Piper Arrow as First Plane

I sold my warrior II early this year and just bought a 73 arrow II last month. I think it's a lot of bang for the buck. As has been mentioned before, a c182 is a superior airplane and I actually preferred the cessna ingress. Likewise the semitapered wing on the warrior ii is significantly better glider than the hershey bar. What I couldn't find was a c182p (same vintage as my arrow) with all the speed mods, autopilot and Garmin 430 GTX 327 stack for what I could snag an arrow II of that quality for. I'm doing 135true loafing along at 65% 9gph. That 20k delta buys me an engine. Advantage arrow.

The argument about block times is absolutely true, but it always fails to account for climb rate. I'm not saving any time on my 129NM trip in the arrow, though I am saving significant time in my 400+nm trip (45 minutes is significant to me). I am however climbing a hell of a lot better on the arrow than I did on the warrior II. And my mission is fatter with a baby and pack n play on board. Also don't discount the useful load; mine is a 988# useful load arrow. The gear is dirt simple. Hydraulic giving ya problems? Hit the gravity Jesus switch and thunck! Three green. Try that in a cardinal RG. or worse. Bring the nomex on the 172rg. Mooneys and deb/Bo's admittedly have a more reliable gear setup than the arrow.

If you can afford a similar vintage 182 then go with that. If you can't quite touch that and have adequate maintenance reserves, I highly recommend an arrow II. It's less airplane, but it's more airplane for the dollar. I couldn't be happier with my setup. I just took wife and the 2 month old to OKC (400nm) to see the second set of grandparents and it was a short 3 hour block flight on 25 gallons. When they topped me off I was scratching my head. I'm still giddy. I wasn't even flogging the thing like I did the warrior II.
 
One thing to watch for, at least on the Arrow-II -- there is tendency for the wiring to the squat switch to chaff on the gear door hinge.
 
Take your 50k and go buy a nice 250 Comanche. It hauls a load, nice and quick, and looks good to boot! There's a lot of nice one's out there. Pre-buy-pre-buy pre-buy!
 
Last edited:
An arrow is a good, forgiving airplane which usually won't break the bank for maintenance. The 180 is okay but my choice would be to step up to 200HP arrow. Yes, the 20HP makes a difference!

As with any of this stuff, review the logs, make sure all current AD's are complied with and have someone who knows arrows assist with the prebuy. There is a ALOT of junk out there but 50K can find you something decent :)
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Yep, WAY easier on the care and feeding then a Bo
Click to expand...

Oye vey. The Mooney Johnson bar is the easiest, the Bo is next, the Comanche is about 6-7 on the list down with the small Cessnas. Heck, I think even the Arrow gear is lower mx than a Comanche.
 
docmirror said:
Oye vey. The Mooney Johnson bar is the easiest, the Bo is next, the Comanche is about 6-7 on the list down with the small Cessnas. Heck, I think even the Arrow gear is lower mx than a Comanche.
Click to expand...

That presupposes the arrow was maintenace intensive to begin with, which it isn't. Reminds me of the old racial joke "you people? What do you mean YOU PEOPLE?!?" Lol. Put the Comanche down with the firebirds (cessna) on the gear mx side, don't be tarnishing the fair name of our trusty arrow. :D
 
I had just under 200 hours in Cessna 172/150 time and maybe 10 hours in Archer time when I bought a nice '71 Arrow with two partners. The complex transition was fairly easy and straightforward. Had to log something like 20 hrs. solo time afterwards before insurance would let me carry passengers.

Have flown the Arrow to Oshkosh four times and also met up with one partner on a long x-country flight where went from Indiana to Florida over something like a 10 day span. In short, I love my Arrow as a cross country platform. I regularly see 130-135 kts. TAS on 8 GPH. For me, it's a nice sweet spot between speed vs. fuel burn.

I earned my instrument rating and commercial certificates in the Arrow and felt it was a great platform for both.

I'd recommend the 200 HP vs. 180 and, if you can find it, a '72 or newer model as it has more legroom for the back seat passengers.

Can't remember the ADs off the top of my head but there are a couple to look for. Gear side brace studs and Hartzel prop hub come to mind. These and some others can be permanently complied with.
 
I started flying for business in the early '70's when the oil embargo caused many regionals to dramatically curtail their schedules to small-mid markets in the midwest. My first plane was a Mooney F, because it was available, affordable and seemed like a prudent purchase at the time. It was a decent performer and similar in many ways to the Arrow.

