arrow advice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arrow advice
Looking into possiblyy buying an Arrow, i have flown most fo the single piper family and wanted a complex single for longer distance cruising/travel.
I was looking more for a Arrow III simply because of the extra fuel load, i see there is also Turbo in that version, any advice on pro/cons on the turbo version?
Also aprat from the fule load what differences are there between the Arrow II & III?
any advice much appreciated, having not flown many "other" types of a/c i am also open to suggestions of other makes/models
Cheers
I was looking more for a Arrow III simply because of the extra fuel load, i see there is also Turbo in that version, any advice on pro/cons on the turbo version?
Also aprat from the fule load what differences are there between the Arrow II & III?
any advice much appreciated, having not flown many "other" types of a/c i am also open to suggestions of other makes/models
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Arrow is a nice aeroplane. Flies a bit like most other PA28's only it's a bit heavier on the elevator and obviously flies a little bit faster.
There will be people on here better qualified than me to advise you about which variant of Arrow to go for, but I thought I'd mention something about turbo charged aircraft.
Having a turbo charger on your aeroplane will add quite a bit to your maintenance costs and unless you're going hot or high, you will see relatively little benefit from it.
In this country, for most people, there will be little benefit to having a turbo charged aeroplane unless they are instrument rated and can get up into the airways (or regularly go somewhere with density altitude issues etc.)
As you probably already know, retractable gear will also add quite a bit to the cost of maintenance so unless you have reasonably deep pockets, you might be better off looking at something like a Cessna 182 which has fixed gear but still has plenty of grunt.
There will be people on here better qualified than me to advise you about which variant of Arrow to go for, but I thought I'd mention something about turbo charged aircraft.
Having a turbo charger on your aeroplane will add quite a bit to your maintenance costs and unless you're going hot or high, you will see relatively little benefit from it.
In this country, for most people, there will be little benefit to having a turbo charged aeroplane unless they are instrument rated and can get up into the airways (or regularly go somewhere with density altitude issues etc.)
As you probably already know, retractable gear will also add quite a bit to the cost of maintenance so unless you have reasonably deep pockets, you might be better off looking at something like a Cessna 182 which has fixed gear but still has plenty of grunt.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major difference between the two is the wing, the Arrow II has the old Cherokee style straight wing while the III has the newer tapered wing, not much difference between the two although the straight wing sinks a bit faster at idle and pitches down rather than up when flap is applied (I think I've not actually frown the III).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Turbo Arrow IV generally seems to judged a retrograde step for reasons already listed as well as because of lack of elevator authority at low speed/high angle of alpha; Piper subsequently went back to the ordinary tail. 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.
The Arrow III a lovely machine if properly looked after (Bought mine at the beginning of the month); the main difference between this and the Arrow II with the hersey bar wing is the angle of glide. Also, perhaps because of the age of the II, I couldn't find a decent one and I looked at most on the market. What you don't want is to be the winner in a financial game of "pass the parcel" where the winner cops a large bill for deferred maintenance issues.
Regardless of what the book says, I reckon you'd be doing well to get more than 130 kts IAS in the cruise at 24ins 2400 rpm, which is only 15kts more than my old Archer II and 25 kts more than my even older Cherokee 140, so you pays your money and takes your choice.
Lovely to fly, though!
The Arrow III a lovely machine if properly looked after (Bought mine at the beginning of the month); the main difference between this and the Arrow II with the hersey bar wing is the angle of glide. Also, perhaps because of the age of the II, I couldn't find a decent one and I looked at most on the market. What you don't want is to be the winner in a financial game of "pass the parcel" where the winner cops a large bill for deferred maintenance issues.
Regardless of what the book says, I reckon you'd be doing well to get more than 130 kts IAS in the cruise at 24ins 2400 rpm, which is only 15kts more than my old Archer II and 25 kts more than my even older Cherokee 140, so you pays your money and takes your choice.
Lovely to fly, though!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be a while since I last flew any PA28 family. But going form a Warrior to an Arrow 2 the main difference for me was the weight and landing. I always found the warrior to be a bit of a barge. You point it at the numbers, chop the power and it seemed to settle down without the need for much finess. With the Arrow you really had to fly it on to the numbers and think a bit more. Nothing difficult just need to think ahead a bit more, but same will always be said when moving up the food chain.
I know what you mean about quality of stock for sale though. Apart from the later 't' tails, most I saw always needed something doing to them. Sadly the one I flew was lost when a wing came away with all pax lost.
Unless you really want to go big and heavy with a bonanza or a moony (££££) then the only other option is the Cessna 182. I have only flown the retract version and always found them pleasant to fly, with good loading and 2 doors. Plus they seemed easier to find goods ones, plus the option of the fixed gear.
You may well be happy with the PA28 family, but unless you try something else, you will never know.
I know what you mean about quality of stock for sale though. Apart from the later 't' tails, most I saw always needed something doing to them. Sadly the one I flew was lost when a wing came away with all pax lost.
