Arrow vs 235 comparative costs

[hindsight2020]

Did a search, nothing specific to the comparison. I recognize the two suit different missions.

Generally speaking, assuming 200 hours a year flown and the same acquisition price, which one will be the cheapest to own and operate?

My assumptions:

Both early vintage.

-Aquisition Price: assumed equal or insignificant differences in cost.
-Speed: Flight plan of 135KTAS vs 130KTAS. Inconsequential for a 450nm mission profile.
-Insurance cost: Substantially higher (more than 1000/yr difference) for the Arrow?
-Maintenace: CSU mx for both is a wash, but recurring gear maintenance on the arrow higher than cylinder mx on two extra cylinders on the 235? Arrow a bigger AD nightmare than 235 due to swing gear and fuel injection?
-Fuel: 11GPH versus 14GPH? Advantage Arrow. Could be offset by flying higher on the 235? 600 gallons a year difference at 5 bucks/gal just offset the annual expense on the retract mx?

So, arrow bigger mx hog, 235 bigger operating cost on fuel and cylinders, enough to offset the arrow mx and insurance cost? My back of the napkin math says the EOY cost is neck and neck, maybe the 235 wins by an insignificant amount.

Any feedback on my "assumptions" would be appreciated. For full disclosure, my mission requires only two people and bags, so both airplanes are overkill. The Warrior climb rate is getting retarded here in the TX summer and 180hp ships (archer, tiger) not enough to justify the upgrade; they seem to carry the same acquisition premium as the former two. Discuss

 

[Henning]

Arrow will fly the same miles for less money. After 100hrs the insurance cost difference will mostly be in the what the insured value is. Gear swings aren't expensive. You get the 235 if you need the load.

 

[denverpilot]

I'd rather pay for more gas and have the bigger load hauler, since I always have at least three or four times a year when I'm at max gross wishing for a few extra pounds.

I'm also not a huge fan of retracts because I'm nervous about unimproved or rough strips in them. I've got over 50 hours in Cessna retracts of one sort or another, though. They're fine. Can't really speak for the Arrow, but they're everywhere in rental fleets getting the crap best out of them and seem to not be kicked off the island, so they must be tough enough, by simple deduction.

Mostly I learned if it takes half a day or more to get somewhere, a half hour or even an hour different block-to-block still means you lost half a day or more. A few extra knots doesn't seem to matter much.

Speed differences of less than 30 knots are just noise in the data when you start doing half-day trips.

But that's just me. Your goals may be significantly different.

 

[wabower]

Nate makes a good point. The travel-time clock doesn't start and stop at the runways, but at the driveways.

For most flights the time difference is that after both land, the guy in the faster airplane is walking out of the bathroom when the guy in the slower airplane is walking in.

That said, the guy who's flying the trip is the one who must sit there and watch the miles pass slowly by, so he will be more intently focused on the airplane's contribution to ETA. Having commuted 370 nm each way on a weekly basis for 4+ years, I wouldn't consider either airplane for a trip of that length or longer. Gotta have cruise speeds closer to 170 to make it tolerable.

 

[Henning]

Yep, commuter/ traveling planes need 3 miles a minute for me. The 235horse Midget Mustang at 5 miles a minute was a great and super efficient commuter getting me from Texoma to So Louisiana in around 2hrs, but it's tiny. 3 miles a minute I find is a sufficient and there are a variety of aircraft at different levels of old capacity that do it or get close enough. The operating and ownership cost difference between the PA 28 200R/235 and a Bonanza aren't that steep and cen really go either way depending on the condition of plane you get.

 

[Anthony]

I've got some time in an Arrow II, and always enjoyed flying it. They are nice planes, and good for complex training. However, I don't think the extra speed they give you is worth the retract, and C/S prop expense. YMMV, as they are honest, forgiving airplanes that are solid performers. You can get similar performance in a fixed gear, fixed prop Tiger, but I digress. :wink2:

I've never flown a 235 but always liked them, and the load carrying capabilities. That's the route I'd go. They are reasonably "fast", but as others have said you can really load them up, or use the extra performance as a safety margin in high DA situations. You do have two more cylinders to feed, but hey it's only money, right?

 

[Tom-D]

Did a search, nothing specific to the comparison. I recognize the two suit different missions.

Generally speaking, assuming 200 hours a year flown and the same acquisition price, which one will be the cheapest to own and operate?

My assumptions:

Both early vintage.