When it was damaged by the Nashville tornado a year later, I quickly jumped to an S-35 Bonanza and never looked back. My average legs were ~400 nm vs OP's 300, but I'm willing to testify that there has never a single day that I wanted to go back to the Mooney, even for the 150-200 nm trips that were also a big part of my routine at the time.

So if a retrac is OP's plane of choice and having BTDT, I'd be hard-pressed to advise him to buy one of the little 4-bangers since I wouldn't do it again.
 
I'd like to put him in an S35, but if he finds one in budget it's gonna require $30-60k of mx to bring up right. Yeah the S35 is a blistering plane for two folks and some gear.
 
alfadog said:
75% power at 2000'? I guess if that is how you like to fly...
Click to expand...
John, I dunno about your plane, but the local rental 28R-200 touches 135 knots at 6000 ft. I more or less verified that, and I think it happens because it has a CS prop, so it can develop 75% at 6000. Go a little up and it starts losing steam. Due to terrain I had to cruise 9.5/10.5 all the time and it was full trottle almost always, and yet getting 21" manifold pressure. When I visited Jay at the coast, I had an opportunity to fly at low elevations, and at 2000 ft it can't reach 135 kts. The air was too thick. I do not remember what it indicated, but at those low altitudes TAS and IAS were pretty close and I remember it was way lower than 135.
 
zaitcev said:
John, I dunno about your plane, but the local rental 28R-200 touches 135 knots at 6000 ft. I more or less verified that, and I think it happens because it has a CS prop, so it can develop 75% at 6000. Go a little up and it starts losing steam. Due to terrain I had to cruise 9.5/10.5 all the time and it was full trottle almost always, and yet getting 21" manifold pressure. When I visited Jay at the coast, I had an opportunity to fly at low elevations, and at 2000 ft it can't reach 135 kts. The air was too thick. I do not remember what it indicated, but at those low altitudes TAS and IAS were pretty close and I remember it was way lower than 135.
Click to expand...

10-11 gph? I was remarking more about the fuel burn. It might take more than 75% at 200' to get 135 and I do not even know if that is possible. My point being that they do a lot better than 135 kt at 10-11 gph. My Arrow does over 140 kt on 8.5 gph at +/- 9000 feet. It does have a lot of speed mods, though.
 
alfadog said:
My Arrow does over 140 kt on 8.5 gph at +/- 9000 feet. It does have a lot of speed mods, though.
Click to expand...
I see, thanks for clarification. Indeed, I did a shade less than 9 gph too. I fly ROP because I'm a wet renter, so going max power at all times saves money.
 
Thanks for the discussion...I going to try and fly a 180hp and 200hp in the same day and see what the real difference is. My A and P for some reason prefer the 180HP engine for maintenance. 90% of my flying will be Under gross from sea level on 4000ft + runways. I have had plenty of time in the past in over grossed underpowered helicopters so I understand the issue but does not seem significant to me if the right deal comes along.
 
Warlock said:
Thanks for the discussion...I going to try and fly a 180hp and 200hp in the same day and see what the real difference is. My A and P for some reason prefer the 180HP engine for maintenance. 90% of my flying will be Under gross from sea level on 4000ft + runways. I have had plenty of time in the past in over grossed underpowered helicopters so I understand the issue but does not seem significant to me if the right deal comes along.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but are the arrow 180 and 200hp variants similar to the mooney 180 and 200's? The extra 20hp seems to give the mooneys an extra 10 knots or so, and you go from a carbureted to a fuel injected setup.

Like everyone said, I think the 200R would be nicer, but if you find a nice plane at a good price that meets your mission, it wouldn't be a bad choice. I personally wanted the 200HP mooney, but my current plane came up for sale nearby, and IMO was exactly what I was looking for.
 
Sac Arrow said:
My first plane was a Turbo Arrow. Airplanes are expensive to buy, keep and sell. Get the plane you want. I agree you should try to find a PA28R 200 though.
Click to expand...

@Sac Arrow would you personally advice “against” a TURBO Arrow if the owner prefers not to fly at altitudes that require oxygen?
 
Alex Batista said:
@Sac Arrow would you personally advice “against” a TURBO Arrow if the owner prefers not to fly at altitudes that require oxygen?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It outperforms a NA Arrow at just under oxygen levels, 10-11K. But Continental TSIO 360's are bad about leaking and generally require more maintenance than the Lycoming IO 360's. If you're talking 5K and under, then yes, I would advise against it.