Unless you really want to go big and heavy with a bonanza or a moony (££££) then the only other option is the Cessna 182. I have only flown the retract version and always found them pleasant to fly, with good loading and 2 doors. Plus they seemed easier to find goods ones, plus the option of the fixed gear.
You may well be happy with the PA28 family, but unless you try something else, you will never know.
Last edited by poor southerner; 22nd Oct 2007 at 08:02.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly the one I flew was lost when a wing came away with all pax.
Unless you really want to go big and heavy with a bonanza or a moony
Unless you really want to go big and heavy with a bonanza or a moony
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers inspection!
Get the aircraft inspected with the wheels off the ground as the landing gear is the main sorce of expense.
You must do an alternate gear drop to see if you can get the landing gear down in the event of hydrulic problems.
You must do an alternate gear drop to see if you can get the landing gear down in the event of hydrulic problems.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneys have a Tip-to-tip continuous carry-through spar that provides exceptional structural integrity...
The bonanza's have the most heavy spar in the GA industry...
The piper's are compared to the Mooney and the Bonanza in a complete different catagory...
Yes they are, alot...
The bonanza's have the most heavy spar in the GA industry...
The piper's are compared to the Mooney and the Bonanza in a complete different catagory...
Are PA28s structually weaker than monneys and bonanzas?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please look around on the market, there are so many very nice equiped made in the 90's mooneys that are very good priced!!
Also i noticed that with Mooney's you can indeed get easely 20 to 30% off the price in most cases...
Aldo i'm a Mooney fan, and a low houred student pilot, i must admid that Bonanza's are more easy to land and you can get them more easely into grass strips...
Also i noticed that with Mooney's you can indeed get easely 20 to 30% off the price in most cases...
Aldo i'm a Mooney fan, and a low houred student pilot, i must admid that Bonanza's are more easy to land and you can get them more easely into grass strips...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Undoubtedly Mooneys seem to give the best return on the £'s/MPH equation and, by all accounts, fly really nicely. My problem is that with a long torso and short (ish) legs, I don't seem to fit comfortably into one. I seem to sit with a crick in my neck with my head angled towards the a/c centre. I'm fairly tall, but not a circus curiousity, so best to check you fit.
Everyone I've met who has had an Arrow (I, II, III or IV), who has moved on, seems either ot end up in a Mooney (if they fit) or a Rockwell Comander. I thought seriously about a 114 but came to the conclusion that I could only afford a 112 in fairish order.
The 112 has a reputation (rightly or wrongly?) for liking it's runways and being difficult to get airframe parts for; Sanity dictated that for the same money, I should buy a spanking Arrow III with a new engine and nice avionics. Not nearly as nice, but shouldn't empty my wallet too fast and you can get the bits for them seemingly anywhere. Oh, and I can fit in comfortably...
Everyone I've met who has had an Arrow (I, II, III or IV), who has moved on, seems either ot end up in a Mooney (if they fit) or a Rockwell Comander. I thought seriously about a 114 but came to the conclusion that I could only afford a 112 in fairish order.
The 112 has a reputation (rightly or wrongly?) for liking it's runways and being difficult to get airframe parts for; Sanity dictated that for the same money, I should buy a spanking Arrow III with a new engine and nice avionics. Not nearly as nice, but shouldn't empty my wallet too fast and you can get the bits for them seemingly anywhere. Oh, and I can fit in comfortably...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: EHBK
Age: 58
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we get carried away with stories of 'weak' aircraft and the like, poor southerners post doesn't give any details about the conditions under which the Arrow 2 lost a wing. Any aircraft can shed bits if you find yourself sufficiently outside the envelope. Of the three Mooneys lost by a local flying club over the past 20 years, one was due to an inflight break-up.
As with most things conected with aircraft, the answers you get depend on who you ask. All aircraft (well most anyway) have a certain number of ardent followers. What you plump for in the end depends on what you want to use the aircraft for. As sternone says, the Arrow and the Mooney are in different classes.
I've found the Turbo Arrow IV a fantastic aircraft for long distance touring. Wide, cabin with plenty of space. 5 hours endurance with reserve and good load carrying capacity. As stated the downside with the IV is its' love of tarmac (or grass) but if you're angling for a III then that should be less of an issue.
By comparison I've found the Mooney, while light and a delight to handle, just doesn't fit. I'm not tall (5'8") but I still find it cramped and the relatively low seating position less than ideal. The other achilles heel seems to be a tendency toward prop strikes.
As I say, ask a simple question and you'll get a thousand different answers. Stand-by for a stout defence of Mr. Mooney's finest from the guys who fly and love it. The ramblings above are my experiences on both types and although the Arrow IV is heavy in pitch and uses up ground getting to 75 knots, I've enjoyed every minute I've logged in them thus far.
As with most things conected with aircraft, the answers you get depend on who you ask. All aircraft (well most anyway) have a certain number of ardent followers. What you plump for in the end depends on what you want to use the aircraft for. As sternone says, the Arrow and the Mooney are in different classes.
I've found the Turbo Arrow IV a fantastic aircraft for long distance touring. Wide, cabin with plenty of space. 5 hours endurance with reserve and good load carrying capacity. As stated the downside with the IV is its' love of tarmac (or grass) but if you're angling for a III then that should be less of an issue.
