I am in Alaska, I was looking for a decent 182 but the cherokees seem to come in at a much lower price point. I found a Cherokee 235 that exceeds what the 182s I was looking at can carry legally, and with a landis fork and bigger tires I don't think I'd have a problem with gravel strips flying to and from villages to Anchorage or Fairbanks. Is this a decent choice?

Being in Alaska I have never spent much time downstates, next step would be to find someone to bring it up.

The Cherokee 235 is in the same performance ballpark as a 182.

Cherokee Six's operate off unimproved strips frequently and I think the 235 would do just as well.

It's a Pawnee with a bit less wing area and a nose wheel where the hopper should be. Good airplane.

I know a guy that has airline privileges and a commercial pilots license!

It's been awhile since I've flown a 235, but I suspect I could remember how.

Cary

I'm flying a 235 currently and it is a great performer. Better cross-wind plane than your high wing Cessnas. All of them have 84 gallons too.
Stock tires are 6 x 6.00 all the way around.... larger than most stock Cessnas... esp the nose wheels. Easy to fly. Easy to maintain. No firewall damage unless you drop it out of the sky.

Downside is ingress/egress. And its possible to smack the prop with a flat nose tire and under inflated strut but that may be true on other planes as well. It happened to Adam on a backcountry strip in Utah and it cost him a rescue by Redtail and a shop visit to Beegles in his PA28-180,

http://the-adam.com/stuff/~8me/view.htm#1

I like the 235's a lot..

Big ol Landis fork with a 8.50 on the nose and 8.50X10 mains would make a good beach and gravel bar plane.

If Piper would have built an all metal high wing, Cessna would have had to close up shop. The quality is night and day. I would not hesitate if I were you.

The -235 is a great performer. Holds up to rough use, and the nose gear is a lot tougher than the 182 nose gear.

contactflying wrote:It's a Pawnee with a bit less wing area and a nose wheel where the hopper should be. Good airplane.

Might be a small difference in the type of airfoil... I was told that the Pawnee is actually an upside down overpowered Super Cub, same wing, tails, controls, etc..

MTV is the airfoil wizard, but basically the same. Good high lift at slow speed airfoil. Extra length makes a big difference with load at higher DA, however. The wing extension (droop tips) makes a basic 235 hp Pawnee haul 140 gallons (fuel and hopper load ) on Alfalfa at Durango. Some less at Alamosa.

Might gravel rash under the wing / on the flaps be an issue?

i used to own and fly a Cherokee6-260 from grass strips all day long. The 235 is a very nice plane and if it weren't for the right side only door I would have looked into buying it instead of the 172 I currently have.

Yeah, that right-side-only door was THE deciding factor that prevented me from buying a Cherokee some years back. Just couldn't figure out any way to help my aging mother into the seat and still be able to get into the plane myself... Ditto for kids, dogs, etc. But the 235 and the "Six" are incredible airplanes otherwise...

JP256 wrote:Yeah, that right-side-only door was THE deciding factor that prevented me from buying a Cherokee some years back. Just couldn't figure out any way to help my aging mother into the seat and still be able to get into the plane myself... Ditto for kids, dogs, etc. But the 235 and the "Six" are incredible airplanes otherwise...

Thanks, I am on the fence between the cherokee and a 182 I just found.

I dug up a decent looking high wing, a 1964 182 with new paint, interior, extended baggage, 206 fork, new 0520 conversion and 3 blade prop, pulse lights, float mounts, stol etc for 90k ish, resale wise I think the cessna is ahead, plus more then half my hours I spent buzzing around in a chickenhawk. I need a money tree.

alaskan9974 wrote:I need a money tree.

Isn't that the truth !!! I had to put a Seneca in the ocean and after that I swore I'd never buy another plane that didn't have a door where I was going to sit.

We could all use a money tree. Seems like every time I turn around, there's something else my airplane needs, and mine's relatively inexpensive as airplanes go! The latest: a new prop control--the OEM version crapped out after only 54 years!

Cary

alaskan9974 wrote:

JP256 wrote:Yeah, that right-side-only door was THE deciding factor that prevented me from buying a Cherokee some years back. Just couldn't figure out any way to help my aging mother into the seat and still be able to get into the plane myself... Ditto for kids, dogs, etc. But the 235 and the "Six" are incredible airplanes otherwise...

Thanks, I am on the fence between the cherokee and a 182 I just found.

I dug up a decent looking high wing, a 1964 182 with new paint, interior, extended baggage, 206 fork, new 0520 conversion and 3 blade prop, pulse lights, float mounts, stol etc for 90k ish, resale wise I think the cessna is ahead, plus more then half my hours I spent buzzing around in a chickenhawk. I need a money tree.

I bought a Cherokee 140 (way back when) to learn in and sold it after a year for about what I paid for it. It was a nice enough plane, but as was mentioned, a pain with only one door and the wings block downward visibility which has always been important to me. The 1964 C182 you mention sounds like it would be a dandy, it is new enough to have the wider cabin and the extra pony's from that 520 would be a nice bonus. For where you fly, I think the Cessna would be a good choice.

Battson wrote:Might gravel rash under the wing / on the flaps be an issue?

I'd like to hear the answer to this. I'm looking to buy my first plane and would love to hit some beaches, gravel bars, etc. It looks to me like PA28s are a lot cheaper than similar-HP Cessnas.

Steve

Steve,

The same size engine Cherokees are more solid framed and heavier. They are perceived to be too fast for short field work because of the high book airspeed to mitigate sink at low RPM. Look at the stall airspeed, however. Not a problem. We just have to use power to control sink at very slow short final airspeed. The low wing gives better ground effect energy, much better visibility in the turn, and a structural cushion to crash on. The nose gear is stronger and the flaps are far less efficient.

It doesn't seem and sound like a tin airplane.

lawndart wrote:

Battson wrote:Might gravel rash under the wing / on the flaps be an issue?

I'd like to hear the answer to this. I'm looking to buy my first plane and would love to hit some beaches, gravel bars, etc. It looks to me like PA28s are a lot cheaper than similar-HP Cessnas.

Steve

Most of that stuff goes toward the horizontal tail, just like in Cessnas. As noted above, there have been a lot of -6s operated commercially in Alaska, where virtually all village runways are gravel.

I once damaged a prop on a 185 with a rock slung over top, and came through prop arc from ahead. This was in unusual real frosty conditions after a rain on a gravel runway. Low wing would’ve prevented that one.

I would ALWAYS install a piece of heavy hose, split and attached to nose strut, such that if nose strut deflates, or compresses too much, the hose prevents metal to metal, and keeps the prop out of the dirt. Standard Alaska “mod”.

MTV