Cross Country Aircraft WANTED

[HammerHead]

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. The Flying Club of Kansas City is currently in search of a 4 place aircraft. We were looking at the cherokee 180 class and decided we wanted to step up a notch. We have been exploring Arrows and such 200+ hp planes. This needs to be nice, dual nav/coms, dual vor, autopilot, 8+ interior, 8+ exterior. Really interested in a retractable with an adjustable pitch prop for some complex time building. We are qualified, cash in hand & serious buyers. If you have knowledge of a plane fitting inside of the aforementioned parameters, please post here, e-mail Bob@winneyteam.com , or call Bob @ 913-706-2101.

Not too much time to waste as we are looking for a fair deal in this down market and will move forward on the purchase of an airplane within the next 30 days.

 

[LearDriver]

Check out a Dakota. You will save money on the gear inspections and maintenance. Its a true 4 place airplane. Full fuel and all four seats filled. 130 knot airplane.

 

[TMetzinger]

Insurance will be cheaper too. Unless you NEED a retractable (and the only reason to NEED retractable gear in the sub 150 knots category nowadays is to do commercial training), it's hard to justify the extra expenses.

 

[jason]

Nothing like a good 'ol Cessna 182.

 

[LearDriver]

Nothing like a good 'ol Cessna 182.

Until a renter prangs the nose gear and you get to repair the lower firewall over and over.

 

[dmccormack]

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. The Flying Club of Kansas City is currently in search of a 4 place aircraft. We were looking at the cherokee 180 class and decided we wanted to step up a notch. We have been exploring Arrows and such 200+ hp planes. This needs to be nice, dual nav/coms, dual vor, autopilot, 8+ interior, 8+ exterior. Really interested in a retractable with an adjustable pitch prop for some complex time building. We are qualified, cash in hand & serious buyers. If you have knowledge of a plane fitting inside of the aforementioned parameters, please post here, e-mail Bob@winneyteam.com , or call Bob @ 913-706-2101.

Not too much time to waste as we are looking for a fair deal in this down market and will move forward on the purchase of an airplane within the next 30 days.

Nothing beats a Bonanza for the mission you describe.

But they ain't cheap.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. The Flying Club of Kansas City is currently in search of a 4 place aircraft. We were looking at the cherokee 180 class and decided we wanted to step up a notch. We have been exploring Arrows and such 200+ hp planes. This needs to be nice, dual nav/coms, dual vor, autopilot, 8+ interior, 8+ exterior. Really interested in a retractable with an adjustable pitch prop for some complex time building. We are qualified, cash in hand & serious buyers. If you have knowledge of a plane fitting inside of the aforementioned parameters, please post here, e-mail Bob@winneyteam.com , or call Bob @ 913-706-2101.

Not too much time to waste as we are looking for a fair deal in this down market and will move forward on the purchase of an airplane within the next 30 days.

I would suggest that you not be in such a hurry - This down market is going to be with us for a while. The more time you spend, the better deal you'll get. I've been watching the for-sale listings of a particular type and planes are just not selling. There are planes listed for less than half of what they'd have cost a year and a half ago that aren't selling. Those who want to sell now will reduce their prices more, so finding the airplane you want and then waiting for it to go down a bit could be very beneficial.

The other thing is, you need to decide what you want. I mean, a particular type, not just "a cross-country airplane." How fast do you want to go, how much money do you want to spend for both purchase and operating costs, do you really want a retract, and most importantly can you get insurance? I am the treasurer of a flying club and we've been looking into new-to-us airplanes for quite a while now. Some people were adamant that they wanted a Cirrus, and there was much arguing over Cirrus vs. something else. A call to the insurance company quickly ruled out that and quite a few others: No Cirri, no Mooneys, no Lance/Saratoga, etc. I didn't ask about Bonanzas because IMHO they are way overpriced on the used market.

All of that said - We currently have a 182, which is an excellent cross country machine. VERY comfortable, wide cabin with upright seating position. I've flown this plane on legs up to 5.3 hours and I've flown it up to 9 hours in a day. I've flown from Houston, TX and Denver, CO to Madison, WI in a day. We have an S-TEC 2-axis autopilot and a Garmin 430W in it, which makes an excellent combination for traveling as well. Plus, our 182 will haul 747 pounds in the cabin with full 6-hour fuel, or 903 pounds and 4 hours of fuel. If you really want the retract, a 182RG is certainly something you should consider.

