Piper Arrow as First Plane

Warlock said:
Is there something out there that's better? 50K price range to start
Click to expand...
Yes. Mooney. You will go a lot faster on a remarkably well built and strong little airframe. It will be a little more interesting, a little more sexy, and if you get an older one the manual gear and flaps are just about bullet proof. I would also take a Tiger before an Arrow.. Tigers are fast, the canopy is cool, and they fly really nice. You'll also have something a little cooler than your typical Piper and Cessna at the airports you fly into

Personally though, if I were looking for a $50K airplane I'd be all over the Mooney
 
UngaWunga said:
Scrolled down to the performance charts: certainly not a STOL plane.
There's an example W&B in there as well. Almost the same useful load as my 172, but 20kts faster.
Click to expand...
I was never impressed with the Arrow. For 200hp and retractable gear you really aren't getting an equivalent upgrade in speed or performance. And like you said, similar useful load as a 172, and only slightly faster.. but now you have a prop hub to worry about and maintain, plus landing gear to worry about and maintain. If I were married to Piper then I'd skip the Arrow altogether and stick to either a PA-28-180/181 or jump straight up to a Cherokee Six / Lance / Saratoga.. although I doubt you'll find the latter for the OP's price point
 
Tantalum said:
I was never impressed with the Arrow. For 200hp and retractable gear you really aren't getting an equivalent upgrade in speed or performance. And like you said, similar useful load as a 172, and only slightly faster.. but now you have a prop hub to worry about and maintain, plus landing gear to worry about and maintain. If I were married to Piper then I'd skip the Arrow altogether and stick to either a PA-28-180/181 or jump straight up to a Cherokee Six / Lance / Saratoga.. although I doubt you'll find the latter for the OP's price point
Click to expand...

Back when our club had an Arrow it was a couple kts slower than our 182. With full tanks it could carry a little more load in the cabin than the 182, but significantly less than our 180 hp C-172N. That, and the fact for me that 3 hours was my absolute limit, my knees died and it was all I could do to crawl out of it. Never have that problem with the Cessna products.

Tantalum said:
....and I fell for the necro post again
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. :p

I wonder what the OP actually bought? He never posted it here.
 
[QUOTE

I wonder what the OP actually bought? He never posted it here.[/QUOTE]

Bought an 180 hp Arrow served me well...unfortunately involved in a fatal accident last Labor Day
 
Was that the radio tower in Louisiana? Im sorry for your losses.

We have a similar sized tower 7 miles away and it’s a reminder to always stay above the tower altitude until you see it
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
@Ghery you are saying an Arrow out hauled a 182? Or are you saying with full tanks?

And the 180hp 172 outhauled both?
Click to expand...

It did, and it does. With full tanks on the 182 we can put around 650 pounds in the cabin. Will full tanks in the 172N that number is just over 750 pounds. Both aircraft have long range tanks - about 75 gal in the 182 and 50 gal in the 172N. The Arrow could carry about 700 pounds with full tanks. I would have to dig out the W&B spreadsheets for the actual numbers and they're on a computer at home, and I'm in Singapore right night.
 
Last edited:
Yes the TV tower in La...
 
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...
Look at the manual gear Mooneys. A good C model should be as cheap to buy and own as an arrow and will go faster on the same fuel.

Then again when we consider that ADS-B is looming, I think it makes looking at EAB even more compelling. Much cheaper to maintain and much cheaper and easier to upgrade. There's a guy near me that has his RV9A listed on craigslist for $45. Something like that should give you arrow speed on less fuel and be cheaper to maintain.
 
iamtheari said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is BY FAR the best and most detailed testimonial I’ve gotten from any Arrow Pilot. Thank You @iamtheari !! I truly appreciate your input!!

In your opinion, is it worth trying to buy an Arrow III (as opposed to an Arrfow II) because of the 72 gal of usable fuel? Most of my trips are going to be around 600nm or less.
 
