in. The moderators have the final say in disputes.
Info and FAQs. Updated daily from flair; see for requests/issues. You will find many answers to questions you may have, such as how to become a pilot. Pilot Certificate Badges.
SIM - Simulators only, or pre-student interest. ST - Student. SPT - Sport Pilot. UPL - Ultralight Pilot (EASA).
RPL - Recreational Pilot. LAPL - Light Aircraft Pilot (EASA). PPL - Private Pilot. CPL - Commercial Pilot.
ATP - Airline Transport Pilot. CFI - FAA Certified Flight Instructor. FI - Flight Instructor (non-FAA Country).
MIL - AF,N,A - Military pilot, AF, N, A, etc. I have owned a 69 180 for the last 2 years. It definitely can carry quite a bit but it will never win a race.
I tend to fly around at 105-110 indicated, at altitude it will true out to 115. Rarely will we end up burning more than 9 gph in cruise. Useful load in mine is 952 lbs and we rarely fill the tanks above the tabs. It flies much better with the CG aft and you tend to run into the forward CG limits because the fuel tanks are ahead of things. So make use of the baggage area. Speaking of which the 180 has a rear baggage door which is very handy. Mechanics love them as they are simple and easy to inspect and repair.
The AD's tend to go on an 8 year schedule. Nothing big just things like oil cooler hoses. Insurance is dirt cheap and it is tough as nails. Hmm, every report I've read has said you can expect 120kts at 8-10gph for a 75% cruise, but thanks. What did you usually see? I've heard a report of 118kts at 75% from a few owners as well, but 2kts is negligible. No, I haven't looked into the manual gear Mooneys too much as far as insurance goes.
Maintenance costs will be more expensive than a Cherokee and they're harder to work on, so I'm just not sold on paying more money to own and maintain just to gain 20kts in cruise. Of course, there are preferences to consider (cabin space differences, for example). I have a friend trying to convince me to go in with him on a Mooney. I had a 180, 1963.
Honestly, it was a great plane. Easy and fun to fly. I based out of stead with a 5000' elevation strip.
It worked great. 3-4 people with lower fuel, decent cross country plane. Never really put more than 3 in it, but I hardly ever put more than 3 in my bigger plane now.
Maybe I need more friends. My 180 had the Johnson bar flaps. They were great. Pull em down and sink like a rock. I think in 3 years I rebuilt a strut and had to fix the seat recline mechanism. Mine had just basic radios. There is nothing to 180 to really break.
Annuals were cheap in the sub 1k range with any parts, labor, AD's and BS (I don't remember exact details). Sorry, I don't remember the cruise or fuel burn on it.
I upgraded to the Comanche I have now and love it. I still miss the simplicity of the 180. The club I used to be in had two older Cherokee 180s. On paper they looked attractive - not super fast, but decent, and a damn good-looking useful load. But the useful load was deceptive.
At max gross, the CG envelope is pretty tiny, and I found that the loaded CG always tended to be way forward. I'm a larger dude, and trying to make a W&B work with me and another passenger up front, it was almost impossible to stay in the envelope - like, I had to play with basically loading the cargo area at its max permitted load just to make things work out. I never checked out in either of the planes for that reason - it was going to be virtually impossible to get any kind of utility out of them for me. Now, from some of my research, it seemed that this was a common thing with the old 180s, and I want to say that I read that there was a STC or something for the nose gear that would allow for a larger forward CG. Might be something to look into. Now, I do have a ton of time in -181s (the Archer), and that plane I found to be a great little pickup truck.
Trips I made in an Archer include a trip to the Keys with two other friends and a week's worth of luggage, and a trip to OSH with my SO and a week's worth of camping gear. To illustrate a little better, I dug through my cell photo archives from when I took photos of the relevant W&B pages from the POH of the 180 at the club. As you can see, the CG range at gross weight is only like three inches.
Piper Cherokee 180 Specs
The empty CG is in the 85' range - a point at which you can't go above about 1900# without going out of CG. Fortunately, the tank arm is 95', so adding fuel helps move the CG back, but not by a ton. Full fuel puts you at 1670# and 87'. At that CG you're good for 2100#.but sadly, the front seat arm is 85', so once you add you and a friend, things start going south again. Realistically, I think the problem with the plane is twofold: The first is the kinda weird envelope that pretty aggressively cuts off the forward range as you get heavy. But there's also the issue that the empty CG is pretty far forward. I think I recall reading that this is partially due to these aircraft being originally manufactured with heavy-ish avionics located back behind the baggage compartment.
That at least seems to plausibly point to why the planes now tend to be forward-CG with stuff like that ripped out. Throwing out an alternative (which is mostly based on my current bias): have you looked at Grumman Tigers?
Useful load isn't a big selling point, but they definitely will move pretty well for a 180-horse bird. The sliding canopy is nice, especially compared to the circus-act that is getting in the door of a PA-28. And you can fold down the rear seats to make a nice roomy baggage area. If you have any interest at all in a Tiger, I can show you around my club's plane at SGR and maybe even take you for a demo hop.
Thanks so much for digging into this. Yeah, one of the forum articles I found on the Piper forum mentioned that same thing on the avionics, that they were originally in the back and much heavier than what we have now.
I've had a couple of people mention the Grummans, I've never flown in one and have heard mixed reports on the nosewheel, particularly with landing and then the ground handling, but I'd be open to checking it out. The performance seems pretty solid. Thanks for the kind offer, that would be great. I'll buy fuel!
Piper Pa 28 180 Manual
I'll PM you my cell number. Weather is supposed to improve later this week (hopefully.). Owned a Tiger. I'm into backcountry flying now so it's not a fit, but if you're going pavement to pavement in this class of plane, they are the absolute best. Handling far surpasses that of either piper or Cessna equivalents, visibility is amazing, they're fast and super economical. True cruise for us was always 130 kts, total burn just shy of 10 gph.
Cheap to maintain, super fun to fly. You give up some useful load is the only major downside, but we flew out of anywhere between field elevations of sea level to 7,300'. Would absolutely buy another Tiger before a Cessna or Piper if it fit my mission. Can't remember any more, I think mine was about 850#.
I would have been comfortable taking off with those loads at pretty much any temperature at airport elevations up to about 3000'. Above that I'd really start watching temps and I'd probably never take off with either of those loads by the time you get to airport elevations of 6000' or more. By the way, the big hp 172s are 180hp, the Piper 180 is 180hp and the Tiger is 180hp.
Unless you're mostly operating at sea level these planes are all going to kind of suck equally for the load you want to carry. None of them would be my choice for that load if you operate at altitude - you're really in 182 land or at least 200hp+ territory.