But, bottom line, if you're in a rush to get a good deal, you're not gonna get a good deal.

Good luck!

 

[brcase]

I would second the Cherokee 235 or C-182 may be your best option. As for the C-182 nose wheel issue mentioned by another poster My opinion is just make sure pilots are not pushing the forward CG limits. Some Semi permanent weight (survival kit) in the baggage area can help with this. Perhaps others can offer more info on this.

I am not impressed with the Arrow as a cross country plane, it is a great trainer but generally not much better than a Cherokee 180 for cross country and has less payload. The 182RG is better performance wise but generally have limited payload compared to a 182.

Of course Mooneys and Bonanzas are in a another class. Insurance and additional maintenance costs are a factor to be seriously considered for retractable gear aircraft.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Everskyward]

If you're interested in a Cherokee 235, here's one. It belongs to a friend of mine and I think it's still on the market.

 

[Pilawt]

An Arrow can be a decent step-up airplane for a club. Not exciting, but economical and docile as retractables go. One disadvantage to the Arrow for training is that while it is a "complex" airplane, at 180 or 200 hp it does not qualify as "high-performance". (Don't be fooled by the "PA-28R-201" model number of later Arrows -- they're still 200 hp, even the Turbo Arrows.)

 

[murphey]

If you're interested in a Cherokee 235, here's one. It belongs to a friend of mine and I think it's still on the market.

Odd -- looking up the N number, N991CD is registered to a Kitfox in Michigan. But N991CB is registered in Colorado. Controller.com typo....

 

[flyingcheesehead]

An Arrow can be a decent step-up airplane for a club. Not exciting, but economical and docile as retractables go. One disadvantage to the Arrow for training is that while it is a "complex" airplane, at 180 or 200 hp it does not qualify as "high-performance". (Don't be fooled by the "PA-28R-201" model number of later Arrows -- they're still 200 hp, even the Turbo Arrows.)

Does the Turbo Arrow have a higher HP rating at a higher altitude? I ask because a Seneca II has engines that are rated at 200hp at ground level but it qualifies as high performance because you can get something like 215hp aloft thanks to the turbos.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Brian,

I think there may be a few common myths that you're propagating here:

As for the C-182 nose wheel issue mentioned by another poster My opinion is just make sure pilots are not pushing the forward CG limits. Some Semi permanent weight (survival kit) in the baggage area can help with this. Perhaps others can offer more info on this.

I was given the *same* warning about not letting the nosewheel drop too hard when I was checked out in a Piper Dakota.

In addition, you'd have a VERY hard time pushing the forward CG limits. I ran a weight and balance once with just me and a friend in the front seats, and we were within limits - I'm 300lb, he's 350!

Like any high performance aircraft (= bigger, heavier engine), you need to land mains first and hold the nosewheel off - This is NOT a good plane to do the student pilot trick of stopping flying as soon as the mains touch - Otherwise, you may damage nose gear, firewalls, engine mounts, etc. or porpoise. If you do porpoise, GO AROUND. You may be able to get it down after the first bounce if you goose it with a bit of power, but if you don't, *guaranteed* prop strike on the next hit. Our club and another club on the field have both had this happen, and I've heard many other stories as well.

This is not the fault of the plane, it's the fault of the pilot and happens to more than just 182's.

The 182RG is better performance wise but generally have limited payload compared to a 182.

The 182RG that I did my commercial in had a payload that was almost identical (as in, within 3-4 pounds) to the straight-leg 182 that I normally fly. It was 150 pounds heavier on empty weight, and 150 pounds heavier on gross as well, so the useful load was practically the same. I think it had one more gallon of useable fuel.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Brian,

I think there may be a few common myths that you're propagating here:



I was given the *same* warning about not letting the nosewheel drop too hard when I was checked out in a Piper Dakota.

In addition, you'd have a VERY hard time pushing the forward CG limits. I ran a weight and balance once with just me and a friend in the front seats, and we were within limits - I'm 300lb, he's 350!

Like any high performance aircraft (= bigger, heavier engine), you need to land mains first and hold the nosewheel off - This is NOT a good plane to do the student pilot trick of stopping flying as soon as the mains touch - Otherwise, you may damage nose gear, firewalls, engine mounts, etc. or porpoise. If you do porpoise, GO AROUND. You may be able to get it down after the first bounce if you goose it with a bit of power, but if you don't, *guaranteed* prop strike on the next hit. Our club and another club on the field have both had this happen, and I've heard many other stories as well.

