Cherokee 6 Pros/Cons
Thread Starter
Cherokee 6 Pros/Cons
Might have the opportunity to fly one of these, and all my light experience is in Cessna types, so looking for comments regarding operational strengths/weaknesses, real world load carrying and operating economics (how maintenance intensive compared with C206). Floors open. CTL
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: At the Dero
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont have any experiance with it but I was told that its fuel system is very complex for a single, dont quote me but if my memory serves me right it has 6 independant fuel tanks.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cherokee 6
If 300hp model is available that would be the pick! Be Careful with C of G, they are, as most are a real dog on a hot day with a heavy load! A good load carrier but are like all aircraft, need to be repected!
Flap extension to break ground on short airstrips works well and if possible accelerate away in ground effect. Don't have operating cost figures but you have a resonably strong airframe with fixed U/C, a very good engine that will give little trouble, so costs would be at least the same if not less than C206 I would have thought. Corrosion under belly in the channel ribs is common but not always easy to notice.
Hope that helps a little
cheers
JW.SOC
Flap extension to break ground on short airstrips works well and if possible accelerate away in ground effect. Don't have operating cost figures but you have a resonably strong airframe with fixed U/C, a very good engine that will give little trouble, so costs would be at least the same if not less than C206 I would have thought. Corrosion under belly in the channel ribs is common but not always easy to notice.
Hope that helps a little
cheers
JW.SOC
..... 
Thread Starter
Thanks for the responses so far. Any info re:field performance vs 206, average useful load, are the flaps manual or electric (yes I don't even know that!),quality of ride (any tendency to fishtail etc or just a big PA28?)
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel system is very simple and straightforward... they're a lovely aircraft to fly.
When you live....
Doing fully loaded checkride in a cherokee 6 many moons ago...............
Me: "Ok, if we have an engine failure while still on the ground then I will pull the......"
Instructor: "no no no, it goes like this - if we have an engine failure after takeoff then we're all dead"
The moral of the story is that if it stops spinning push forward really really hard.
Still, it got me and 5 mates to Flinders Island on a 35+ evening (at 150 fpm though)!?!
Still fly a Lance and think they're great aircraft.
UTR
Me: "Ok, if we have an engine failure while still on the ground then I will pull the......"
Instructor: "no no no, it goes like this - if we have an engine failure after takeoff then we're all dead"
The moral of the story is that if it stops spinning push forward really really hard.
Still, it got me and 5 mates to Flinders Island on a 35+ evening (at 150 fpm though)!?!
Still fly a Lance and think they're great aircraft.
UTR
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: n/a
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done more than my share in the 6 and the 206 and the 207.
I can say the Cherokee 6 does have great crashworthiness. I once saw one of my colleagues take off in the 6 and have an engine failure at around 200' AGL - I watched the tailplane fluttering as he stalled just prior to hitting the ground. Ground run/skid approx 50m. All walked away uninjured - not even a scratch -just bruised pride. Aircraft smashed up - wheels through the wings, wings broken, back of the plane broken and substantial damage at the firewall and engine area. It appears that the fuel selector was not properly lodged in the main tank position. The fuel selectors appear to be notorious for not actually making it into the proper detent if not very careful. This aircraft had a very "spongy" feel to the fuel selector. But I can say from what I saw that they crash very well.
In my opinion - I flew them in hot and humid conditions - I preferred the C206 to the Cherokee 6 (260hp) in terms of pax handling and cargo loading and field performance. The 260 hp 6 seemed a little under powered when fully loaded - a bit like the C207 - but not quite as bad. In terms of operating costs - I have no idea. The old one we flew had manual flaps. I recall the nose locker being handy at times. I enjoyed flying the Cherokee 6, but if it was a marginal strip I tended to grab the keys for the cessna if they were around - but that might be a function of the 260hp model.
Cheers
I can say the Cherokee 6 does have great crashworthiness. I once saw one of my colleagues take off in the 6 and have an engine failure at around 200' AGL - I watched the tailplane fluttering as he stalled just prior to hitting the ground. Ground run/skid approx 50m. All walked away uninjured - not even a scratch -just bruised pride. Aircraft smashed up - wheels through the wings, wings broken, back of the plane broken and substantial damage at the firewall and engine area. It appears that the fuel selector was not properly lodged in the main tank position. The fuel selectors appear to be notorious for not actually making it into the proper detent if not very careful. This aircraft had a very "spongy" feel to the fuel selector. But I can say from what I saw that they crash very well.
In my opinion - I flew them in hot and humid conditions - I preferred the C206 to the Cherokee 6 (260hp) in terms of pax handling and cargo loading and field performance. The 260 hp 6 seemed a little under powered when fully loaded - a bit like the C207 - but not quite as bad. In terms of operating costs - I have no idea. The old one we flew had manual flaps. I recall the nose locker being handy at times. I enjoyed flying the Cherokee 6, but if it was a marginal strip I tended to grab the keys for the cessna if they were around - but that might be a function of the 260hp model.
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the Hangar
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They really are a flying ute. They have manual flaps. The 300hp ones are obviously better getting off the ground & climbing, but as the 260hp ones have the same MTOW they have a slightly better useful load than the 300hp. That big nose wheel requires a fairly high nose attitude when landing.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much good if you live in the North. You can't stand under a wing to get out of the sun. The PA32-260 needs the curvature of the Earth to get airborne in the heat. My general summary would be a very stable instrument platform, easy to fly if you can fly a PA-28, count to 4 (fuel tanks), is wider than a 206 and has the advantage of a large nose locker to help with balance. If you plan on anything faster than 120 Kts you will always be late. Glides like a greased crowbar.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our 260 hp cherokee sixes used to cruise at 128 kts tas, and the 300's a few knots faster. It's got a nose locker and a rear door so is easy to load freight or pax and has a wide cabin.