-Aquisition Price: assumed equal or insignificant differences in cost.
-Speed: Flight plan of 135KTAS vs 130KTAS. Inconsequential for a 450nm mission profile.
-Insurance cost: Substantially higher (more than 1000/yr difference) for the Arrow?
-Maintenace: CSU mx for both is a wash, but recurring gear maintenance on the arrow higher than cylinder mx on two extra cylinders on the 235? Arrow a bigger AD nightmare than 235 due to swing gear and fuel injection?
-Fuel: 11GPH versus 14GPH? Advantage Arrow. Could be offset by flying higher on the 235? 600 gallons a year difference at 5 bucks/gal just offset the annual expense on the retract mx?

So, arrow bigger mx hog, 235 bigger operating cost on fuel and cylinders, enough to offset the arrow mx and insurance cost? My back of the napkin math says the EOY cost is neck and neck, maybe the 235 wins by an insignificant amount.

Any feedback on my "assumptions" would be appreciated. For full disclosure, my mission requires only two people and bags, so both airplanes are overkill. The Warrior climb rate is getting retarded here in the TX summer and 180hp ships (archer, tiger) not enough to justify the upgrade; they seem to carry the same acquisition premium as the former two. Discuss

To base a guess, I'd like to know which Arrow you are considering, the Arrow with the Continental IO-360 has a notorious short life engine. while the Dakota 235 has the 0-540 running at 235 horses with a carb. and will run way past TBO with no major problems.

 

[hindsight2020]

Thank you for the inputs! I figured that's where the discussion would go. I did consider the block to block argument, it is extremely valid. And that's the rub, you have to get over 140KTAS in order to justify the upgrade over the warrior block times. The dang thing is just that economic, if you can tolerate to sit there and withstand 4.0 legs with a west TX headwind. Last weekend coming out of KFTW at 95F barely making 500FPM, oh brother, I'd be screwed in Colorado. My female passenger, bless her heart that girl, sweating her way with me to the top of the climb while remarking "above 5 on the altitude thingy is the goal right?" as she counted the hours to climbing above what I explained to her would be our air conditioned altitudes, 5 grand and above. LOL

I do believe both aircraft would make an appreciable difference in block time versus the warrior (around 45 minutes per leg) in my mission trip and the climb to altitude performance is a short luxury I'd almost be willing to pay without regard for ROI.

It does sound like the consensus is that the Arrow is a bigger time bomb in terms of budget breaking maintenance and I do admit I'm not very patient with the idea of coming home one night after a 3.0 at the wee hours of the morning to have the gear give me the finger. I have no patience for that, not for just an extra 5 knots over a welded gear airplane. That said, trucking around solo and severely undergross at 14GPH seems like idiocy too, though I;d definitively be grinning at the airport doing unrestricted climbs on that thing. I also like the brick dumb de-rated setup of the 235. It would be less finicky an engine than the Arrow though I presume the consensus on 6 cylinders is you have to accept you'll be pulling one cylinder a year? That could make the annuals just as expensive as the Arrow...

I have to find a 235 to test fly. I have more Arrow time than any other piston retract I've flown, by orders of magnitude, so that's a known quantity to me. I guess it all comes down to how much gas do I want to **** out the pipe on my way to my destination. This flying obesssion I tell ya, that's the real idiocy.. But enough self-deprecation, I gotta go flying today

Love the concept of the Tiger, but BLUF there's not enough inventory out there to make it a reliable choice for upgrade and the bonded construction and timed wings is still an unknown for me.

Great feedback guys! Keep em coming!

 

[Henning]

25 years in the game having owned retracts for 15 of them now and I am just not seeing any problems, and the costs vs the fuel savings are wildly disproportionate in favor of the retract, the more you fly the huger the disparity becomes.

You want a plane powered by a Continental IO 470 260 HP engine. It is the second lowest cost of operations engine in GA bested only by it's short bus riding brother the O 470 230 HP engine. You want a plane that gets as close to 3 miles a minute as you can get, with a single you usually have to be on O2 and have a turbo though so the 15 kts comes at a cost. 260hp will get you 165kts very economically loafing the engine @65% hard LOP, and they are great LOP engines. Both of mine run smooth all the way out the bottom, she just falls off power and goes to sleep regardless which I pull.

In my experience as an aircraft mechanic what you want to avoid is hydraulic systems, that's where trouble lies. Most systems either nickel and dime you or whack you, hydraulics do both lol.