My decision to go with a Turbo Arrow was in part due to the fact that it could, in theory, make the IFR MEA's over the Sierras. In practice, you don't want to be in IMC at those altitudes in an Arrow.
 
I have owned my '69 Arrow 200 for 17 years and routinely fly from Colorado Springs to Oregon more or less direct. I have found that at the altitudes I fly, 12.5 and higher, the TAS is always 140 kts with a fuel flow of 8.5 gph. A caveat is that I always fly that route solo so the weight is much less than max. The Arrow did require a new prop and governor about 10 years ago but otherwise no major maintenance at all. Engine has about 1600 hours since major before I bought it. I keep it hangared and my total coverage insurance, including not in motion, is <$1 k per year. Since I am 99% solo I do have a good autopilot to help, particularly in IMC conditions. It is, for me, an inexpensive, efficient machine with readily available maintenance. And yes, I do fly over the rocks at night...but not in bad weather!!
 
Arrow76R said:
I have found that at the altitudes I fly, 12.5 and higher, the TAS is always 140 kts with a fuel flow of 8.5 gph.
Click to expand...

What would be the “sweet spot” (or rather “sweet altitude”) for someone (me) who intends to fly up and down the east coast (NC, GA, FL) where it would be high enough to take advantage of the turbo, but not high enough to require oxygen?
 
140 true on 8.5gph is certainly above average cruise numbers even for a short body Arrow. Post 72 arrows will of course be a bit slower, Arrow IIIs even slower still. I would peg fleet average is closer to 130 knots at 8k on 9gph, 135 if light (aka solo). I can get 140 on 10gph light in the hottest months, but I don't like flying at 75% on only 48 gallons, my IFR legal range goes to hell in a handbasket for no appreciable block time improvement. At least that's what I get on my 74 arrowII with gap seals.

Alex Batista said:
What would be the “sweet spot” (or rather “sweet altitude”) for someone (me) who intends to fly up and down the east coast (NC, GA, FL) where it would be high enough to take advantage of the turbo, but not high enough to require oxygen?
Click to expand...

Um, your best altitude will be 12,500 of course, as that is the legal highest you could hang out without supplemental oxygen for a trip longer than 30 minutes. Remember, you're only getting the advantage of power normalizing above that which the NA engine can maintain. Sure, if you fly at 75% power that difference begins to manifest itself as low as 6,600 feet DA if you fly at 2400RPM, which most people do. If you're willing to fly with the blue knob forward, then the 75% power difference doesn't even start until 8,000DA. This means that the difference for you would be merely between 8k and 12.5k. At an approximate gain of 1.5knots per 1k altitude (to account for non-standard atmospheres, especially in the winter), you're looking at 5-8 knots at best. That's ballwash in the block time arena.

It's hardly a reason to go for the turbo arrow, where you're still slower than a mooney J. And also recognize you'll be burning closer to 12gph to keep the CHTs in check, for a power setting the NA Lycoming can attain fully leaned out on 10gph.

If you pull back to 65% it's an even worse proposition, as the NA Arrow can attain that power setting as high as 11k with the prop full forward. Now you're looking at only a 2 knot difference on that power at 12k. See how this progressively drives you to fly at oxygen altitudes? You're doing it wrong I'm afraid by trying to fly a turbo primarily below 12k.

The TSIO 360 is an expensive engine to upkeep compared to a NA Lycoming, it's not a roundoff error in the least. Conti cylinders, starter adapters, fuel diverter potato, alternator coupling potato, and even VAR crank woes in some legacy samples. You want to go 150 knots below O2 altitudes, I get it. If money is the issue, do yourself a favor and look at Mooney 20Fs, and see if you can put up with the ergonomics. It's certainly what I would have done if the seating hadn't been a non-starter for my family centric mission. A comanche would be another alternative, if you're willing to endure the opportunity costs of that airframe selection (I wasn't, but that's my prerogative, to each their own).

