Views on PA28R-200

[Pianorak]

I am looking for flight test reports on the PA28R-200 (1971 with constant chord or slab wing) but don’t seem to be able to find any.
Any views, pros and cons on that particular type would be welcome. Thanks.

[Final 3 Greens]

Years since I flew one, so I can't really remember too much, but my notes afterwards say

- sluggish (to be fair, it was a 20 year old example and a little tired)
- noticeable pitch change on gear cycling
- docile stall in all configurations, typical PA28
- rate of climb above 10,000 ft only 250fpm (ISA +7deg c, +9mb)
- typical easy PA28 handling
- fuel burn circa 9-10 us gal per hour, depending on mission
- initial climb with 25/2500 was 550fpm at 90kias
- cruise with 24/2300 was 125kias

IIRC, I preferred the Archers that I was flying in the UK at the time, because their climb performance was better and the cruise difference of 15kias was an irrelavance on the typical 80-100nm legs I was flying,

[Mercenary Pilot]

Unless its a turbo, I would go for an Archer.

[Pianorak]

Thanks for the replies. Interesting – because of our grass runways, maybe the Archer should be my preferred choice (and avoid trouble with retractables)?

[Final 3 Greens]

The Archer is a nice aeroplane, very capable.

Were I to buy a PA28, it would be high on my list, possibly the only one I'd prefer is a Dakota, which gives Arrow type cruise performance without the complications of retractable gear. It can also lift a hell of a load.

[Zulu Alpha]

I agree with Final 3 greens, the Dakota is a good alternative to the Arrow and saves the expense of the retractable gear (maintenance and insurance).

There are not many Dakotas around so you may find more Arrrows available. Its a very close thing as the Dakota has a 235 hp engine (Arrow is 200hp) so there is some extra fuel burn and maintenance

Generally the Arrow is quite a bit more capable then the Archer/Warrior, much faster 135 kts cruise, lifts 4 adults, 200liters of fuel plus luggage. ie a much better machine fior traveling distance. If all you want is a bimble over your friends house on a summer evening then the Arrow is probably overkill.

[dublinpilot]

Our PA28R-201 has the straight wing.

24/2400 cruises at 125kt indicated in the 0-4000ft type of band.

One thing you might consider is the CofG calculations. In our one, being quite light myself, I find that I can't generally use all of it's lifting ability, because two rear seat passengers tend to bring the CofG too far back. I need a heavy front pax!

I don't know if this is particular to our fitout, or is common.

dp

[flyboyike]

Our PA28R-201 has the straight wing.



Not if it's a -201 it doesn't.

[B2N2]

Generally the Arrow is quite a bit more capable then the Archer/Warrior, much faster 135 kts cruise, lifts 4 adults, 200liters of fuel plus luggage. ie a much better machine fior traveling distance.

Bit of a dangerous statement here;
assuming the average usefull load of an Arrow is 950lbs,
200 liters of fuel=300lbs leaves 650 lbs,
650/4= 162,5lbs per person. That is 4 skinnies without any luggage.

It's even worse with the long range tanks:
950 lbs- 432lbs(fuel)= 518/3= 172lbs per person.

Like almost every 4 seater an Arrow is truly a 3 seater with full fuel.
Even then you need to be carefull with W&B.

The best Arrow I have ever flown (out of 6) was a 1967 180HP Cherokee Arrow
with the short "Hershey bar" wing.
New engine with 3 bladed prop, impressive acceleration and climb performance, high roll rate because of relatively large ailerons vs wing span and a Horton stoll kit. And a lot lighter then the 201- series.
All of the other ones were pigs for some reason or another.
All gear related problems were due to bad switches, they are sitting in the open air unprotected from slush, dirt, grass, bumble bees, anything.
And it's always a $2 switch protecting you from $40,000 worth of damage.
The 235 HP Cherokee get's my vote.
http://www.global-air.com/GLOBAL/planes/g06136_1.jpg

[dublinpilot]

Not if it's a -201 it doesn't

Typo...should be 200

[Zulu Alpha]

http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-AYAC&imgname=G-AYAC001&imgtype=jpg
assuming the average usefull load of an Arrow is 950lbs,
200 liters of fuel=300lbs leaves 650 lbs,
650/4= 162,5lbs per person. That is 4 skinnies without any luggage.
I don't have our W&B to hand but you are correct about 4 big blokes.
If its two couples. I weigh 12 stone, my wife 10 stone with a similar couple that leaves 35lbs for baggage, with full tanks.
Also actual std wing tanks are 189liters (I think) which adds a bit as well. A Warrior/Archer will not get close.
I do think the Arrow is a genuine 4 seater but does depend on who you want to put in the seats. Frank Bruno and his two brothers will not work!!!