I've got over 100 hours in Arrows and intentionally did my instrument in one. I'd never fly the 180 HP model, as I got scared by the lack of performance in one. The 200 HP Arrow II is actually quite a nice airplane. About 1000 useful on 50/48 usable gallon tanks. That means a 700 pound UL, simple gear that doesn't have major issues and easy to slow down for stable IFR approaches. Of course, I prefer a Tiger or Mooney, but Arrows are really underrated airplanes.

Rgbeard said:
An arrow makes a great two-person airplane.

You can take fuel and luggage.
Click to expand...

In fact, they are quite decent 3 person airplanes and you can do 4 if you trade fuel.

Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Any issues with the spar? Expected mx there after the ERAU incident?
Click to expand...

One airplane. One. Out of thousands that have been around forever.

Tantalum said:
Yes. Mooney. You will go a lot faster on a remarkably well built and strong little airframe. It will be a little more interesting, a little more sexy, and if you get an older one the manual gear and flaps are just about bullet proof. I would also take a Tiger before an Arrow.. Tigers are fast, the canopy is cool, and they fly really nice. You'll also have something a little cooler than your typical Piper and Cessna at the airports you fly into

Personally though, if I were looking for a $50K airplane I'd be all over the Mooney
Click to expand...

Yes, a Mooney is basically better at everything, except UL on some of the short bodies. They are also less forgiving.

Tantalum said:
I was never impressed with the Arrow. For 200hp and retractable gear you really aren't getting an equivalent upgrade in speed or performance. And like you said, similar useful load as a 172, and only slightly faster.. but now you have a prop hub to worry about and maintain, plus landing gear to worry about and maintain. If I were married to Piper then I'd skip the Arrow altogether and stick to either a PA-28-180/181 or jump straight up to a Cherokee Six / Lance / Saratoga.. although I doubt you'll find the latter for the OP's price point
Click to expand...

The Arrow isn't a great airplane at much of anything. It is a good airplane at a lot of things. It goes fast enough on little enough fuel to be an economical XC plane on trips up to about 500 NM. For a complex plane, the MX is rather reasonable. The engine choice for the NA ones is as bulletproof as it gets in GA. The gear are simple, very reliable and have the easiest emergency extend ever. They maintain the awesome manual flaps from the fixed gear Cherokees. Their controls are light enough to be responsive, but heavy enough to keep you from over correcting too much. Their gear speed is close enough to cruise that it is super easy to slow them down for an approach using the gear alone, making them a really stable IFR platform.

Oh, and another thing. Decent Arrows are very reasonably priced.

Tantalum said:
....and I fell for the necro post again
Click to expand...

LOL - We all do.
 
N1120A said:
I've got over 100 hours in Arrows and intentionally did my instrument in one. I'd never fly the 180 HP model, as I got scared by the lack of performance in one. The 200 HP Arrow II is actually quite a nice airplane. About 1000 useful on 50/48 usable gallon tanks. That means a 700 pound UL, simple gear that doesn't have major issues and easy to slow down for stable IFR approaches. Of course, I prefer a Tiger or Mooney, but Arrows are really underrated airplanes.



In fact, they are quite decent 3 person airplanes and you can do 4 if you trade fuel.



One airplane. One. Out of thousands that have been around forever.



Yes, a Mooney is basically better at everything, except UL on some of the short bodies. They are also less forgiving.



The Arrow isn't a great airplane at much of anything. It is a good airplane at a lot of things. It goes fast enough on little enough fuel to be an economical XC plane on trips up to about 500 NM. For a complex plane, the MX is rather reasonable. The engine choice for the NA ones is as bulletproof as it gets in GA. The gear are simple, very reliable and have the easiest emergency extend ever. They maintain the awesome manual flaps from the fixed gear Cherokees. Their controls are light enough to be responsive, but heavy enough to keep you from over correcting too much. Their gear speed is close enough to cruise that it is super easy to slow them down for an approach using the gear alone, making them a really stable IFR platform.

Oh, and another thing. Decent Arrows are very reasonably priced.



LOL - We all do.
Click to expand...
excellent summation. all the reasons i opted for one back when i did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top