I'll still plug my trusty Arrow II. Slow, but gets the job done. If I only needed 2 seats, no question, EAB. In the certified side, I'd learn to put up with wonky seating and go mooney F or E. Good luck.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Um, your best altitude will be 12,500 of course, as that is the legal highest you could hang out without supplemental oxygen for a trip longer than 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Duh! Now I feel dumb! LOL! Excuse my lack of experience, I only have short of 150 hours of total flight hours; most on C172 and Cherokees. Wanting to buy a first-airplane that is a bit faster and complex (and I’m not gonna lie, “looks” and “coolnes” play a factor) with the understanding that I may, in the faaaaar future, want to grow out of it.

hindsight2020 said:
It's hardly a reason to go for the turbo arrow,
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason for even thinking “turbo” is because there are some good deals out there on some Arrow 3 Turbos. I don’t particularly care for turbos and I’m starting to think that I may have to start falling out of love with some turbo models I’ve seen advertised. Or maybe I should just give O2 a try... I may like it. Most of my intended trips would be from KHRJ to Florida (Miami, Pensacola, Tampa, Orlando) and NC (Asheville, Boone). I like the Arrow 3 because of the 72gal of usable fuel too! Understanding this makes it slower at cruise and especially at climb.

hindsight2020 said:
See how this progressively drives you to fly at oxygen altitudes? You're doing it wrong I'm afraid by trying to fly a turbo primarily below 12k.
Click to expand...

Yep, see my previous reply to the previous quote.

hindsight2020 said:
The TSIO 360 is an expensive engine to upkeep compared to a NA Lycoming,
Click to expand...

Which is why I’m starting to think I need to NOT consider a turbo OR consider O2... what would you advice considering my aforementioned intended trips?

hindsight2020 said:
A comanche would be another alternative
Click to expand...

I was looking at those, but it seems like after that flood Piper had, they stop making them and the only ones out there are just old. That “late 70’s (more) modern look” is important to me. And I believe that when buying something this expensive it should be considered. Sure finding a good wife, who is loyal, smart, and fun is great, but the physical attraction is important too :D. Although I’ve seen what a new paint job and some upholstery can do to a 60’s airplane. I just prefer not to have to go thru all that...:(

hindsight2020 said:
If I only needed 2 seats, no question, EAB.
Click to expand...

That’s another thing, 95% of the time, it would only be me and my fiancé (eventually wife) flying to those trips with maybe 2x 30lbs suitcases.

So the mission really is: 2 People, 2x 30lbs bags, trips between 250 miles to 750 miles (most often around 600 mikes), with no fuel stops if possible (hence why the Arrow 3 is attractive to me) at cruising of at least 130kts.
 
Alex Batista said:
and I’m not gonna lie, “looks” and “coolnes” play a factor
Click to expand...

Alex Batista said:
That “late 70’s (more) modern look” is important to me. And I believe that when buying something this expensive it should be considered.
Click to expand...

Now, I don’t want you to think I’m just some relatively rich young shallow dude who’s looking for the “pretty vehicle” lol! I’m 41 years old and my income is only around 100k; so I’m looking for something no more than $80k with an operating cost of less than $10,000 per year (including maintenance, tie down, insurance, and (probably <) 100 hours of flight time). But yes, I definitely want the “looks” :oops:
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's hardly a reason to go for the turbo arrow, where you're still slower than a mooney J. And also recognize you'll be burning closer to 12gph to keep the CHTs in check, for a power setting the NA Lycoming can attain fully leaned out on 10gph.
Click to expand...

A caveat on what I said earlier, if you want reasonable efficiency, you have to operate it at lean of peak. When I first got my TA, I was dismayed at the 12 gph fuel burn in cruise. LOP operation got me back down to around 8 or 9 for the same power setting. Yes, you shouldn't be driving at 75% power that way, but I don't run my Arrow II at 75% power either.

By the way, I actually like the way the Arrow II handles better than I like the III. It's a little bit lighter in the controls, more responsive, and it doesn't tend to float down the runway as much. The extra fuel capacity of the III, however, is pretty nice on long trips.
 
Alex Batista said:
That’s another thing, 95% of the time, it would only be me and my fiancé (eventually wife) flying to those trips with maybe 2x 30lbs suitcases.

So the mission really is: 2 People, 2x 30lbs bags, trips between 250 miles to 750 miles (most often around 600 mikes), with no fuel stops if possible (hence why the Arrow 3 is attractive to me) at cruising of at least 130kts.
Click to expand...

You're at a crossroads my friend. I have a small family (2+1), and for the last 2 years I had been hankering for a Lance, or a 230-250HP class 4-seater, in order to jump out of my arrow on account of a more "comfortable" family mission. I.e. Not a need, but a want. At any rate, some stuff happened and had a come-to-Jesus moment last month regarding the arrow that's not here nor there, but when the dust settled I came to the realization that my need for a 4-seater had diminished from the days of 80% family trips, on account of the child now being in gradeschool, and the wife in school too, and eventually entering the workplace. For the last couple years, on a sortie count basis (hours will always be higher since family trips are longer duration, so that's not a good metric for me) it's come down to 35-50%, depending on the year. It was a sobering realization, but one that has left me boring circles in the sky by myself more than I realized. If I'm gonna continue to do that, I might as well do it in something fun (for me = acro + 150kts block). So I'm going EAB 2-seater, and keeping the Arrow until the wife and I come to the conclusion the family mission is officially over. Hardly a clean solution, but I'm now in a position financially where I can entertain such nonsense, so carpe diem it is.

