ArcherIII vs. Arrow

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name

Display name:
Adam Zucker
One of the FBOs I use just raised the price of a new Archer III to the same price as they rent the older 1979 Piper Archer. I'm getting my complex and hi perf soon. Question is, other than the retract and constant speed prop is the Arrow a better plane to fly ie appreciably faster and more useful load? Just wondering since the prices will now be the same.
 
The Arrow will probably true out around 135 kts, maybe a little higher. Useful load is going to be similar, but more dependent on the specific planes and how they are fitted out and their age.

Flying will be very similar. Since they cost the same to rent, you can cover more ground for the same cost in the Arrow if you are trying to get somewhere. If you are just up boring holes in the sky the advantage will be building complex time. That could be helpful down the road with insurance.
 
Adam, the Arrow will have a better useful load than the new Archer. The new Archer's simply don't carry that much, especially with a/c. Less than 500 lbs in the cabin with full fuel.

The Arrow is faster, has a little more oomph on takeoff but in most respects feels much like the Archer. I can't remember what year Wing's Arrow is, but the one I flew a few times was a '72 with the Hershey bar wing, and it dropped out of the sky like a rock with the gear down when you cut the power. That was the biggest difference. The Arrow is faster, and for the same money it just makes sense to me to rent it. Wing's is a nice looking plane in and out, and decently equipped. Another advantage is that it's schedule is much more open than the Archers and Skyhawks, or was until the price increase. I don't know if that will encourage more people to rent the Arrow or not.

Do you have any idea why they raised the price on the Archers and not the Skyhawks? Also, did you note they now have a 2 hr a day minimum on multiday rentals? Guess that isn't much of a big deal. Most multi-day trips I've contemplated or taken put more time than that on the hobbs.
 
Thanks for the info Joe: Tom says he raised the price b/c the Archer IIIs were "more of a plane" than the Arrow, ie newer, better equipped, essentially more "Cherry" I tend to belive its also a supply and demand issue. The Archer's are renting more than the Arrow. They have two Archers and the new glass panel Archer is still on back order along with the DA40. They are supposed to get delivery today of a third Archer III with 300 hrs as a Stop gap measure until the glass panel is delivered.

I have also noticed that on the Website there is now no fuel surcharge listed next to the Archers unlike the other planes. I was afraid to ask about it as I did not want to wake a sleeping dog if you know what I mean. I don't know why the did not do the same for the 172s but again didn't feel it would be wise to make it an issue, my guess is they belive the Archers are nicer planes, Tom certainly likes them better.

Yes I did notice the 2hr minimum per day on multi day rentals. I don't think this will be a big issue as long as you are putting some reasonable time on the plane. I think they were having problems with folks renting a plane for a weekend Friday to Sunday Flying 1-1.5 hours round trip to Ocean City NJ and tying up the plane for the weekend.

Did you also notice they placed a 20% cancellation fee on planes if you are a no show. I don't have a problem with this as I think it is incredibly rude not to call or log on and take your name off the book and free up the plane if you can't make it. It screws the FBO out of $$$ and the CFI if it is a lesson flight, not to mention depriving another customer of enjoying some flying.
 
Adam. The Archer also probably has better avionics than the older Arrow. Arrow are nice planes to build complex time in, but they are no faster than the Tiger. I would rent the Arrow for the same money as the Archer, plus you build complex time for when you get a Bonanza or Mooney. :)
 
Joe Williams said:
Adam, the Arrow will have a better useful load than the new Archer. The new Archer's simply don't carry that much, especially with a/c. Less than 500 lbs in the cabin with full fuel.

M wife, 2yrs old daughter, flight instructor and I took a flight once in our Club Archer III. The four of us, fuel at the tabs (36gal), a couple of flight bags, and we were at full up gross. It was a good trip, nice to learn how a plane reacts at gross with an instructor along.
 
Other than retract & constant speed prop...(assuming that's not a key rquirement) I think it is mostly a choice between new & old panels. The newer Archer IIIs (1999 on) usually have dual 430s & an S-Tec 55X which is pretty sweet for X-Cs. I don't find that you can comfortably sit in a cockpit for the "full fuel" duration. With fuel to the tabs, my Archer III has 640 lbs payload (no A/C) and nearly 3 hrs VFR range with reserve. That's about 10 minutes difference in a 3 hr flight between the Arrow and the Archer. If you're looking to build retract time or a little more payload, obviously the Arrow is the choice.
 
Back
Top