The plane you want is a Bonanza. There is a damned good reason the plane is as popular as it is. A lot of guys have your mission and the Bo is the highest value plane for the job. You can get both the 33 and 35s with the IO 470 260 in it, it has a very simple and reliable worm driving quadrant type gear set actuating link rod gear. In 12 years I never had a problem. It'll loaf at 165 on about 12.7 and if you want to save some gas you can put in Arrow fuel flows and get better speed than the Arrow.

If you buy the Arrow and continue on in your missions, you will buy a Bo in a couple of years and every upgrade has several thousand dollars cost attached. Buy your last plane first.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I don't need the load myself nor do I ever land on other than paved strips, so the Arrow II has been very efficient to me.

It's true that the Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360) engine is problematic and expensive to maintain, BUT if you fly it on long legs at high altitudes (over 12,000 feet), the high TAS coupled with 72 gallons of fuel makes it a very efficient cross country machine.

If your normal trip is less than 200 nm, don't get a Turbo Arrow unless you fly mountains a lot.

 

[Henning]

I don't need the load myself nor do I ever land on other than paved strips, so the Arrow II has been very efficient to me.

It's true that the Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360) engine is problematic and expensive to maintain, BUT if you fly it on long legs at high altitudes (over 12,000 feet), the high TAS coupled with 72 gallons of fuel makes it a very efficient cross country machine.

If your normal trip is less than 200 nm, don't get a Turbo Arrow unless you fly mountains a lot.

See, there again, with a 260 HP naturally aspirated Bonanza, you get the load when you want it, you get the performance around the mountains when you need it and you get the fuel economy when you lean and slow it. All with no turbo or high strung engine to maintain. Not only that, rougher strips are not a great concern. The Beech is a ruggedly constructed aircraft and is the primary 'bush plane' in use in Australia.

 

[weilke]

The 235 flies on mogas. I dont believe the 200hp Arrow does.

It also carries 87gal, for most routine flights that allows you to go out+back without filling up. With a $500 investment for a truck bed tank (or two 'fuel-boys'), the fuel/mile cost is going to be similar between the two.

 

[hindsight2020]

I don't need the load myself nor do I ever land on other than paved strips, so the Arrow II has been very efficient to me.

It's true that the Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360) engine is problematic and expensive to maintain, BUT if you fly it on long legs at high altitudes (over 12,000 feet), the high TAS coupled with 72 gallons of fuel makes it a very efficient cross country machine.

If your normal trip is less than 200 nm, don't get a Turbo Arrow unless you fly mountains a lot.

Would you care to comment on Henning's assertion that hydraulics are the kiss of death maintenance-wise as it pertains to your Arrow? What has been you experience with the Arrow's gear and associated hydraulics, on a year to year basis?

Arrows are not appreciably faster than Dakotas/235s/C-182, which is why I'm so focused on the opportunity cost of retractable gear maintenance costs year to year. again, sticking to an equal acquisition cost price point of course. I don't recall 4 banger Lycos being problematic at all in the Arrows I've flown. The don't seem like they're eating engines up so that's probably a wash vis a vis an O-540. I do like the mogas allowance on the 235 and will probably take advantage of it in order to cost compensate for the added fuel flow. At 600 gallons a year, the hassle to find adequate mogas would be worth the cost difference.

Yeah, Bo's are nice. Too rich for my blood at this point. If I had to wait for it I'd be building instead of flying, and boy I just like that flying thing lol.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The 235 flies on mogas. I dont believe the 200hp Arrow does.

It also carries 87gal, for most routine flights that allows you to go out+back without filling up. With a $500 investment for a truck bed tank (or two 'fuel-boys'), the fuel/mile cost is going to be similar between the two.

The availability of mogas could change that equation though. Not widely available in my area.

 

[Jhernandez04]

I own a 235, I'm not aware of the mogas you guys are referring to? I was under the impression you had to have a STC for something like that? Will mogas hurt the 0540? Sorry for the silly question, im still new.

 

[Skylane81E]

I've never gone that fast in a 200hp arrow...

 

[flyingmedic]

I own a 235, I'm not aware of the mogas you guys are referring to? I was under the impression you had to have a STC for something like that? Will mogas hurt the 0540? Sorry for the silly question, im still new.

Depends what year 235 your talking about. My 1971 235 with the O540 B4B5 was certified as 80/87 ......100LL not being around.......

My plane hates 100LL, would much rather run on the 80 or 87, problem here is, that's impossible to find, at least here in the NE.

