The most OVERPOWERED Piper Cherokee ever! | Walkaround & Flight
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 10. 2021
- Ash does a walkaround and flight in this gorgeous 235hp #Piper Pathfinder! An absolutely awesome plane, this was Piper's answer to the venerable Cessna 182 Skylane.
If you liked this video, please give us a THUMBS UP and a SUBSCRIBE. It really helps! We love making these videos and we've got some great content coming up for you guys. We've got Cherokees, Cessnas, Barons and a whole host of more cool aircraft and destinations planned!
If you'd like to SPONSOR us, get in contact!
Facebook: / deadstickadv. .
Instagram: / deadstickad. .
Filmed by:
/ onecastmedia
#generalaviation #privateplane - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Flew the 235 for years in the 1970’s….best aircraft ever! Fast….and the engine had a great mellow sound as you accelerated down the runway.
I flew a 400 hp Cherokee, it was called a Seneca.
Haha yep that’s another option!
This is the highest video quality airplane informational video I've seen on CZcams, thank goodness. You're really making me want a 235!
Thanks for the kind words! Really appreciate it. And yep, they’re a cool plan!!
+1 on this. I recently purchased a 1965 Cherokee 235 as my first aircraft and it is everything as advertised. Unfortunately, also the shorter version--but that's alright. Plenty of room upfront.
Back when I was flying I would have loved to fly a 235. Outstanding aircraft.
They’re good fun for sure! MP
Great content thanks for sharing. I have a 1965 235 and just love it, they are an amazing aircraft to fly. I actually did my CSU Endorsement with you guys and can highly recommend the team’s professionalism and knowledge, if anyone’s think of upgrading! Keep the content coming we don’t get enough Oz content 👏
Thanks Tony! Appreciate the kind words. They’re such a great aircraft. Awesome bang-for-buck. 😁😁
Great Job!!!! So miss my piper PA-28-161 and general aviation flying days. Thanks for the fond memories of flying this great airplane!!! Well designed, engineered, manufactured and marketed.
Glad you enjoyed it! Lovely to hear such positive feedback. Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment. - Ash
Awesome video! Highly informative.
I really enjoyed flying that one, beautifully kept aircraft.
Thanks man! She’s an awesome plane 😍
I grew up near vero beach. One time, my elementary school class took a field trip to the Piper factory in Vero Beach Fla . It was a great trip for us kids. This was around 1968.
That’s a hell of a field trip! Thanks for watching and commenting. - Ash
I used to own a 1971 PA-28-140D with only a 160HP upgrade. I also had a PA-32-260 but had the opportunity to fly my friend’s Dakota many times. Great airplane.
We use two Cherokee 140s with 160hp for flight training. Great aircraft! Never flown a PA32-260 but I'd certainly love to
Sharp looking 235. Great content
Thanks man! She’s a nice machine 👌
My Dad had a 64 235 and it gave me some very good memories.
They’re such a good aircraft! :)
Have over 100 hours in the 235, loved flying it very stable. 👍🙏🦅😎🇺🇸
Nice 👍
😎👍 You fly like we do! 🇬🇧 Nice landing! I'm more of a Cessna guy but I always feel more stable in a PA28 and it's a bit like moving into a much bigger aeroplane.
Haha thanks! Yeah good point, the Piper does feel a bit bigger doesn’t it. Always get a student solo in less hours in a piper 😎
Awesome video! It's mind-boggling how many variations of the Cherokee/PA-28 have been build lol. I regularly fly the Archer II and like it a lot but at the end of the day I prefer the high wing Cessnas for their better visibility. There is also a good learning moment here! At 12:27 you say you'll have to remind yourself that the electric trim isn't working yet during the first approach it looks like you're trying to trim exclusively using the switch out of habit. I'm sure there was a note about it somewhere but it's a great reminder to put a sticker or something else on an INOP switch that you'll notice if you touch it.
Thanks! Yep Cherokees are great aircraft but I agree, I do like the Cessnas just a tiny bit more. Especially on a hot summers day, nothing beats having that shade of the high wing!
Haha good spot! Yep definitely sat there trying to trim her nose up for the flare and wondering why the control column wasn’t getting any lighter! 😂
3:15 The lack of wash out doesn't mean the rectangular wing platform (Hershey bar) is more likely to drop in Wing. The idea is inboard wing stalls first giving feel impending stall while ailerons in theory are still effective, as outboard wing is lower angle of attack with the wing twist. It does not prevent outboard wing from stalling. What causes a wing drop in stalls is uncoordinated flight (skid or slip). Skid is worse than slip, long explanation for another time.
