L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30141 posts, RR: 58 Posted (12 years 3 days ago) and read 4406 times:
I was just over that the Piper website.
and noticed that they have or are going to start building the Cherokee 6 again.
For those of you not in the know the Cherokee 6 is the big member of the Cherokee family. It makes a great bush airplane and is used up here quite a bit in that role. It has a wider cabin then a 206 and I think it is a bit easier to load. Just wish it had a door on both sides of the cabin for the flight crew.
They are calling it a 6X and claiming it is a fixed gear version of the Lance. Which is kind of funny because I always thought the Lance was a retractable gear Cherokee
What isn't good is the asking price. 350,000 dollars. Frankly I think the bush operaters up here are going to be sticking with piecing together all of the older Cherokee 6's up here for a while yet.
What good is building aircraft if your customers can't afford them?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1046 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4308 times:
Probably litigation costs take up more of that $350,000 than the raw materials. Its a sick world. I seem to remember reading an article recently about the 6's resurrection in either "Flying" or "P&P" but I'll be darned if I can remember exactly when.
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4277 times:
They announced it around May. Thats just a guess by me though. After looking at some specs and talking to some people, it appears to be nothing more than a fixed gear version of their current Saratoga.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7865 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
The last model year of the Cherokee 6 was 1980. The primary differences between the 6 and the Lance, later the Saratoga, was the wing (except the 1980 model). All of the 6s, except the '80, had the constant chord "hershey bar" wing with four fuel tanks. The 1980 model adapted the new wing from the Lance which also had only two tanks total. After 1980 Piper cancelled the Lance and Six, but sold both fixed gear and retractable gear versions of the Saratoga. Beyond the differences in the wing, and gear, the 'Toga got some significant aerodynamic upgrades... and even moreso when the IIHP/TC came out.
As for the $350k sticker price, that does sound about right... I believe new Cessna 206s are running about the same.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
CV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4046 times:
Regards the price- I think a lot is to blame on the avionics. Look at the new Cessnas and Pipers and they all have Garmin or Honeywell GPS/VOR/COM Units and digital engine instruments which are not cheap, especially when compared to the cheaper manufacturer-brand radios used in the older Cherokee 6s. And as an operator of an aircraft with a Garmin 530 GPS and GNS330 Transponder, I'd say it is well worth the money too.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3180 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3919 times:
I think it is kind of silly to complain that second tier (at best) operators cannot afford new equipment. To me, Alaska to aircraft is like Lawrence, KS (or any other midwest college town) for cars... It's where late model vehicles come to be run into the ground and die. Pipers new production will serve to free up late models from elsewhere to be brought up to Alaska, and eventually, a few of these new builds will find their way up there as well. Just searching http://www.ntsb.gov for monthly accident lists, it's hard NOT to find a day in the summer season where at least one aircraft isn't substantially damaged in Alaska. Untill facilities improve further up there, it would be a waste to throw brand new aircraft into the mix, although the manufacturers would probably enjoy it, it would stimulate demand.