100LL in my plane requires AGGRESSIVE leaning for ground ops. For the record, she's an honest 135kt airplane in cruise, and 13gph leaned correctly in cruise. Doesn't matter how she's loaded, light or heavy, 13 is the magic number in my plane.

Lightly loaded, she is easy 1500 fpm climber to about 5k, much more , IF you don't mind feeling like you've been launched to the moon, because you'll have quite an impressive climb angle, and you won't see a thing but cowling course then she'll do 650 or better to 14,500 ( highest I have been in her personally) .

235s are great little planes. Solid instrument platforms, manage your fuel, and she'll fly hands off all day long.

The only downside is indeed the fuel. Physics are physics.....and even when it's just me in it.....she's a thirsty girl.

YMMV

Bill


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Jhernandez04]

Depends what year 235 your talking about. My 1971 235 with the O540 B4B5 was certified as 80/87 ......100LL not being around.......

My plane hates 100LL, would much rather run on the 80 or 87, problem here is, that's impossible to find, at least here in the NE.

100LL in my plane requires AGGRESSIVE leaning for ground ops. For the record, she's an honest 135kt airplane in cruise, and 13gph leaned correctly in cruise. Doesn't matter how she's loaded, light or heavy, 13 is the magic number in my plane.

Lightly loaded, she is easy 1500 fpm climber to about 5k, much more , IF you don't mind feeling like you've been launched to the moon, because you'll have quite an impressive climb angle, and you won't see a thing but cowling course then she'll do 650 or better to 14,500 ( highest I have been in her personally) .

235s are great little planes. Solid instrument platforms, manage your fuel, and she'll fly hands off all day long.

The only downside is indeed the fuel. Physics are physics.....and even when it's just me in it.....she's a thirsty girl.

YMMV

Bill


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well my gas caps say 80/87 on them. But I was thinking you guys were saying you could use car gas as long as there isnt any ethanol?

Mines a 1964 235

 

[weilke]

I own a 235, I'm not aware of the mogas you guys are referring to? I was under the impression you had to have a STC for something like that? Will mogas hurt the 0540? Sorry for the silly question, im still new.

The 235 is listed on the Petersen STC. So yes, you have to have the STC.

The 540 in the 235 has a low enough compression that it runs fine on mogas. In addition to the lower octane, mogas also has a higher vapor pressure potentially causing vapor-lock at high temperatures. As you have 4 fuel tanks, you can keep one tank with 100LL and the other with mogas or ethanol-free autofuel.

Depending on the state you live in, getting alcohol free autofuel may be a challenge. In MN, most gas is blended with ethanol, there are occasional stations with alcohol free mogas labeled 'for collector vehicles and small engines'. If you are near lakes or coast, marinas tend to have ethanol free gas (as it eats away epoxy).

 

[wabower]

The answer to the assertions about expense and dependability of hydraulic systems vs electro-mechanical systems is "not necessarily."

My expense for the 210's was a couple of power pack rebuilds and ~an ounce of fluid each year over 26 years of ownership. My friend's A-36 had ~equal incidence of gear motor and gear box overhauls that were of similar cost. The gear on the A-36 that I bought after moving to TX (with Keith A/C) was much more costly than either of the 210's.

Beech changed the gear systems in King Airs from elec to hydraulic in 1985. The current system is much more reliable and much less costly to maintain and much more desirable.

 

[weilke]

Would you care to comment on Henning's assertion that hydraulics are the kiss of death maintenance-wise as it pertains to your Arrow? What has been you experience with the Arrow's gear and associated hydraulics, on a year to year basis?

Depending on number of cycles, the hydraulic pump needs occasional rebuilds. So people who have them in flight-school service tend to spend money on that. Also, the hydraulic actuators may require a set of new seals ever so often, seems to be a bigger problem with aircraft that sit a lot. Mechanical landing gear systems are far from worry free. The budget to rebuild the hydraulic pump every couple of years is probably going to be a wash with the required gearbox overhauls on the Bonanza (or the rube goldberg mechanism that is the Comanche gear).

I don't recall 4 banger Lycos being problematic at all in the Arrows I've flown. The don't seem like they're eating engines up so that's probably a wash vis a vis an O-540.

The 200hp Lycoming is a bit more expensive to overhaul than the more common 180hp version (I believe you are dependent on the factory for cylinders). But yes, it shouldn't make much of a difference.