ALSO aileron in a stall will tend to cause increase stalled wing AOA. Say L wing drops (stalls) you add R roll to raise L wing. Down aileron L wing on increases AOA and increases drag which makes it drop and yawn more. Stall recovery should be neutral aileron and RUDDER. Again if for example left wing dtops you bank right, the left wing aileron goes down to increase lift. However it is stalled and down aileron increases AOA and stall and increases drag causing yawn.
Wing washout ia sound but has traded offs and does not make the plane less likely to stall. Does washout aid in having roll control with ailerons in stall better?? Marginal or slightly better in some situations. Best to not use aileron at all, rudder only.
A twist or washout wing does have more drag in cruise. Thus is why Hershey Bar wings still work well even if advanced seat of pants stall warning is less, stall is pretty benign and gives a competent pilot enough advanced warning and control (but don't use ailerons). Lower nose use rudder as required and don't over control. Bottom line maintain flying speed above stall with sufficient margin.
Yeah right, thanks for that info. That’s quite interesting that the washout is more for the feeling of the impending stall and providing aileron control. Always more to learn in this game!
I agree, I have several thousand hours in one of these. The stalls were so mild. I loved that plane.
I had one. N57346. Great airplane.
250 hp upgrade with vortex generators and stol tips, magic and highly underrated STOL machine
That sounds like a weapon! 🤤
Nice video. Makes me miss my flying days, long past.
Thanks :)
We had a 1969 235C with the field upgrade to bring it up to 250 hp. I loved that aircraft.
That’s awesome! Love the old school 60s Cherokees!
This is my first time on here and I’m looking forward to seeing more flights in the next one you do.
Thanks! We’re just about to release a video on the Piper Saratoga! 😁
I owned a 64 model. The 235 will outfly, out carry and out perform a 182 and they cost less than a 182. You could put 4 grown adults, 84 gallons of fuel and run it a bit over 150 mph. Mine burned 13 gph and was STCd for mogas. The 235 is a hoss.
This is the kind of power which SHOULD be standard, not the under powered standard engines in GA and 135 mph is not that fast either; manufacturers have short changed buyers on power for decades and getting away with it based on buyers being what's known in the industry as "cheap dates", lol.
Haha I agree!
I’ve flown the Pathfinder 235 with the constant speed prop and with the outboard and inboard fuel and with 3 passengers on a cool day she got off very well at a best rate of climb at 85 mph at 1000 fpm
That’s spectacular performance!
Nice video. Very thorough.
Thanks for watching! :)
Lucky to have many hours in a Dakota. Great airplane!
Why would a person buy an Arrow if you could have a Dakota? The Dakota is a tad faster, carries more, doesn’t have retractable gear to worry about or to insure.
I just like the view and clearance of my old 182 upper wings
That’s where Cessnas have the edge, for sure! ^MP
And the two doors and the two big windows and the airflow. It's hot were I fly. However, the Piper is a nice flying airplane.
The crankshaft and both the 5th and 6th order vibration frequency counterweights are the exactly the same as on the 0-540 A4D5 250hp version, so just changing over the pistons of the 0-540 B4B5 to those used in the A4D5 will automatically raise the power to 250hp, with a compression increase from 7.3:1 to 8.5:1. Add a 3 angle valve seat modification to the valve seats, and a 30 degree cut-back to the valves themselves will see a further and even more substantial jump in power to not so very far short of the 300hp mark, on high octane fuel, with the early fixed pitch prop version, as the extra power will turn the same fixed pitch prop to around 2,700rpm on full take-off power at sea level, instead of just 2,575rpm. More rpms equals more power equals more thrust.
P-28 lineage also includes the cherokee 6/ 300 hp., wonderful airplane but the older models had the glide ratio of manhole cover
Hahaha comment of the month. That made me laugh.
I have owned a 71 Cherokee 140 since 1989. It's wing is same type as the P-51; undercambered.
140s are such a great plane. Congrats on such a long ownership. No wonder there are still so many 140s in the air!
I worked on them a long time. Phrase of the day was, "If you can get it in, it'll carry it'!
Yep sounds about right! They go hard 👌
The overhead trim handle is much better than the on-floor wheel. Having flown both, the floor one is much harder to see to set trim, especially if you have a passenger. Also the Vernier style throttle/prop/mixture is easier to make fine adjustments and in general more precise. I wish Piper never switched. 1963 PA-28-180, would like the extra HP and the CS but in general wouldn't trade it for anything!
Agree, vernier throttles are great to use 👌
VERY GOOD SAMUEL I LIKE SO MUCH FROM BRAZIL PILOT AND GOOD LUCK
Thank you!