This is not the fault of the plane, it's the fault of the pilot and happens to more than just 182's.



The 182RG that I did my commercial in had a payload that was almost identical (as in, within 3-4 pounds) to the straight-leg 182 that I normally fly. It was 150 pounds heavier on empty weight, and 150 pounds heavier on gross as well, so the useful load was practically the same. I think it had one more gallon of useable fuel.

My .02 after a couple hundred hours in a 182 straight leg:

Lotsa nose up trim! That nose gets awful heavy trying to hold it off by hand.

 

[Pilawt]

Does the Turbo Arrow have a higher HP rating at a higher altitude? I ask because a Seneca II has engines that are rated at 200hp at ground level but it qualifies as high performance because you can get something like 215hp aloft thanks to the turbos.

The TSIO-360-FB of the PA-28RT-201T Turbo Arrow IV is limited to 200 hp at 2575 rpm, per the Limitations section of the POH. The PA-34-220T Seneca III's TSIO-360-KB's allow 220 hp at 2800 rpm max 5 minutes for takeoff, then 200 hp at 2600 rpm max continuous.

 

[brcase]

An Arrow can be a decent step-up airplane for a club. Not exciting, but economical and docile as retractables go. One disadvantage to the Arrow for training is that while it is a "complex" airplane, at 180 or 200 hp it does not qualify as "high-performance". (Don't be fooled by the "PA-28R-201" model number of later Arrows -- they're still 200 hp, even the Turbo Arrows.)

This can be an interesting discussion as even My local FSDO/examiners didn't really know the anwser. True the 200HP Arrows are listed as a 200HP airplane, however as I recall the performance charts for the engine show the engine capable of producing more than 200HP. And as you say, the -201 designation can be even more confusing but you are right that the "1" only specifies the wing configuration. Why is this an issue?

If I train someone for their commercial certificate in a 200 HP Arrow and Examiner interprets the Arrow to not be a High Performance aircraft then I can not sign the pilot off for his High Performance endorsement with this aircraft. However if the examiner determines that the Arrow does qualify for as a High Performance aircraft then I must sign the pilot off so he can complete his checkride in the aircraft.

As I recall they finally decided (correctly IMO) that the Arrow did not qualify for a High performance aircraft. But this is a good point for instructors to clarify with their examiners before sending students for checkrides.

Brian

 

[Pilawt]

True the 200HP Arrows are listed as a 200HP airplane, however as I recall the performance charts for the engine show the engine capable of producing more than 200HP.

Just about any recip is capable of producing more than its rated power, but it may not be certified to do so, nor is it conducive to long engine life. The trump card is the number in the TCDS and Limitations section of the POH.

 

[CJones]

I like the 182RG. Big, comfortable, roomy backseat, load hauler, 150kt cruise, 13-15gph, stable IFR, handles bumpy air like a 'big' plane.

I'm 6'7" tall, so the sub-Cherokee Six cabins just don't fit me well.

Usually lots of them available in varying price ranges.

 

[brcase]

I am not convinced it is a myth, my observation is the damage is usually done on the 1st contact and by the time it bounces the damage has been done. Other than Bouncing you say little about what causes the hard landing on the nose wheel to begin with. I agree landing on the mains is strongly recommended in these aircraft, but can be difficult to do in some situations. I have observed that the two C-182's I have flown that have had the nose wheel/firewall damaged were both quite nose heavy and difficult to land power off in a nose high attitude with full flaps with two people on board. They were likely within the CG Range just not easy to land on the mains 1st in this configuration.

Just to check my self I called a fellow flight instructor and asked for his opinion. He said that from what he had seem most nose wheel damage was caused by leveling off or ballooning to about 3-4 feet off the runway with full flaps and power off and running out of elevator. The nose then pitches down landing in a hard 3 point or nose low position. He thought most of the damage was done on the 1st hit. Every one he has seen has been loaded toward the forward CG. Certianly landing flat or nose low causing PIO's can certianly damage the nose wheel I just haven't seen this to be the common scenerio when this happens.