If I understood you correctly, you have a warrior at this time. Both of the planes you are considering will be a step up in annual operating cost.

Now the plane piper SHOULD build would be an Arrow with the Dakota fuel tanks, a low-compression UL91/mogas approved IO-540, left pilot door, right passenger door, a 5in fuselage plug and comfortable seats. I would buy that.

 

[Skylane81E]

Would you care to comment on Henning's assertion that hydraulics are the kiss of death maintenance-wise as it pertains to your Arrow? What has been you experience with the Arrow's gear and associated hydraulics, on a year to year basis?

Arrows are not appreciably faster than Dakotas/235s/C-182, which is why I'm so focused on the opportunity cost of retractable gear maintenance costs year to year. again, sticking to an equal acquisition cost price point of course. I don't recall 4 banger Lycos being problematic at all in the Arrows I've flown. The don't seem like they're eating engines up so that's probably a wash vis a vis an O-540. I do like the mogas allowance on the 235 and will probably take advantage of it in order to cost compensate for the added fuel flow. At 600 gallons a year, the hassle to find adequate mogas would be worth the cost difference.

Yeah, Bo's are nice. Too rich for my blood at this point. If I had to wait for it I'd be building instead of flying, and boy I just like that flying thing lol.

Dakota has two more jugs than a NA arrow and the arrow tucks its wheels. I'd imagine that given my experience with the two systems the retract will only be slightly more expensive each year and cheaper come overhaul time.

A word of caution however. Every arrow I've worked on has had neglected landing gear. Have it checked out before you buy and expect to spend some money on it the first few years.

I have also recently learned that piper revised the nose gear drag links (and why the felt the need) to make them stronger. Given that the link is about 2AMU and could cause bigger issues if it fails I'd look for the beefed up link.

 

[Skylane81E]

Depending on number of cycles, the hydraulic pump needs occasional rebuilds. So people who have them in flight-school service tend to spend money on that. Also, the hydraulic actuators may require a set of new seals ever so often, seems to be a bigger problem with aircraft that sit a lot. Mechanical landing gear systems are far from worry free. The budget to rebuild the hydraulic pump every couple of years is probably going to be a wash with the required gearbox overhauls on the Bonanza (or the rube goldberg mechanism that is the Comanche gear).



The 200hp Lycoming is a bit more expensive to overhaul than the more common 180hp version (I believe you are dependent on the factory for cylinders). But yes, it shouldn't make much of a difference.


If I understood you correctly, you have a warrior at this time. Both of the planes you are considering will be a step up in annual operating cost.

The only recurring issue I've had with arrow hydraulics is the little o-ring inside the free fall valve. I also have a suspicion that they would last longer outside of flight school service and/or a plane with out the back up gear extender.

 

[Henning]

Depends what year 235 your talking about. My 1971 235 with the O540 B4B5 was certified as 80/87 ......100LL not being around.......

My plane hates 100LL, would much rather run on the 80 or 87, problem here is, that's impossible to find, at least here in the NE.

100LL in my plane requires AGGRESSIVE leaning for ground ops. For the record, she's an honest 135kt airplane in cruise, and 13gph leaned correctly in cruise. Doesn't matter how she's loaded, light or heavy, 13 is the magic number in my plane.

Lightly loaded, she is easy 1500 fpm climber to about 5k, much more , IF you don't mind feeling like you've been launched to the moon, because you'll have quite an impressive climb angle, and you won't see a thing but cowling course then she'll do 650 or better to 14,500 ( highest I have been in her personally) .

235s are great little planes. Solid instrument platforms, manage your fuel, and she'll fly hands off all day long.

The only downside is indeed the fuel. Physics are physics.....and even when it's just me in it.....she's a thirsty girl.

YMMV

Bill


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yeah, the red fuel your plane was certified on no longer exists I don't believe. It is a completely different formulation than MoGas and are not exchangeable as to the certificate.

 

[Henning]

The answer to the assertions about expense and dependability of hydraulic systems vs electro-mechanical systems is "not necessarily."

My expense for the 210's was a couple of power pack rebuilds and ~an ounce of fluid each year over 26 years of ownership. My friend's A-36 had ~equal incidence of gear motor and gear box overhauls that were of similar cost. The gear on the A-36 that I bought after moving to TX (with Keith A/C) was much more costly than either of the 210's.

Beech changed the gear systems in King Airs from elec to hydraulic in 1985. The current system is much more reliable and much less costly to maintain and much more desirable.

