arrow advice
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry. I didn't mean an arrow is unsafe or likely to break up in flight. What I meant is that due to the extra cost of the gear and prop, you often find that older ones for sale often have several 'things' that need doing that have been put off, due to cost.
The one I mentioned was typical. Nice paint and interior, but some corrosion (i though that was an issue in the accident), auto gear drop didnt work and the prop leaked.
Julian. like most people I almost forgot about those. But would a comanche not be more practical. I know they are a bit old now, but thought the have a good turn of speed for the fuel burn. ?
The one I mentioned was typical. Nice paint and interior, but some corrosion (i though that was an issue in the accident), auto gear drop didnt work and the prop leaked.
Julian. like most people I almost forgot about those. But would a comanche not be more practical. I know they are a bit old now, but thought the have a good turn of speed for the fuel burn. ?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrosion can indeed be an issue; very important to make sure the the tanks have been out recently to enable inspection of the main spar, as per the ad. Ask to see proof of this in the logbooks.
Also worth looking back through G-INFO at the registration(s) and then googling them, to see if they come up in any AAIB reports. One a/c I looked at came up as having sustained major damage in a gear-up landing, which didn't show up in the logs (how did it get repaired and by whom) and appeared to be news to the owner.
As you rightly say, most a/c you see are financial time bombs with deferred problems the owners hope to pass on. Top money for an all singing and dancing Arrow II with low hours a/f, newish engine, Prop, decent paint interior and avionics seems to be £55k and for a similar spec Arrow III £65k. You can then work backwards from these figures (£15k for engine, £7-8k for paint, £2-3k for leather interior, £10-12k avionics suite, £5k for total undercarriage rebuild, £3-5k for new 3-blade hartzell or 2-blade McCauley).
In practice, what you find yourself being offered are A/C circa £50k needing £20k of work. There are several Arrow II's out there that have been for sale for 2 years or more at £35-40k, which need everything doing. Hence they've been for sale for 2 years.....
The degree of negotiation available will depend on how far out the initial price is. I think a blanket expectation that "all prices are negotiable by 20-30%" is not always realistic and will simply depend on the pricing of an individual a/c and the desperation of an owner to sell. If you buy an a/c based on the amount of discount available, you are likely to end up only buying the one that was most overpriced in the 1st place.
Also worth looking back through G-INFO at the registration(s) and then googling them, to see if they come up in any AAIB reports. One a/c I looked at came up as having sustained major damage in a gear-up landing, which didn't show up in the logs (how did it get repaired and by whom) and appeared to be news to the owner.
As you rightly say, most a/c you see are financial time bombs with deferred problems the owners hope to pass on. Top money for an all singing and dancing Arrow II with low hours a/f, newish engine, Prop, decent paint interior and avionics seems to be £55k and for a similar spec Arrow III £65k. You can then work backwards from these figures (£15k for engine, £7-8k for paint, £2-3k for leather interior, £10-12k avionics suite, £5k for total undercarriage rebuild, £3-5k for new 3-blade hartzell or 2-blade McCauley).
In practice, what you find yourself being offered are A/C circa £50k needing £20k of work. There are several Arrow II's out there that have been for sale for 2 years or more at £35-40k, which need everything doing. Hence they've been for sale for 2 years.....
The degree of negotiation available will depend on how far out the initial price is. I think a blanket expectation that "all prices are negotiable by 20-30%" is not always realistic and will simply depend on the pricing of an individual a/c and the desperation of an owner to sell. If you buy an a/c based on the amount of discount available, you are likely to end up only buying the one that was most overpriced in the 1st place.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsmempson
"As to whether realistically you'll ever want to fly airways with an oxygen cylinder, at 130 kts, is the factor that will sway your opinion on the turbo Arrow."
Not the case. Try 170kts+ if the altitude justifies oxygen.
"As to whether realistically you'll ever want to fly airways with an oxygen cylinder, at 130 kts, is the factor that will sway your opinion on the turbo Arrow."
Not the case. Try 170kts+ if the altitude justifies oxygen.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not the case. Try 170kts+ if the altitude justifies oxygen."
I agree. The problem being that I don't think that you'd get 170kts at airway altitudes out of any of the arrow family of a/c 'IN THE CRUISE' (ie 75% power or less) without a substantial tailwind. Hence the comment.
I agree. The problem being that I don't think that you'd get 170kts at airway altitudes out of any of the arrow family of a/c 'IN THE CRUISE' (ie 75% power or less) without a substantial tailwind. Hence the comment.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to information off the web, the following comes up:
"PA-28R-201T - Max speed 330km/h (178kt), max cruising speed 320km/h (172kt), long range cruising speed 284km/h (153kt). Initial rate of climb 940ft/min. Range with reserves 1667km (900nm)."
I don't have a POH so couldn't say what the bible says about these figures - sometimes what comes up on the web isn't completely reliable.
So it's obviously possible - perhaps the ones that I flew were just knackered (see earlier posts) or perhaps just not forward enough with the throttle. I certainly didn't see anything like the figures you mention...
Also, I didn't much like the slow speed handling, which tipped me back towards the III.
At any rate, perhaps i've helped this thread to drift, as the initial question was about Arrow II's or III's.
"PA-28R-201T - Max speed 330km/h (178kt), max cruising speed 320km/h (172kt), long range cruising speed 284km/h (153kt). Initial rate of climb 940ft/min. Range with reserves 1667km (900nm)."
I don't have a POH so couldn't say what the bible says about these figures - sometimes what comes up on the web isn't completely reliable.
So it's obviously possible - perhaps the ones that I flew were just knackered (see earlier posts) or perhaps just not forward enough with the throttle. I certainly didn't see anything like the figures you mention...
Also, I didn't much like the slow speed handling, which tipped me back towards the III.
At any rate, perhaps i've helped this thread to drift, as the initial question was about Arrow II's or III's.
Last edited by wsmempson; 25th Oct 2007 at 17:22.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In what was effectively still air I have had 173kts TAS at FL180 in a turbo arrow. This was with an engine that was condemned several hours later. There will be little difference with cruise figures at this altitude between a Turbo IV and a Turbo III. Full throttle altitude is generally reached in UK air densities around 12000 feet.
I have saved 45 minutes flying time from Scotland to the south of England catching tailwinds and enjoying ground speeds in excess of 200kts, in smooth air above the weather.
If the original poster wants to cruise around at lower levels the normally aspirated version is a better bet, although good rates of climb in a turbo can be maintained much longer when mountainous areas or IMC present an obstacle. The Continental turbo engine does not suffer rough handling as well as its Lycoming IO-360 counterpart so is not the type of aeroplane to rent out to other pilots without absolute confidence in their abilities.
I have saved 45 minutes flying time from Scotland to the south of England catching tailwinds and enjoying ground speeds in excess of 200kts, in smooth air above the weather.
If the original poster wants to cruise around at lower levels the normally aspirated version is a better bet, although good rates of climb in a turbo can be maintained much longer when mountainous areas or IMC present an obstacle. The Continental turbo engine does not suffer rough handling as well as its Lycoming IO-360 counterpart so is not the type of aeroplane to rent out to other pilots without absolute confidence in their abilities.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone care to offer opinions on the value of the following Arrow III:
asking price could be 30% higher