DO NOT EVER LEAVE THE NOSE LOCKER DOOR UNLATCHED__EITHER SECURED FULLY OPEN< OR PROPERLY CLOSED AND LATCHED. Most cherokee sixes and lances have repaired nose locker doors.
The 300 hp cherokee six will outclimb the lance.
The manual flaps are great. Quicker, and you have more options than electric ones.
If you get the oleo pressures wrong they wil be like a taildragger with a big load.
It's easy to select an empty fuel tank by mistake.
It's a good aeroplane.
DO NOT EVER LEAVE THE NOSE LOCKER DOOR UNLATCHED__EITHER SECURED FULLY OPEN< OR PROPERLY CLOSED AND LATCHED. Most cherokee sixes and lances have repaired nose locker doors.
The 300 hp cherokee six will outclimb the lance.
The manual flaps are great. Quicker, and you have more options than electric ones.
If you get the oleo pressures wrong they wil be like a taildragger with a big load.
It's easy to select an empty fuel tank by mistake.
It's a good aeroplane.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Bushy.
Important the fuel is managed, some suggest leaving tips full if carrying heavy loads.
Vital the fuel tank selector be properly located and confirmed - read the ATSB Hamilton Island recommendations about the undesirability of sucking air from an empty tank plus fuel from a working tank simultaneously.
If determined to run a tank dry, make sure you then select another tank that is not dry (been done).
High nose makes landing flare view harder and high inertia (sink rate) in an engine fail means get the approach right in such situation.
Good honest tourer.
Important the fuel is managed, some suggest leaving tips full if carrying heavy loads.
Vital the fuel tank selector be properly located and confirmed - read the ATSB Hamilton Island recommendations about the undesirability of sucking air from an empty tank plus fuel from a working tank simultaneously.
If determined to run a tank dry, make sure you then select another tank that is not dry (been done).
High nose makes landing flare view harder and high inertia (sink rate) in an engine fail means get the approach right in such situation.
Good honest tourer.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember one day a C6 landing with rough engine. Took off with full tanks from another airfield a half hour earlier drawing on the right main. Fuel injection excess is pumped back into left main if I remember correctly. Left main tank vent was clogged courtesy of the local airport wasp. Result was that the left main tank became pressurised. Pilot switched to left main 30 minutes into flight. Fuel flow to engine was considerably higher than expected.
Moral of the story? Read the POH. Some things which seem innocuous are there for a reason. Fun plane to fly and great for squeezing in large objects.
Moral of the story? Read the POH. Some things which seem innocuous are there for a reason. Fun plane to fly and great for squeezing in large objects.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For some reason that reminded me.
Carby C6 notorious for carb ice when parked on grass and conditions in the range.
Saw one case (after the event, had landed there and chatting to the LAME who came to 'fix') where someone flew interstate in a hired C6, it sat on wet grass for 3 days, and gave the hirer all the symptoms of a failed mag even after 5 minutes running.
Hirer paid for another aircraft to take his mates back to NSW, then returned the second aircraft only to find that there had been nothing wrong with his hired C6 - if you knew to persevere clearing the carby ice.
Carby C6 notorious for carb ice when parked on grass and conditions in the range.
Saw one case (after the event, had landed there and chatting to the LAME who came to 'fix') where someone flew interstate in a hired C6, it sat on wet grass for 3 days, and gave the hirer all the symptoms of a failed mag even after 5 minutes running.
Hirer paid for another aircraft to take his mates back to NSW, then returned the second aircraft only to find that there had been nothing wrong with his hired C6 - if you knew to persevere clearing the carby ice.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
The good thing about the Cherokee 6 fuel system is that the return fuel does return to the tank that is selected. The catch with the fuel system is that the tip tanks only hold about an hour of fuel each, and the mains only hold about an hour and a half of fuel each - fuel management is critical. Beware of the fuel selector - others have indicated what can happen if it is not positively selected ..... and it is in a place that is easy for you or a pax to kick.
Take off performance was better than for the Lance - setting appropriate flaps (20 or 25 degrees from memory) according to the POH and waiting for the aircraft to be ready to fly rather than attempting to drag it off the deck was essential (even in the 300) if you didn't want to use the curvature of the earth to get airborne when hot and heavy.
Take off performance was better than for the Lance - setting appropriate flaps (20 or 25 degrees from memory) according to the POH and waiting for the aircraft to be ready to fly rather than attempting to drag it off the deck was essential (even in the 300) if you didn't want to use the curvature of the earth to get airborne when hot and heavy.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South of No Where
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cherokee Six is a great machine. I've flown both 260 and 300. The 300 is by far the better machine. Werbil is bang on with the fuel selector...very easy for Pax to kick. Most engine failures in the Six is due to fuel mis-management. I write the fuel amount of each tank on my hand so i know where my fuel is and i start by burning the left main/rt main/lt tip then the rt tip last. The reason being that if i ever run a tank dry or have an 'moment' then i can flick the selector to the hard rt and i know that tank should have fuel in it. Make sure you read the manual right through. some important bits about re-fueling...tips have to full first!!
enjoy the six!
enjoy the six!