Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wow, When Did Piper Decide To Do This Again.  
User currently offlineL-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  Laugh out loud

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?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineAvroArrow 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.
User currently offlineFlyf15 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.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30141 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

Which, like I said was the retractable gear version of the Cherokee.

Wait, I said lance didn't I, my bad.

Still if I wanted to start up an air taxi it wouldn't be a bad bush airplane except for the price.

I don't have a trade-a-plane on my but if memory serves you can find older ones for an eighth of the price of this new model.

The remaining 7/8's will buy a lot of STC's to modernize and update it.

User currently offlineDesertJets 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
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30141 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

You also don't see a lot of Bush carriers picking up new 206's either.

Cessna and Piper would have much larger markets if they could get their prices lower. There is just too much of a spread in the cost of a new airplane and a used one.

User currently offlineCV990A 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.

Kittens Give Morbo Gas
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1032 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3961 times:

350,000? Man, if they started building Chieftains again, how much would they be, a million bucks?

T prop.

User currently offlineSpacepope 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.


The last of the famous international playboys
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Northwest Airlines; Why Did They Have To Do This? posted Thu Oct 30 2003 02:18:20 by Superfly
Wow! A Thread That Has Nothing To Do With The A380 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 19:37:20 by 727200er
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Why&when Did UsAir Change To USAirways? posted Sun May 22 2005 15:17:20 by RootsAir
Is BA The Only Airline To Do This? posted Fri Dec 31 2004 02:06:21 by AAFLT1871
When Did ValuJet Move To "Charlie"? posted Mon Nov 1 2004 01:04:27 by JetSOUTHEAST
AMS Moats?-If So, Really Want To Do This! posted Mon May 24 2004 13:09:20 by Atcboy73
Who Was The First To Do This? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 04:03:24 by HNLFlyboy
TAM Aircraft Did Not Arrive To BCN Today... Again posted Sun Aug 24 2003 14:39:46 by Turbulence
Why Did Boeing Decide To Build The 757? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 22:06:20 by BeltwayBandit