I will acquiesce that there is a legitimate rivalry between the 210 that can easily come down to luck of the draw and finding a better over worse copy. I harbor nothing against a 210 and the access option is in the 210s favor. I however I am 46, 6'0 155 and am agile and active so sliding across the seat is not a great price for me to pay for the control harmony and joy of flight. The 210 is an all business let's get the job done flying plane, the Bonanza likes to have a little fun along the way; a lot of fun if you chose an E or F 33C.

I would suggest anyone just go get in and fly each and assess the quality balance and see which they prefer. Fot the stated mission they will not go wrong with a quality copy of either and the 210 is available with the same basic engine. Fortunately both aircraft were very popular and they're owners typically not afraid to spend money therefore there are very nice copies of each available.

 

[Skylane81E]

Just read the bottom paragraph of the OP...


Go get a mooney

 

[Flying101]

Get a Cessna 182 you can't go wrong....

 

[Skylane81E]

Get a Cessna 182 you can't go wrong....

Retract flavor has the "nice" deranged Lyc too

 

[Henning]

Would you care to comment on Henning's assertion that hydraulics are the kiss of death maintenance-wise as it pertains to your Arrow? What has been you experience with the Arrow's gear and associated hydraulics, on a year to year basis?

Arrows are not appreciably faster than Dakotas/235s/C-182, which is why I'm so focused on the opportunity cost of retractable gear maintenance costs year to year. again, sticking to an equal acquisition cost price point of course. I don't recall 4 banger Lycos being problematic at all in the Arrows I've flown. The don't seem like they're eating engines up so that's probably a wash vis a vis an O-540. I do like the mogas allowance on the 235 and will probably take advantage of it in order to cost compensate for the added fuel flow. At 600 gallons a year, the hassle to find adequate mogas would be worth the cost difference.

Yeah, Bo's are nice. Too rich for my blood at this point. If I had to wait for it I'd be building instead of flying, and boy I just like that flying thing lol.

I did not say kiss of death, no system on a plane properly maintained is, it's just that pilots are so cheap they squeal like bloody pigs over every dime. Hydraulic systems have a greater quantity of points of failure therefore the odds of incurring expense are higher given equal quality of components. Any time odds are involved you always have chance for individual deviation, but as I said, and it's only one man's observation, hydraulic gear systems cost more than mechanical systems. Since both employ an electrical to linear force device both of them have the potential to whack you with the big cost which is similar. Both of them have mechanical linkages where the 210 is weaker by a margin in the saddles vs the springs and rollers issue expense which amounts to a squirt of grease a year and change the spring when it gets rusty. This works out to about a dollar a year. The hydraulic systems add hoses which are the nickel and dime issues that create a mess. None of these issues for either is particularly burdensome and regardless of which if properly maintained will only rarely give issue. For either the cost vs fuel savings for the stated mission exceeds their cost over a fixed gear plane by a long margin.

 

[Skylane81E]

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=141934&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&dealerid=

Nice avionics,
Fast,
Low fuel burn,
Room for two,
Simple gear,

 

[Henning]

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=141934&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&dealerid=

Nice avionics,
Fast,
Low fuel burn,
Room for two,
Simple gear,

Not fast as any 260 HP option, that's a 145 kt plane.

 

[denverpilot]

... I presume the consensus on 6 cylinders is you have to accept you'll be pulling one cylinder a year?

Catching up here this morning, first this comment above... about pulling jugs...

No way should anyone with any engine be pulling a cylinder every year! If you're having to do that, or you're seeing it in logs, run away. Someone doesn't know how to operate the engine. That's nuts.

Basically I see a trend in the questions that all first time aircraft owners are thinking... "Which one will have the least maintenance *surprises*."

There's a really simple answer to that...

They all will. They're 35+ year old machinery.

Seriously. Stuff is going to break. The less "stuff" maybe the less to break in the first place, but stuff is still going to break from time to time.

May not even be your fault.

Ask Lynn how much the dent in her horizontal stabilizer/elevator cost...

Or Clark how much time/money he spent chasing down a bad wire in his yoke going to his push-to-talk/mash-to-mumble switch...

David White how much his new exhaust system ran when it gave up the ghost...

Or me how much the left fuel bladder replacement ran when we walked into the hangar and found the infamous Cessna bladder failure blue stain filled with goo all down the left pilot's side door...