So it appears to me the easy fixes are either land with some power, or land with partial flap, or move the CG aft some. All of these allow the airplane land on the mains 1st easier. Just avoid the foward CG, Full Flap, Power Off landings and generally nosewheel/firewall damage can be avoided. The PIO situation you suggest seems to me to be less common. Even if it is a myth, the procedures for avoiding it certianly are not dangerous. I am always looking for more data to either support or debunk my position.


As for the 182RG's payload I was basing my statement on a freinds experience where he was looking to upgrade from his 182 to a T182RG. He finally decided that the hit in payload was to great and eventually upgraded to a 206. Perhaps the payload difference is less between the 182 and 182RG than it is with the T182RG. It probably varies from airplane to airplane as well.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Brian,

I think there may be a few common myths that you're propagating here:



I was given the *same* warning about not letting the nosewheel drop too hard when I was checked out in a Piper Dakota.

In addition, you'd have a VERY hard time pushing the forward CG limits. I ran a weight and balance once with just me and a friend in the front seats, and we were within limits - I'm 300lb, he's 350!

Like any high performance aircraft (= bigger, heavier engine), you need to land mains first and hold the nosewheel off - This is NOT a good plane to do the student pilot trick of stopping flying as soon as the mains touch - Otherwise, you may damage nose gear, firewalls, engine mounts, etc. or porpoise. If you do porpoise, GO AROUND. You may be able to get it down after the first bounce if you goose it with a bit of power, but if you don't, *guaranteed* prop strike on the next hit. Our club and another club on the field have both had this happen, and I've heard many other stories as well.

This is not the fault of the plane, it's the fault of the pilot and happens to more than just 182's.



The 182RG that I did my commercial in had a payload that was almost identical (as in, within 3-4 pounds) to the straight-leg 182 that I normally fly. It was 150 pounds heavier on empty weight, and 150 pounds heavier on gross as well, so the useful load was practically the same. I think it had one more gallon of useable fuel.

 

[Tom-D]

I like the 182RG. Big, comfortable, roomy backseat, load hauler, 150kt cruise, 13-15gph, stable IFR, handles bumpy air like a 'big' plane.

I'm 6'7" tall, so the sub-Cherokee Six cabins just don't fit me well.

Usually lots of them available in varying price ranges.

You could get a better equipped 210 at a much lower price, that will have a better usefull load and cruise at 165 @ about 12 GPH. 182RG/210 are about the same maintinence over the life of the aircraft.

http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=18119508xxxxxregionid=-1

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am not convinced it is a myth, my observation is the damage is usually done on the 1st contact and by the time it bounces the damage has been done. Other than Bouncing you say little about what causes the hard landing on the nose wheel to begin with. I agree landing on the mains is strongly recommended in these aircraft, but can be difficult to do in some situations. I have observed that the two C-182's I have flown that have had the nose wheel/firewall damaged were both quite nose heavy and difficult to land power off in a nose high attitude with full flaps with two people on board. They were likely within the CG Range just not easy to land on the mains 1st in this configuration.

I didn't say it was easy! In fact, it took me 2 years and about 125 hours in the plane before I could get pretty consistent greasers. FWIW, I do not do the "2 turns of nose-up trim in the flare" that some people recommend, as you'd have to do about 5 turns nose-down on a go-around!

Just to check my self I called a fellow flight instructor and asked for his opinion. He said that from what he had seem most nose wheel damage was caused by leveling off or ballooning to about 3-4 feet off the runway with full flaps and power off and running out of elevator. The nose then pitches down landing in a hard 3 point or nose low position. He thought most of the damage was done on the 1st hit. Every one he has seen has been loaded toward the forward CG. Certianly landing flat or nose low causing PIO's can certianly damage the nose wheel I just haven't seen this to be the common scenerio when this happens.

What speed are you using on final? Is this a 30-flaps or 40-flaps model?

I use 80mph (~69 knots) on final and keep that speed until the beginning of the flare, and I'm using full 40-degree flaps. I have *never* even come close to "running out of elevator." The speed bleeds off quite quickly on the Cessna Drag-O-Matic but as long as you let the plane settle and don't stall it 4 feet off the runway you shouldn't have an issue.

Sounds like more of a training issue, maybe - And for once I'm glad I have a CFI that can actually make a high-performance endorsement and/or an airplane checkout take 3 lessons instead of one.

So it appears to me the easy fixes are either land with some power, or land with partial flap, or move the CG aft some. All of these allow the airplane land on the mains 1st easier.

Cheater.