Also the Arrow looks better, the Dakota looks a bit like a Warrior/Archer. (Now I'll sit back and dodge the bullets!!!)

ps why when I "insert image" does it just put in the URL rather than the image?

[Johnm]

My Archer 2 will happily carry four adults luggage and fuel to tabs but I wouldn't gamble on book performance at that.

It's about 10kts slower than the Arrow for the same fuel burn.

The dakota is the kiddy though, never managed to find a suitable one:{

[squawking 7700]

The Dakota or the 235 Cherokee's the only true 4 seater but the fuel burn can be crippling. There's the odd 235 Cherokee comes up for sale but very rarely a Dakota.
If it was my money I'd go for a 235 Cherokee over any Arrow or Archer
(and I've flown PA28 180,181, Arrow 2 & 4 and 236 Dakota).
The Arrow 2 has a max AUW of 2650lb, the Arrow 4 2750lb and the Dakota 3000lb.
They all fly similarly except the Arrow 4 which is a bit ponderous in slow flight.
The Arrow 2 with the 'slab wing' tends to stop flying a little sooner in the landing phase but it's really not a problem.
Both Arrows with 25 degrees of flap get off the ground reasonably well
and I'd have no qualms taking a 2 into 500m 3 up and fuel to the tabs with a little headwind. The 4 is a different matter!
The Dakota though needs a longer distance to land than to take off due to the weight, but it don't half shift when you open the throttle!!!

Try to find a 235 Cherokee, I don't think you'd be disappointed with the performance.
Or try a few clubs with these aircraft available and see for yourself.
There's an Arrow 2 at Nottingham, Arrow 4 at Tatenhill, Dakota at Booker?
There's a Dakota at Gamston that I'm sure one of the owners would be pleased to demo to you.

7700

[Final 3 Greens]

Re the Arrow versus Archer capability.

A typical Arrow II has empty and gross weights of 1650/2650lbs - useful load = 1000lbs

A typical Archer II has an empty weight of 1600 and gross weight of 2550 lbs - useful load = 950lbs

But the Arrow has a higher fuel burn, offset by a faster cruise speed.

All in all, not a lot of diffrence in carrying ability.

From a personal perspective, having flown both across 9000' mountain ranges, the Archer performed a lot better in the climb dept at altitutde, but that could have been the charactersitics of the particular aircraft I flew.

However, the Dakota will slay an Arrow in virtually every department, except the cruise speed, where they are pretty similar, and fuel burn, where the Dakota is significantly higher. HOwever, the Arrow has retract gear and the maintenance cost of this tends to offset the fuel burn.

[B2N2]

Pianorak, you may want to put some questions here:
http://www.piperowner.org/forums.asp
had a quick look, there seem to be some detailed questions answered here...:ok:
Should you decide upon a suitable Pa-28, here's LowPresti's website
with all the speed mods.....:}
http://www.speedmods.com/pa28R-list.htm

[Pianorak]

B2N2 - Thanks for the links. Being neither a speed merchant nor a Croesus the Arrow has now been ruled out. :{
Concentrating now on the Archer. :ok:

[Edit: I may yet have to eat my words]

[Mister Gash]

In my view, the Arrow is a pretty dull machine to fly. It's a fairly capable and stable touring platform, but taking four reasonably-sized adults with full fuel and baggage is asking for trouble as it doesn't behave very well when overloaded (ask me how I know this). The gear is pretty robust and it can handle bumpy grass strips well, but short-field performance when at or close to MAUW is, er, interesting.

[Cusco]

Er, Mister Gash............
How do you know this?:confused:
Cusco

[White Bear]

[B][U]Piper PA28R-201 Arrow III, 28RT-201 Arrow IV
Horsepower: 200 Gross Weight: 2750 lbs
Top Speed: 149 kts Empty Weight: 1637 lbs
Cruise Speed: 138 kts Fuel Capacity: 72.00 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts Range: 695 nm

Takeoff Landing
Ground Roll: 1025 ft Ground Roll 615 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1600 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1525 ft
Rate Of Climb: 831 fpm
Ceiling: 16200 ft

[B][U]Cessna 177 B Cardinal (1975-'78 specifications)
Horsepower: 180.0000 Gross Weight: 2500 lbs
Top Speed: 139 kts Empty Weight: 1643 lbs
Cruise Speed: 130 kts Fuel Capacity: 50.00 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 46 kts Range: 490 nm

Takeoff Landing
Ground Roll: 750 ft Ground Roll 600 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1400 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1220 ft
Rate Of Climb: 840 fpm
Ceiling: 14600 ft

An option offering an aircraft that is very difficult to load out of balance, is very nearly as quick, has a lower fuel burn, and better short field performance, as well offering better views cross country. It also has 2 doors. (No indignity suffered by proffering one's rear end to one's passenger, while crawling across to the left seat)
Regards,
W.B.:ok:

[Cusco]

Er, -- White Bear he was talking about the PA28R200 or Arrow 2.