Co-owners help. At least the surprises are divided by number of co-owners. My co-owners are great people. I will miss them someday far in the future (hopefully!) because stories of bad co-owners abound. I got lucky to find them.

My list of unexpected maintenance items plus stuff that wasn't a surprise, in four years, is pretty light, but adding it here for reference...

- Left bladder tank
- Nose strut service (needs rebuilt eventually and re-chromed)
- Broken plug wires (twice)
- Tires/brakes (not a surprise, but they all go eventually)
- Various cracked plastic parts including dash overlays and right now, the center pedestal
- Transponder coax cabling short
- DME internal fuse blown (It's a $30 fuse, seriously)
- Dead clock (required for IFR)
- Dead Hobbs (not required, but we replaced it anyway)
- Dead light bulbs (Nav, taxi/landing, overhead, map lights all at different times.... Replaced taxi/landing with LEDs and oh man that's the way to go...)
- Dead panel post lights on one side (wiring issue)
- Broken Alternator side of the dual sided master switch. (Amazingly, only a $12 part which was a shocker to us all. Haha!)

Before I was involved with the airplane, the other co-owners chased a problem with the voltage regulator for a couple of years. Multiple shop visits. Lots of labor money, about a $200 part once the problem was found. We were nervous that the proble, was back when the master switch alternator side became intermittent.

What I'm giving all this info for is to set a realistic expectation that a 35 year old airplane isn't going to have a 100% dispatch rate. You'll have stuff break and will have to pay to fix it, as well as completely change travel plans on that day. Truthfully, a new airplane (which is out of budgetary reach for most) may not fare any better.

So the trick here is to change your expectations of the hardware, once you've found the hardware you believe you can live with. And budget accordingly.

One nugget of wisdom I've heard tossed around is this: If you aren't cash flow positive enough to replace a dead engine (the most expensive part on the aircraft) tomorrow, you're probably not in a position to own an aircraft.

Lots of folks aren't there, and they have something go wrong in the engine, and the airplane sits for years. Have a friend who basically busted his butt for three years and bought out two co-owners out of his 182 and then still had to replace an engine amongst other things. He owns it outright now after three years of downtime waiting to see if folks could come up with cash. He loves that airplane. Three or four years of his life is tied up in it. Hell never get out of it what he put into it.

Owning airplanes is a lot like owning classic muscle cars. The difference is, most folks have something else they can drive while the pony is being fixed.

Make sense?

All that said, I think you'd be happy in either aircraft for a while. Half day trips on a regular basis will eventually get old and you'll be hunting for a Bo or something faster. Eventually everyone wants to go faster.

 

[Henning]

Wow, I missed that, you shouldn't have to change a cylinder until TBO if you learn to work the red handle properly. 6 cylinder engines are much nicer, smoother engines.

 

[Sac Arrow]

See, there again, with a 260 HP naturally aspirated Bonanza, you get the load when you want it, you get the performance around the mountains when you need it and you get the fuel economy when you lean and slow it. All with no turbo or high strung engine to maintain. Not only that, rougher strips are not a great concern. The Beech is a ruggedly constructed aircraft and is the primary 'bush plane' in use in Australia.

I love Bo's, and would buy one if I could afford it. But I'd get at least an older A36. I can't stand the control layout on older Bo's and Debonairs.

Would you care to comment on Henning's assertion that hydraulics are the kiss of death maintenance-wise as it pertains to your Arrow? What has been you experience with the Arrow's gear and associated hydraulics, on a year to year basis?

Arrows are not appreciably faster than Dakotas/235s/C-182, which is why I'm so focused on the opportunity cost of retractable gear maintenance costs year to year. again, sticking to an equal acquisition cost price point of course. I don't recall 4 banger Lycos being problematic at all in the Arrows I've flown. The don't seem like they're eating engines up so that's probably a wash vis a vis an O-540. I do like the mogas allowance on the 235 and will probably take advantage of it in order to cost compensate for the added fuel flow. At 600 gallons a year, the hassle to find adequate mogas would be worth the cost difference.

Yeah, Bo's are nice. Too rich for my blood at this point. If I had to wait for it I'd be building instead of flying, and boy I just like that flying thing lol.

I wouldn't call hydraulics the "kiss of death." Piper's retractable gear system is very good. I've had a couple failures of the gear system, one due to a blown hydraulic line and another due to a bad hydraulic pump. Neither caused a real problem in flight, the gear comes down by itself via the hydraulic dump valve, and neither was a budget breaker to repair. I would not apportion a significant expense on an annual basis to be due to the gear.