O-540s are great motors.
Piper needed to make this a retractable. I have a Cherokee Arrow 200. Would have loved to drop a 235 in mine.
Yeah would’ve been amazing! Direct competitor with the 182RG!
First production year was 61, 1960 was test models. Would love to have a 235, our 160 is good but I'm sure it is a truck with that power
You’re right. 235 is good but thirsty. 180hp is really the sweet spot for Cherokees
Makes a great glider towplane.....able to do double and sometimes triple tows....
I’m not surprised! They’ve certainly got the grunt to get the job done. Good fun :)
Good morning to all from SE Louisiana 14 Dec 21.
Hi Bill from Murray Bridge in South Australia! Thanks for the comment ^MP
I’m flying a Piper Dakota right now with an O-540 and constant speed prop. Love the extra power and speed! It’s a great airplane.
Very nice! Great aircraft, the Dakota
Great Video. I took a flying lesson out of Murray bridge back in 2004. I was visiting Australia and had started my flight training in USA at Penn Yan Flying Club. Flying out of Murray Bridge was a bit different for Penn Yan. Dirt strips, no weather station on the field, no signs at the threshold of the runway with the elevation, and runway numbers. Don't use the carb heat on the ground with all the dust in the air, and enjoy the so many more VFR days in dry South Australia!
Wow 2004! Do you know what aircraft you flew or which instructor? Many of them are still here today!
@@DeadstickAdventures I will check my logs tonight and let you know. It was an O-320 powered 172, so it had the full 40 degrees of flaps. The one I fly some has the Penn Yan Aero 180hp conversation so has only 30 degrees of flaps.
@@annyer262 Awesome, it would be cool to know. I may know the plane and the pilot! Could have been VH-IES?
Awesome! The 180hp 172s are a great aircraft. Much better performance than the older ones!
@@DeadstickAdventures looks like the rego was VH-MCJ I logged landings at YMBD, Rollos and Peaches. For the remarks "Oz paddock flying." I believe Gary Pullman was the instructor.
@@annyer262 Oh yes I know MCJ. Great little plane! Gary is my father, he's still instructing down at YMBD to this day!
Probably the best instrument platform I’ve ever flown. Great airplane but as I’ve aged I find climbing across seats to get into the pilot’s seat increasingly uncomfortable. 182 for me now but that is my only problem with the 235.
I totally agree. The 182 is definitely easier to get in and out of!
Just bought a Piper Dakota 235 and woulD love it if you took us all around basic operation from takeoff to landing IN DETAIL, IT IS A BIT DIFFERENT FROM MY CHEROKEE 140.
Congratulations on the purchase! I don’t believe we have access to this aircraft any longer unfortunately. If we come across a Dakota, I will make a video for sure!
Flew a 235 a few times. Great aircraft. 500' takeoff roll not uncommon.
Plenty of power up its sleeve
MEIR here but exploring buying my first aircraft - I often fly a Cirrus but find them too overpriced so considering Cherokees - Are there many 235's in good knick around given their age?
There are a few that have been fully restored. As long as the engine is in good condition and no corrosion in the airframe, you can’t go wrong. Good, stable IFR platform once you add in some nice reliable (Garmin) avionics and autopilot
Do any owners obtain modified wings with the washout or higher aspect Ratio? I fly RC, any of my planes that behave anywhere near a full size aircraft we call, Under Powered Dogs.
Good question, in my experience I haven’t seen anyone modify a certified aircraft’s wings. However, I have seen modified flaps/ailerons for better STOL performance and gap seals for less drag. If you modify the wing and it isn’t an STC then the aircraft becomes ‘experimental’
Interesting video, thanks. The majority of my hours (I'd say about 80%) are on PA28 Archers and Warriors. Recently checked out on a 182 and it really is a day and night difference performance wise. What I found very surprising is that you said the 235 consumes about 65l/h, while the 182R is happy with about 50. Where does that difference come from? The Piper doesn't look any more inefficient than the 182.
That’s a good question, the early 182s had the Continental 470 that seems to sit happily on 50-55lph. The 235 has a Lycoming 540 that, when run 50-75 rich of peak, seems to only net 60-65lph. They just don’t seem to be as efficient, especially with the extra 70 cubic inches displacement.
@@DeadstickAdventures You are right, it is indeed a O470. It runs ROP at 135TAS happily with 13gal/h. Considering age, weight, performance and drag (fixed undercarriage), I find that number relatively impressive. I'd love to try a Cherokee 235, I've never seen one in person here in Switzerland or wherever I've been in Europe.