By comparison I've found the Mooney, while light and a delight to handle, just doesn't fit. I'm not tall (5'8") but I still find it cramped and the relatively low seating position less than ideal. The other achilles heel seems to be a tendency toward prop strikes.
As I say, ask a simple question and you'll get a thousand different answers. Stand-by for a stout defence of Mr. Mooney's finest from the guys who fly and love it. The ramblings above are my experiences on both types and although the Arrow IV is heavy in pitch and uses up ground getting to 75 knots, I've enjoyed every minute I've logged in them thus far.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poor southerners post doesn't give any details about the conditions under which the Arrow 2 lost a wing. Any aircraft can shed bits if you find yourself sufficiently outside the envelope.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have to admit I was always a AA5 man myself, for flying qualities. Why didnt they have a 200 hp rg version I will never know.
As for the Arrow. They are really only a stepping stone in my eyes. After all a good Archer will cost a lot less to run for a only a few knts.
The one that was lost: cant remember the exact reg but I think it had CB in it. Was dark blue with a dark leather trim. It looked good with a recent paint job, but like all I looked at there where always niggles. With a changing work scene at the time, I never actually bought anything, just rented. On the pluss side I got to fly a good selection of type along the South coast.
There was a 4 seat beech I flew, that had 200hp and rg. A sierra ? I think. Very well build, but slow.
C182 gets my vote
As for the Arrow. They are really only a stepping stone in my eyes. After all a good Archer will cost a lot less to run for a only a few knts.
The one that was lost: cant remember the exact reg but I think it had CB in it. Was dark blue with a dark leather trim. It looked good with a recent paint job, but like all I looked at there where always niggles. With a changing work scene at the time, I never actually bought anything, just rented. On the pluss side I got to fly a good selection of type along the South coast.
There was a 4 seat beech I flew, that had 200hp and rg. A sierra ? I think. Very well build, but slow.
C182 gets my vote
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another option of course would be the Cherokee 235. I flew one a few times some years ago and it's a great machine.
Although probably a little more thirsty than an Arrow, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the extra fuel burn amounted to a lot less money than the additional maintenance costs associated with retractable gear on an Arrow.
Details here!
Although probably a little more thirsty than an Arrow, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the extra fuel burn amounted to a lot less money than the additional maintenance costs associated with retractable gear on an Arrow.
Details here!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
julian's point is a good one.
I looked into a share in an Arrow I, but was put off when the owner mentioned his annuals were typically around £9000 each!
I'm guessing around £3k pa of that was due to the retractable U/C. That's 40 hours 'free' flying in a PA28-235/236.
Of course the engine overhaul costs will be greater for the bigger engine, so annual costs are not the only issue.
tp
I looked into a share in an Arrow I, but was put off when the owner mentioned his annuals were typically around £9000 each!
I'm guessing around £3k pa of that was due to the retractable U/C. That's 40 hours 'free' flying in a PA28-235/236.
Of course the engine overhaul costs will be greater for the bigger engine, so annual costs are not the only issue.
tp
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the economic question amounts to a "swings and roundabouts" situation. Having run an Archer II for a while, I shall be interested to see how the Arrow III compares cost-wise. I bought the Arow with a sum allowed from the price to do some undercarriage work and to overhaul the engine, so we'll see how the outgoings stabilise.
I've flown a PA28 235 Dakota and thought it a venerable machine that drank fuel like oliver reed and needed to be flown on the trim wheel - because of the control loadings (presumeably because of the large donkey up front).
It's difficult to quantify exactly why, but the arrow just seems to fly more sweetly than my Archer; I flew this pm from Booker to Rennes and back and had quite the nicest day out so far this side of the summer.
Maybe for this job description, the TB20 should be considered, but I know a number of engineers who consider the work of Socata to be nothing but expensive trouble. I can't comment, as I haven't owned one - I simpy know that I don't seem to fit in the back, which isn't likely to be my particular problem too often!
As for PA28's falling apart mid-flight....maybe...if sufficiently abused/mis-handled/poorly maintained or aerobatted by pilots who don't subsequently own up. Otherwise, this doesn't sound too likely.
I've flown a PA28 235 Dakota and thought it a venerable machine that drank fuel like oliver reed and needed to be flown on the trim wheel - because of the control loadings (presumeably because of the large donkey up front).
It's difficult to quantify exactly why, but the arrow just seems to fly more sweetly than my Archer; I flew this pm from Booker to Rennes and back and had quite the nicest day out so far this side of the summer.
Maybe for this job description, the TB20 should be considered, but I know a number of engineers who consider the work of Socata to be nothing but expensive trouble. I can't comment, as I haven't owned one - I simpy know that I don't seem to fit in the back, which isn't likely to be my particular problem too often!
As for PA28's falling apart mid-flight....maybe...if sufficiently abused/mis-handled/poorly maintained or aerobatted by pilots who don't subsequently own up. Otherwise, this doesn't sound too likely.