At any rate, your crossroads is figuring out if 1) you're gonna have children, and if so, 2) do you intend to include them in your flying as a family. If the answer to either of those questions is No, I suggest go EAB right now brother and never look back.

If the answer to both those questions is yes, then proceed back to certified land. I do not recommend the TSIO for this mission. I think you should stay planted in NA Lyco land. I think a NA Arrow III or IV would suffice for this mission. Even the -II with a fuel stop wouldn't be the end of the world. Either that or a Mooney 20F if you can accept the panel distance and front seat nuances. I would recommend the E model if you didn't want to go EAB 2-seater, But frankly they don't carry a discount of consequence from the F models. So I would still favor the F unless you can snag a 10K+ discount from an E seller. All in all, I still favor the PA-28 lineup on the mx front, but to each their own.

Ultimately life pivots, just like it did for me, and one has to pivot with it. Trading airplanes is a PITA, which is privately part of the reason I'm willing to keep the Arrow. But if you can make an honest assessment of whether your mission will remain 2-seater for the next decade, you can pivot to 2-seaters early and have a less frustrating ownership experience than I've had recently. Good luck to ya.
 
My first four airplanes were Cherokee derivatives: 160 hp, 180 hp, 200 hp Lycoming Arrow and finally a Dakota.

Enjoyed all of them, but the Arrow was the one that was "coolest" and most fun to own and fly. There's just something about retracting the gear on a travellin' plane that feels good as a pilot (something deprived Cirrus pilots will never understand until they get to the jet, LOL). Not rational, I know. But given what it now costs, owning a personal airplane, any airplane, isn't rational either. ;)

And you want to be proud of what you own to fly, or it stands a good chance of costing you lots of money while it languishes.

I sold the Arrow and bought the Dakota only because I live in the Rockies and wanted more useful load and better climb performance. Where you live, a Lycoming powered Arrow would make a fine, reasonably economical airplane for what you want to do.

The E-AB 2-seater route might be an option, but useful loads and space are limited, even in the popular Vans RV series. People cover lots of territory with them, but I've never thought of them as comfortable or versatile as any of my Cherokees for lots of travelling.

FWIW, friend of mine is an RV guru. Buys wrecks and abandoned projects, does immaculate work to get them flying and sells them on. Does flight tests, inspections and maintenance for RV owners not comfortable doing their own. He says the O-320 powered, fixed pitch RV-6 is the best price/performance bargain out there for used planes in that series, if you decide to consider that route.

Alex Batista said:
Now, I don’t want you to think I’m just some relatively rich young shallow dude who’s looking for the “pretty vehicle” lol! I’m 41 years old and my income is only around 100k; so I’m looking for something no more than $80k with an operating cost of less than $10,000 per year (including maintenance, tie down, insurance, and (probably <) 100 hours of flight time). But yes, I definitely want the “looks” :oops:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
At any rate, your crossroads is figuring out if 1) you're gonna have children, and if so, 2) do you intend to include them in your flying as a family.
Click to expand...

Well, funny you mention kids; between her and I, we have 6 children (5, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 23). Family trips require a mini van :D and most of them don’t care or want to fly. Only the 5 and the 12 year olds girls like to fly, but I just take them up for quick flights. My trips are intended just for me and my girl. I DO like the 2 extra seats for those times where another couple can join (w/o luggage of course).

hindsight2020 said:
I do not recommend the TSIO for this mission. I think you should stay planted in NA Lyco land.
Click to expand...

I am convinced that a NA will make more sense. The problem I’m having is that everything I see in controller.com regarding Arrow III’s that I actually LIKE, are Turbos. I guess I may have to wait until other NA Arrow III’s come on the market.
 
GRG55 said:
the Arrow was the one that was "coolest" and most fun to own and fly.
Click to expand...

That’s excactly what I’m looking for!!

GRG55 said:
There's just something about retracting the gear on a travellin' plane that feels good as a pilot
Click to expand...