The last time I was in a Cherokee 4 was back in 1980..flying from takotna ak to McGrath ak
That would be a spectacular flight! I’d love to fly in Alaska. Float plane endorsement 🤔 ^Michael
It was weird to see the gopro and handheld video desync a bit during the preflight, lol. I was like, wait whats going on?!
Yeah we couldn’t figure out why that happened! I swear I know my instruments haha 😂
Are those anti-ice boots or just black vinyl paint protection?
Just vinyl paint protection
I bet the left turning tendency is fun!
Cherokees seem to be naturally more coordinated than Cessnas. Might have something to do with the differential ailerons, though that wouldn’t explain why P-factor is less noticeable in the Piper.
Engine is mounted offset slightly to the right to counteract. That's the main reason. Costs some speed aerodynamically, but way less need for right rudder.
@@alexs3187 I noticed that also. I then got back in the Cessna and my right leg was called upon with more pressure to keep the plane balanced.
This should be an upgrade kit !
I know right!
what year did they switch the trip tab location on the 235?
Hopefully someone else can answer that one for you. I'm not sure on the exact year. Has to be late 60s though.
I have a 235 Pathfinder Special with 260 hp.
What!! I didn’t know that was a thing. Must go like a rocket!
No more overpowered than a 182.
That is true
What's the difference between a Directional Gyro and a Gyro COMPASS?
DG doesn’t have any magnets in it, it’s aligned by reference to a magnetic compass
Carry a little more power in and you can grease it on
Thanks, I’ll try that next time!
What about the Comanche 400 beast?
Coincidentally the owner of this aircraft is restoring a Comanche 400. We’re going to do a bunch of videos about it in 2022
Fuel pump off during climb?
Yeah we switch off after departing the circuit pattern
I know nothing about Cherokees and I've only watched a couple minutes of the video but wouldn't this aircraft benefit from a 3-blade prop?
It would climb better thanks to the extra thrust the 3 blade would provide, however with that extra thrust comes more drag and thus slower top speeds. Admittedly 3 blade props do look cooler and are much smoother!
Very good flying, but what I really noticed were the terrible ergonomics - you had to keep bending and twisting all over the place to see the various gauge readings. 60s airplane though innit?
Thanks! There’s certainly more ergonomic cockpits than the old Cherokee, especially now with glass becoming more prevalent. It’s not too bad, definitely a LOT better than the early Bonanzas and Barons!
66L/hr? That’s more than double what a typical 100mph Warrior uses. >Two times the gas for 30% more speed seems kinda wasteful.
I know right! And the useful load is offset by the extra engine weight. I guess in the 60’s and 70’s it made sense at 33c ($2.89 in 2022 $) a gallon. Not so much now at $6.50 a gallon! ^MP
It’s called a Dakota in later times no big deal
Yep, Dakotas are a great plane. Arguably better than these older slab wing models
Didnt see a full free and correct before entering runway. Lol
We’re not perfect! But we do cut out a lot of the checklist-type stuff to keep it interesting for everyone, and at YMBD there’s a separate hold point so all the pre-takeoff checks get conducted there. Thanks for the comment! ^MP
When did cherokees stop having retractable gear?
Sadly when they stopped building the Piper Arrow IV :(
My dad had a Comnance 230..hot airplane. He had to force land in a pasture rather than go IFR along The Conneticut coast (he was rated). His friend crashed it taking off but lived. The gear hit a stone wall on takeoff.
I like Piper aircraft but I HATE their manual flaps.
Haha each to their own. I love them!
Aboriginal stripe colors?
Apparently! Or the Adelaide Crows
Checking the mags at 1700 RPM ?
Yes sir 1700rpm
@@DeadstickAdventures doesn’t POH state 2150 RPM ?
@@AdrienEveryday During my training in 3 different (-140, -161, -181 hp) Cherokees back in 1999, all of them had a mag check @ 1700 rpm, the standard POH run up setting at the time. 😀 2150 rpm does seem pretty high for a mag check; I usually economy cruise at that setting in PA-28-161! ;-)
@@AdrienEveryday I thought it was 1700 but now you've got me doubting. I'll check the POH and find out..
Forgot fuel to full-rich before landing ;D
Ahh you caught me!
Bad habit to go full rich before landing. Plugs can foul more easily at lower power settings when at full rich. Plus, at high density altitude airports, landing full rich can make go-arounds a dangerous proposition. Full rich only for initial start-up and takeoff up to 3000 feet. Never for taxi or low power ops. Your plugs will thank you.
@@michaelkoury6097 at 9:31 It says right on the panel under "Landing Checklist" - Mixture: Full Rich. Now let me troll in piece!