An Arrow isn't really appreciably faster than a 182 or 235 no, but it is significantly more efficient.

 

[Henning]

Right, rarely does a gear system failure lead to a gear up landing or even any great hassle. Even when it does lead to a belly landing the only time it becomes an event is when someone tries something stupid like stopping the prop and even then not necessarily either. The whole gear fear/cost is vastly overblown and typically done so by people who have no personal ownership experience just spouting old wives tales like Chicken Little. While issues do exist they are not common or frequent and can be avoided completely at low expense in comparison to the fuel savings which increase with speed. Find me a fixed gear airliner.

 

[Ted]

The answer to the assertions about expense and dependability of hydraulic systems vs electro-mechanical systems is "not necessarily."

My expense for the 210's was a couple of power pack rebuilds and ~an ounce of fluid each year over 26 years of ownership. My friend's A-36 had ~equal incidence of gear motor and gear box overhauls that were of similar cost. The gear on the A-36 that I bought after moving to TX (with Keith A/C) was much more costly than either of the 210's.

Beech changed the gear systems in King Airs from elec to hydraulic in 1985. The current system is much more reliable and much less costly to maintain and much more desirable.

Similarly, the landing gear in the Aztec is known for being extremely robust. After all, Tony flew it through a lake at Gaston's three years ago (sorry, Tony, that's not getting lived down), and I haven't had to do any landing gear maintenance as a result 3 years and 900 hours of flight time later. Occasionally the power packs go out.

The Twin Cessna's electric gear, by comparison, is known for having a number of problems and being finicky.

 

[Ted]

As to the question of the OP: get a Comanche 250. Now you have the high performance engine, retract, and 155-165 kts at the fuel burn of the 235. Done.

 

[Henning]

Similarly, the landing gear in the Aztec is known for being extremely robust. After all, Tony flew it through a lake at Gaston's three years ago (sorry, Tony, that's not getting lived down), and I haven't had to do any landing gear maintenance as a result 3 years and 900 hours of flight time later. Occasionally the power packs go out.

The Twin Cessna's electric gear, by comparison, is known for having a number of problems and being finicky.[/QUOTE]

But that for the most part is in the outer mechanical linkages. Condition is very important. The gear is actually more robust than it looks, the problem is the abuse it takes in the typical 310 'drive on' flat landing that I witness a lot. I remember a comment from the back seat once of "So you do a full stall landing in these...". "Unless I'm doing a wheel landing in a tail dragger, every landing is a full stall landing."

I set the trim pretty high to get to nose light early in acceleration so I'm barely pulling it into a positive rate climb. Once the nose comes off I push and point as I flip the gears and get back to the props, about that time I'm accelerating through Vyse and I ease my push and capture blue line as I bring the trim to about 125 and start releasing pressure into the trim and stabilizing on course. Now I pull the Props to 2475 and throttles to 2500 and pull for 15.5 Gph for a moment allowing to stabilize EGT then back throught to 12.7 to make sure everything is functioning properly then I trim down for 145 and slip into cruise climb mode. I'm so glad to be taking her off the market.

 

[Ted]

But that for the most part is in the outer mechanical linkages. Condition is very important. The gear is actually more robust than it looks, the problem is the abuse it takes in the typical 310 'drive on' flat landing that I witness a lot. I remember a comment from the back seat once of "So you do a full stall landing in these...". "Unless I'm doing a wheel landing in a tail dragger, every landing is a full stall landing."

Any system is only as strong as its weakest link. Some of the major structural issues have been addressed in some airplanes (such as the main gear structural improvement or the nose linkage that had a material change). Bell cranks are still breaking, there's a lot of rigging involved that requires frequent attention to be reliable, etc. etc.

Compared to the maintenance that the Aztec's landing gear has gotten which, over 900 hours, has been "none" (I did have a bunch of bushings and hoses replaced right when I bought it) and every other Aztec owner has told me the same thing, I'd say it's pretty fair to say that the 310's gear is weaker.

 

[BillTIZ]

The 235 flies on mogas. I dont believe the 200hp Arrow does.

It also carries 87gal, for most routine flights that allows you to go out+back without filling up. With a $500 investment for a truck bed tank (or two 'fuel-boys'), the fuel/mile cost is going to be similar between the two.

You can't always find Mogas with no ethanol. To me, the Mogas option is no longer a player.