Yep! You totally get what I’m saying. I know it sounds stupid to most pilots (and rightfully so) but the “emotional” part of it makes a big difference. After all, it is the same reason why we insisted in paying more money for the “cool shoes” back in high school. ;)
 
[QUOTE="Alex Batista, post: 2708388, member: 35396]...After all, it is the same reason why we insisted in paying more money for the “cool shoes” back in high school. ;)[/QUOTE]

I started playing basketball in Grade 5. I hit 6'4" in Grade 9 and bball was my life. The cool basketball shoe back then (1970) was the new Adidas Superstar (this was long before anybody had heard of Nike). I only wore them on the court (they were too expensive to wear off court). Imagine my amusement a year or so ago walking by an athletic store to see them back in fashion. They are almost a perfect copy of the original. Everything old is new again.
 
I considered pipers, cessnas, Mooney’s and everything in between. I am in a flying club and have access to a few four seater. No kids here, so the wife and I decided on an RV9. EAB is just so much cheaper to own and fly. And with 180hp the little plane scoots along pretty good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
A lot of good comments on the Arrow. The cost of annual is slightly higher since the gear retract must be tested. Also for a new pilot look at the low tail and not the high tail. When practicing stalls or slow flight is better to have the prop wash over the horizontal stabilizers for better controllability. Most people prefer the low tail, and it's reflected in the resale prices.

Also prices for Arrows have not appreciated as much recently since retracts are no longer required for commercial license. You can probably get more plane for the money if you shop around.

Almost no-one makes a mistake buying a 182 in your situation.

-David
 
NordicDave said:
gear retract must be tested.
Click to expand...

Yep, that’s a cost I can live with.

NordicDave said:
low tail and not the high tail
Click to expand...

I’ve read the same thing. My heart is set on an Arrow III and not IV for that reason.

NordicDave said:
You can probably get more plane for the money if you shop around.
Click to expand...

I’ve heard that too, my only concern is that most “good deals” I find are on the Turbo versions which I’m beginning to think I have no use for :( (or can’t just quite justify its use)
 
If the T-Tail is available for a good price, I vote get one.

My Lance is a T-Tail, and it treats me just fine. Lots of T-Tail hate from people that have only heard stories and never flown one.

It flies like any other airplane, just with a little higher stall speed.
 
Warlock said:
Arrow Owners and Pilots please comment on the PA-28r 180hp as a first small fixed wing. Any comments on the true performance as well. I feel the need to bypass basic aircraft. I would also be getting add on, in the aircraft and have limited fixed wing time.

It seems to be a good compromise for a low skilled pilot, economy, useful load(1000 pounds) and faster than the 172's and Cherokees I have looked at. Any AD's or maintenance issues that are a real stopper.

I'm sure this brain trust has an opinion.
Click to expand...

I have 600 hrs in a P28R200 (arrow 2). Highest annual over 7 years was $2200 - maybe we got lucky LOL.
 
I have 250+ hours in my Arrow 180. I mostly fly solo. I have flown with two adult passengers. I typically cruise around 8,000. I plan 130 KTAS and 9 gph and I always land on time with a little more fuel remaining than I expected. I have the 3-blade prop, which a previous owner put on. I think the 2-blade cruises faster but has an AD and/or RPM limitations whereas my tach is marked green all the way to redline. Other than FIKI, I have never had a mission that I was unable to complete because of my airplane’s capabilities. That includes my lengthy IFR cross country lesson documented elsewhere, which was at 12,000 (which equated to the plane’s 15k service ceiling when adjusted for density altitude). The plane didn’t want to go higher but we barely slowed down at all and got there just fine.

Any Arrow is, in my opinion, a very good first airplane. I am planning to sell it once I finish my RV-14, but only because I mostly fly solo and the RV is faster on the same fuel burn as the Arrow.

Buy based on condition and panel.
 
Rgbeard said:
If the T-Tail is available for a good price, I vote get one.

My Lance is a T-Tail, and it treats me just fine. Lots of T-Tail hate from people that have only heard stories and never flown one.

It flies like any other airplane, just with a little higher stall speed.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly say the T-tail Arrow flies like any other airplane. It has a couple of handling idiosyncrasies and foibles, but none are dangerous or dealbreakers.

In the early 1990s I rented T-tail Turbo Arrows extensively, mainly because their rental rate was a better deal than the Mooney M20Js and Ks on the FBO's line. The Arrows were comfortable on long trips, and for the most part I enjoyed them. Likewise, I would not rule out owning one (but preferably non-turbo) if the right deal came along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top