Cherokee vs Arrow II - As a student, why such a difference?

jbrinker

jbrinker

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
307
Location
Auburn, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Jbrinker
Took my lesson in a cherokee 160 last night, same plane I've been learning in this whole time. Working on slow flight, turns, stalls, and landing approach/landings as well as ATC comms and all the other "distracting" stuff related to it.

I have some time a long time ago (~10hr) in a C172, and basically started over training in this cherokee a few weeks ago.

Last night at the end of the lesson, the instructor said my lesson was over when we landed (at an outlying airport) but that he wished to ferry his other plane (Piper Arrow II) back to the home airport, and if I wanted we would do it together.

So I landed the cherokee, and we swapped into the Arrow. He told me to take the left seat, and he would introduce me to this new plane.

Basically he had me do everything, and I flew back to our home airport, nailed the landing, and really enjoyed it.

I found everything about the Arrow to be better, easier, more controllable, firmer, more solid, and basically a lot more like I remember the training in the C172. So far I have found the cherokee "twitchy" and I find myself trying to overfly the plane. Not to excess, but my instructor has told me after every lesson "relax, you must relax more. Let the plane fly". Which I try to do - I'm NOT nervous at all. I'm sure this will come with time, but I was just simply amazed at the difference between these two, closely related and seemingly very similar aircraft.

Instructor even commented that I was very confident, flew it very well, and he had to do nothing except assist with a few things I was not familiar with (newer radios, prop, gear). I even nailed a slightly reversing crosswind approach (winds 10deg from the right above 500', 10deg from the left on final) without him having to really say anything.

What the heck? He said its a much heavier airplane, and that's the main reason. I looked up the specs though, and its not THAT much heavier, bigger, or really that much different other than constant speed prop, bigger engine, and RG. (The planes are similar year also)

I'm hoping that next time I get back in the Cherokee I feel as confident, but not expecting it. That plane just doesn't like me... :)
 
Look at the W&B of each exact plane. Also, Bigger engine and C/S add weight at a different ARM than the gear rigging and therefore the CG is a part of the question.

Finally, the wing of a Cherokee 160 COULD be hershey bar while the Arrow II is likely tapered. Also, some Arrows are T-tailed, not sure about the Arrow II. Point being there could be design differences to consider in the expected handling.

I'm sure the Cherokee 160 will treat you right in the long run, they like to fly and they know how to land!
 
One big difference is the trim. The Arrow has a bigger, heavier motor and heavier prop up front so with no weight in the back, so you are using a lot more nose up trim so it has more pitch stability. Put a couple people in the back and you'll see a big difference.
 
I trained in a Cherokee and now rent an arrow II and found the transition couldn't have been any easier. 'easy' plane to fly. I wouldn't mind owning one.
 
eman1200 said:
I trained in a Cherokee and now rent an arrow II and found the transition couldn't have been any easier. 'easy' plane to fly. I wouldn't mind owning one.
Click to expand...

I thought Eman trained in a laundry basket. A very nice recent model laundry basket.
 
rolivi said:
Finally, the wing of a Cherokee 160 COULD be hershey bar while the Arrow II is likely tapered. Also, some Arrows are T-tailed, not sure about the Arrow II. Point being there could be design differences to consider in the expected handling.
Click to expand...

Cherokee Arrow (1967-71): Short fuselage, 30' span Hershey-bar wing
Cherokee Arrow II (1972-76): Long fuselage, 32' span Hershey-bar wing
Cherokee Arrow III (1977-78): Long fuselage, 35' span tapered wing
Arrow IV (1979-89): Long fuselage, 35' span tapered wing, T-tail
 
Pilawt said:
Cherokee Arrow (1967-71): Short fuselage, 30' span Hershey-bar wing
Cherokee Arrow II (1972-76): Long fuselage, 32' span Hershey-bar wing
Cherokee Arrow III (1977-78): Long fuselage, 35' span tapered wing
Arrow IV (1979-89): Long fuselage, 35' span tapered wing, T-tail
Click to expand...

Now we need the -160 wing lengths and fuselages and the differences will be even clearer.
 
Bigger planes often feel easier to fly IMO, setting a C208B up for straight and level with my heading and altitude locked in and going hands off (no AP) is easier for me, compared to doing the same in a C172.
 
I enjoyed my arrow to the fullest,got my ppl in a Cherokee 160,the arrow being heavier is more stable. I also like the 172. Heck I like anything I'm flying.
 
jbrinker said:
.....we landed (at an outlying airport) but that he wished to ferry his other plane (Piper Arrow II) back to the home airport, and if I wanted we would do it together.

So I landed the cherokee, and we swapped into the Arrow. He told me to take the left seat, and he would introduce me to this new plane.

Basically he had me do everything, and I flew back to our home airport, nailed the landing, and really enjoyed it......
Click to expand...

What happened to the 160 you left at the outlying airport?
 