However The Arrow 2 is a great bit of kit and operates well from a grass strip.

Cusco

[White Bear]

Sorry couldn't quickly find info on the older Arrow.
So does this mean a Cardinal is out of the question?
W.B.

[Pianorak]

White Bear - As Cusco says it’s all about an Arrow (or possibly Archer). However, the Cardinal is actually the only Cessna I would consider (because of the setback wing affording a better view) – but it’s totally academic since there aren’t any later models available in the UK. But thanks for the response.

[Keef]

Archer's nice. Arrow II's a bit faster, with slightly more payload. Arrow III's got more wing than the II, is slightly slower in cruise, and also nice. When deciding which group to join 10 years ago, I chose the Arrow III one and have never regretted it.

I don't think you'd find much practical difference between Archer and Arrow in terms of where you could get into or out of. You have to do W&B anyway.

Cusco and I rented an Archer last Spring, and found that two-up we couldn't carry all our luggage - we had to leave a load behind. OK, we aren't striplings, but that was a surprise. We chose fuel ahead of changes of clothes.

Dakota/Pathfinder is like an Archer with a bigger engine - cruise speed is close to that of an Arrow, but it's scarily expensive in the fuel stakes.

Cardinal RG is my favourite, as long as I'm not paying the maintenance bills on the gear mechanism. There are some nice ones around.

[Pianorak]

Mister Gash: << . . . The [Arrow] gear is pretty robust and it can handle bumpy grass strips>>
Cusco: <<. . . The Arrow 2 is a great bit of kit and operates well from a grass strip.>>
But dare one assume this includes the (in)famous WW grass runways?

My offer on an Archer having been deemed unworthy it’s now back to Plan B, ie an Arrow II which I hope to meet sometime this week (all wx dependent as per usual). Forget about the PA28R-200 mentioned above; seen it and couldn’t believe my eyes; nuff said! And a Dakota would definitely be overkill.
Keef, didn’t realize yours was an Arrow III.

[Cusco]

[QUOTE=Pianorak]
Cusco: <<. . . The Arrow 2 is a great bit of kit and operates well from a grass strip.
Forget about the PA28R-200 mentioned above; seen it and couldn’t believe my eyes; nuff said!

I don't recall your ever having been up close and nasty to my Arrow?
I think you are casting nasturtiums in the wrong direction: it's a beautiful Arrow 2: Didn't you read the Pilot Sept 05 article I sent you?
:rolleyes:
Cusco

[Pianorak]

Wrong end of the stick, Cusco!!! I was referring to a PA28R-200 mentioned in my opening posting, BEFORE you kindly sent me the article. Indeed, I have not yet had the pleasure of being anywhere near your steed. In fact, it was reading your article which helped persuade me that an Arrow should not be ruled out of the equation.
Got to laugh though – had no idea you were Cusco!
Again, humble apologies I didn’t make my reference clear and causing an upset. :{

[Sir George Cayley]

Stop for a minute and consider some thoughts.

If you have the money to buy a decent Arra then what else is out there?

Also do us a quick calc on the CRP-1 would you? Take your base airfield and look at some typical trips. Saturday £100 b/fast that sort of thing. No need to maintain the pretences you used to convince who ever about why you had to buy an aircraft here - we've all used all the reasons.

Now, once you have a coupla destinations start doing calcs on 100kts 120kts 140 kts 160 kts whatever. Notice how the differences are less time than you can spend on the phone telling your partner you've arrived safely!

I was once over taken by an early PA28R in my Jodel but did an abbreviated circuit at detination and landed before them.

So forget retractables. Forget constant speed propellors and.......

















buy a Robin DR400-180:ok:



Sir George Cayley

[Pianorak]

. . . buy a Robin DR400-180:ok:
Right – but the sight of the guys ahead of me queueing up for hangarage is rather discouraging. And without a hangar . . . :=