I think the 235 was better than the C-182 by far. Especially with the long range tanks.
But sips 4 gallons more than the 182, interestingly. I wonder why the Piper seems to be so inefficient
Wow, I never knew
4 gph. I wonder what an old POH says and the last few years for the plane. I'm wondering what the 235 clubs say. Once I did fly the 235 from north of salt lake city to San Diego non stop and never saw the ground once. Of course with long range tanks. (I did get a lot of ice on the leading edge). I was younger back then.
My dad use to say. The best car on the road is one that runs.
@@waynesilva3129 The 182 I fly takes about 13 gal in a performance cruise setting. The 235 I don't know, however the engine monitor in this video said 65l/h, which is well above the 182. That's what made me wonder.
Roger wilco over and out.
In the video, he's also running the thing 24-squared, which is damn near full power at that altitude. If you want to cruise 125 knots or so, you can get 13-14 gallons per hour. 20 inches and 2300 RPM.
You said fuel consumption is 66.4 liters per hour at what is 163.4 mph. That's not even ten miles per gallon. You said its not to bad. Compared to what ? Van's has a beautiful four place aircraft that gets twice the fuel mileage, and is faster.
You can’t compare aircraft to cars mate. We all know aircraft burn a lot more gas.
However, this Cherokee gets very similar fuel economy to the very popular C182 despite being much cheaper to own. It also hauls a lot more weight than an RV10. I’d say that’s not too bad
"It moved about a bee's dick" hahaha
How is 235hp not an ordinary Cherokee? Piper made thousands of them.
Cherokee 140 has 150hp :)
You’re right, it is a production Cherokee. It is one of the highest power-to-weight ratio Cherokees that Piper produced though!
What's with the color grading in the video? At 7:55 it seems like it was finally color graded for one second and then it goes back to raw... It's the first video of yours that I have seen, but just reminding that raw footage needs to be color graded. Good video otherwise!
Thanks man! I’ll chat to our editor. (I know nothing about cameras/editing) 😂
I am curious. Where does all of the money for all of this come from? 66 liters an hour here in the USA is over 100$ per hour all to travel say 150 miles, then add all of the other costs and it just screams...why? In other words, how do you justify this expense?
That plane burns nowhere near 66 an hour. It’s closer to 12-13 gallons an hour.
The pilots pocket, ultimately! It’s not cheap to make these videos, but we feel it’s worth it. ^MP
235 -- 380hp
380hp would be something!
There were times I found it hard to understand you with the music so loud. Did just about all of my training, SMEL instrument, in Pipers. Find them a much better ride in rough air.
Thanks Larry. We have spoken to our editor and fixed that in future videos. Thanks for letting us know ^MP
The Cherokee 235 is not the most powerful Piper Cherokee. The Piper Cherokee Six has up to 300 horsepower.
Agreed, it isn’t the most powerful but looking at power to weight ratio it’s hard to beat!
Deadstick Adventures I owned a 1968 Cherokee 180 for 33 years. It had a little over a 1,000 lb useful load. And for the most part easy to work on. I have a bunch of hours in several of the Cherokee line including the 235 and the Lance.
This is a perfect example of what not to do to an airplane put an ugly paint job on it makes it harder to sell and then it makes you think what are the kind of crappy work might’ve been done to the airplane it makes you wander
You think so? I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all :) ^MP
Overpowered? Not at all. It's a load lifter, not a high speed cruiser.
I agree, amazing useful load. Just like a 182. Certainly feels powerful when empty!
Okay I wanted to watch this but your background music is awful I won't watch it with that in the background
Thanks for the comment Craig. We have fixed it in future videos
Over powered, I think no, not anymore than a 235-182 C
Get rid of that annoying music & you'll have a nice video. As with any vehicle> turn off that damn stereo & pay attention my instructors would say. Same here.
Thanks Craig, we have fixed the music for future videos
A video about an "overpowered" engine that doesn't show the video of the engine. wth
Yeah, it’s a bit of a pain to get the cowl off these, so we decided to leave it on. ^MP
Be better if used English instead of Frenchy metric measurements
This plane is NOT overpowered. Your title is nothing more than click bait.
You don’t think so? Drinks fuel, not much more useful load, 235hp is a bit much for a Cherokee IMHO. ^MP
When an airplane can carry its own empty weight in useful load, it's overpowered. Period. Haven't found another airplane yet from twins to turboprops that has a 900 pound full fuel payload.
trotzdem haste du nur wenig Zuladung..mit dem Motor noch weniger..2 Personen,Tanks voll,,das wars dann...
Yeah. That’s standard for a lot of GA aircraft unfortunately.