The 160 got put in the hanger the Arrow was in (he owns both planes). I guess he needed the Arrow for a trip the next day (today) and it would save him the drive to the outlying airport to just bring it back to our base.

The Arrow is a 1978, so I guess that makes it an arrow III, not a II, and the cherokee is a 1973 (upgraded PA-28-140 to 160HP). The Arrow did not have a T tail.

So, perhaps it's the wing difference, CG differences, etc. Man, it just felt like going from a 1975 VW beetle to a 2010 Cadillac in the way the two handle. Had me looking online for what the non RG version of the Arrow is...
 
I think the 235 or Dakota would be closer to the Arrow in performance then an archer would be.
 
The Warrior II, Archer II and Arrow II are pretty much the same airplane with feature differences. I'm sure someone will come tell us all why I'm not precise enough in describing this, but at a high level, the Archer has a more powerful engine and the Arrow adds an even bigger engine, retractable gear and variable pitch prop. But the airframe is essentially (almost exactly?) the same.
 
A friend of mine had a 1976 Arrow II for over ten years (he upgraded to a V35B ) so I got to fly it a lot. It was more stable than my Cherokee 140B, and I did enjoy flying it more, but yes it had the Hershey bar wing. It was a nice plane, but my Tiger was just as fast. :)
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
The Warrior II, Archer II and Arrow II are pretty much the same airplane with feature differences. I'm sure someone will come tell us all why I'm not precise enough in describing this, but at a high level, the Archer has a more powerful engine and the Arrow adds an even bigger engine, retractable gear and variable pitch prop. But the airframe is essentially (almost exactly?) the same.
Click to expand...

Except the Warrior II and Archer II have a tapered wing, which handles differently than the Hershey Bar wing on the Arrow II. The Hershey Bar wing rolls easier, and has less of a float tendency than the tapered wing.
 
jbrinker said:
The 160 got put in the hanger the Arrow was in (he owns both planes). I guess he needed the Arrow for a trip the next day (today) and it would save him the drive to the outlying airport to just bring it back to our base.

The Arrow is a 1978, so I guess that makes it an arrow III, not a II, and the cherokee is a 1973 (upgraded PA-28-140 to 160HP). The Arrow did not have a T tail.

So, perhaps it's the wing difference, CG differences, etc. Man, it just felt like going from a 1975 VW beetle to a 2010 Cadillac in the way the two handle. Had me looking online for what the non RG version of the Arrow is...
Click to expand...

Some of what you experienced may be due to it just being a heavier more stable airplane. The jump from C150's to 172's to 182's gives the same impressions. My guess is you tend to over correct the lighter airplane. The "heavier" control forces needed in some larger airplanes prevents you from doing this sometimes. It's probably why he's telling you to "relax." Try talking with him and see what he thinks about doing some flying around with just your thumb and index finger pinching the yoke instead of getting a full hand grip on it.
 
I dunno; I've a fair amount of time in Warriors and Archers. Can a 160 really be that much harder to fly than a 161? I wonder if there was something wrong with it. This is the first I've heard of a favorable comparison between 172s and PA28s in terms of flyability, and I've yet to experience a "twitchy" PA28.

I'll probably try out an Arrow when I'm done with my instrument rating, as the club has three of them.
 
Mike, I like that idea. Next lesson I think I will discuss this, and I'm sure he will want me to try it. That is his #1 'complaint' about me so far, i.e. most feedback is that I'm trying too hard to control.

But, it's hard when - say we are doing slow flight - and we are at 60mph and 2000 rpm. He will constantly be telling me 'keep the wings level' - well, the only reason they are not is because we just hit a denser patch of air or something, and Im actually trying to get them level again! I did tell him this last time, and he make me trim the plane and take my hands off the yoke.

I guess I need to develop the lighter touch. It's just hard (maybe harder than it would be as a total newbie) because all the other time I have was in a 172 or a 185. They just fly/feel totally differently.

I only have 5 hrs in this cherokee so far, so I'm sure it will come. I asked him next time if we could just do more of the slow flight, steep turns, stalls and then do some pattern work. I want to feel more connected to the plane before we move on from there. Or maybe he wants to rent me the Arrow.... :)

Funny thing is, my ultimate goal is to buy my grandfather's Acro Sport II biplane. I KNOW I need the light touch for that one. (and a lot more, like tailwheel and stick time).

When we debriefed after the last flight, I told him I feel like I'm learning Golf. He completely identified with this (and I'm no golfer, but I have tried to learn, and there is a time when the 'doing it by the instructions' just clicks and muscle memory works instead). I just need practice.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
The Warrior II, Archer II and Arrow II are pretty much the same airplane with feature differences. I'm sure someone will come tell us all why I'm not precise enough in describing this, but at a high level, the Archer has a more powerful engine and the Arrow adds an even bigger engine, retractable gear and variable pitch prop. But the airframe is essentially (almost exactly?) the same.
Click to expand...

Basically that's right as I understand it. The difference between an Archer II and an Arrow II is mostly retractable gear and the constant speed prop on the Arrow. The Archer II has a lycoming O-360 rated at 180HP, the Arrow II has an IO-360 rated at 200HP. The engine difference is the more powerful Arrow has fuel injection and the constant speed prop allows for a little more RPM as I understand it but the engines have same actual displacement.

I fly an Archer II... haven't really flown the others just done my homework. I can't speak to the other airframes but I wouldn't call the Archer I fly twitchy by any means, I think it's easier to fly than the 172 I started on.
 
cowman said:
Basically that's right as I understand it. The difference between an Archer II and an Arrow II is mostly retractable gear and the constant speed prop on the Arrow. The Archer II has a lycoming O-360 rated at 180HP, the Arrow II has an IO-360 rated at 200HP. The engine difference is the more powerful Arrow has fuel injection and the constant speed prop allows for a little more RPM as I understand it but the engines have same actual displacement.

I fly an Archer II... haven't really flown the others just done my homework. I can't speak to the other airframes but I wouldn't call the Archer I fly twitchy by any means, I think it's easier to fly than the 172 I started on.
Click to expand...

I've flown a Warrior and agree they're much easier than a 172. Perhaps it's that they are different and you fly best what you're used to.
 
I recently started flying an Arrow to do my commercial stuff, and agree with your impression. The Arrow seems to just go where you point it, whereas the 172 and to a lesser degree the Archer I often fly feel like they are subject to the whims of the air like a butterfly. I flew my first approach in the Arrow (LPV) the other night and it was super easy to keep it on the glideslope.
 
bflynn said:
The Warrior II, Archer II and Arrow II are pretty much the same airplane with feature differences. I'm sure someone will come tell us all why I'm not precise enough in describing this, but at a high level, the Archer has a more powerful engine and the Arrow adds an even bigger engine, retractable gear and variable pitch prop. But the airframe is essentially (almost exactly?) the same.
Click to expand...

The Warrior II/Archer II are similar. The Arrow II is totally different, including a different wing. Not that this helps OP as none of these three are the aircraft that he flew.
 
Uh, pull the power in an Arrow and it will drop like a rock. Not so with its Cherokee brothers.
 
cowman said:
The difference between an Archer II and an Arrow II is mostly retractable gear and the constant speed prop on the Arrow.
Click to expand...
The wings are significantly different.

Archer II:

pa-28-181_1976_1203.jpg


Arrow II:

pa-28r-200_1973.jpg


Arrow III and IV have tapered wings externally and aerodynamically similar to the Archer II (but different structure and fuel tankage).

Datadriver said:
Uh, pull the power in an Arrow and it will drop like a rock. Not so with its Cherokee brothers.
Click to expand...

Comparing apples and apples; i.e., Arrow vs. a fixed-gear PA-28 with similar wings and at like speeds and weights, the Arrow does tend to descend a bit more steeply with gear down. That's because an Arrow with the gear down has more drag (open wheel wells, etc.) than does a fixed-gear PA-28.
 
rolivi said:
My understanding is that Chop and Drop works on all low wing designs. YMMV.
Click to expand...

No, it's more a function of wing loading. DA40's like to float more than Cessnas, and they are low wing.
 
jbrinker said:
The Arrow is a 1978, so I guess that makes it an arrow III, not a II, and the cherokee is a 1973 (upgraded PA-28-140 to 160HP). The Arrow did not have a T tail.

So, perhaps it's the wing difference, CG differences, etc. Man, it just felt like going from a 1975 VW beetle to a 2010 Cadillac in the way the two handle. Had me looking online for what the non RG version of the Arrow is...
Click to expand...
'73 PA-28-140:

pa-28-140_1973.jpg


'78 PA-28R-201 Arrow III:

pa-28r-201_1978.jpg


It's rare to hear a Cherokee 140 described as "twitchy", but compared to an Arrow III it will definitely feel lighter. The Arrow III's empty weight is about 400 pounds heavier, and that will make a big difference. The Arrow III's five-foot-longer wingspan, and longer arm between the CG and the tail surfaces, will also make it more stable in all three axes.
 
Yeah, I guess "twitchy" was the wrong word. Lighter, more affected by wind, updrafts, etc. Not really twitchy, which would imply negative control stability. I guess, in one word, the Arrow feels much more "solid". "Glued to the road" so to speak. And now, after reading all of this and looking more closely, it makes much more sense. It IS quite a bit heavier, it has tapered wings, probably a different airfoil (?), and a different CG. I just was taken aback, because at first glance, they really look very similar.
 
I find the Arrow to be more enjoyable in every aspect than the Archer that I'll occasionally swap between. They both have "Hershey bar" wings.

I don't really lose sleep over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top