As for the 182RG's payload I was basing my statement on a freinds experience where he was looking to upgrade from his 182 to a T182RG. He finally decided that the hit in payload was to great and eventually upgraded to a 206. Perhaps the payload difference is less between the 182 and 182RG than it is with the T182RG.

After I read the first line, the last line was my exact thought. I've never flown the T182RG, just the normally aspirated one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The TSIO-360-FB of the PA-28RT-201T Turbo Arrow IV is limited to 200 hp at 2575 rpm, per the Limitations section of the POH. The PA-34-220T Seneca III's TSIO-360-KB's allow 220 hp at 2800 rpm max 5 minutes for takeoff, then 200 hp at 2600 rpm max continuous.

Right - I was talking about the Seneca II (two), PA34-200T not the Seneca III (three), PA34-220T.

The PA34-200T entry in the TCDS shows:

Engine Limits. For all operations, 2575 RPM and 40" Hg Manifold pressure, 200hp @ S.L. and 215 hp @ 12,000 ft.

So, I go to the PA28 TCDS to answer my question (I had forgotten that the Seneca TDCS actually showed the increased horsepower at altitude or I'd have just looked there first!)

PA28R-201T Turbo Arrow III: Engine Limits For all operations, 2575 RPM at 41" Hg manifold pressure (200hp)
PA28RT-201T Turbo Arrow IV: Engine Limits For all operations, 2575 RPM at 41" Hg manifold pressure (200hp)

The limits are actually the same for the Turbo Dakota - It's not a regular Dakota (235hp) with a turbo added, it's a completely different engine and is basically like a fixed-gear Turbo Arrow. I always thought that was weird - They should have called it a Turbo Archer or something.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You could get a better equipped 210 at a much lower price, that will have a better usefull load and cruise at 165 @ about 12 GPH. 182RG/210 are about the same maintinence over the life of the aircraft.

Tom,

Insurance may be an issue on the 210. I know that when I've checked into insurance for our club, they'll let us have a 4-seat retract or a 6-seat fixed gear airplane, but they will not allow us to have a 6-seat retract at any price. No 210, no Lance.

Even if they did allow it, the insurance premiums on a 6-seat retract would probably be significantly higher, so if you don't need the extra seats or speed, skip them.

 

[dmccormack]

My .02 after a couple hundred hours in a 182 straight leg:

Lotsa nose up trim! That nose gets awful heavy trying to hold it off by hand.

182 is similar to C205 I've flown quite a bit -- Now I just give it full up trim abeam the numbers and forget about trim -- no sense fiddling with it any more than you have to.

If you can't hold the nose down on a go-around with full up trim, you have two options:

1) Don't fly that airplane
or
2) Exercise

 

[flyingcheesehead]

182 is similar to C205 I've flown quite a bit -- Now I just give it full up trim abeam the numbers and forget about trim -- no sense fiddling with it any more than you have to.

FULL up trim? That's WAY farther back than it is trimmed for at final approach speed, at least on the 182.

If you can't hold the nose down on a go-around with full up trim, you have two options:

1) Don't fly that airplane
or
2) Exercise

I'm not so much worried about my ability to push as I am about the crappy AD-a-week Cessna seat rails giving way!

 

[CJones]

You could get a better equipped 210 at a much lower price, that will have a better usefull load and cruise at 165 @ about 12 GPH. 182RG/210 are about the same maintinence over the life of the aircraft.

http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=18119508xxxxxregionid=-1

Tom,

Insurance may be an issue on the 210. I know that when I've checked into insurance for our club, they'll let us have a 4-seat retract or a 6-seat fixed gear airplane, but they will not allow us to have a 6-seat retract at any price. No 210, no Lance.

Even if they did allow it, the insurance premiums on a 6-seat retract would probably be significantly higher, so if you don't need the extra seats or speed, skip them.

Same thing happened in the club I used to be in. The insurance blatantly said "NO" to renewing the insurance on the 210 that they had been flying for years. It wasn't a matter of "Your rates will be going up" it was more like "No way, no how." Unfortunately, they got rid of the 210 before I had enough club hours to fly it. I did make one back-seat trip to OSH in it, though. Holy buckets! We took the middle two seats out and loaded that area up with stocked coolers and camping gear for 4 people. My dad and I sat on the back 'bench' seat and propped our legs on the 'stuff' in the middle. That thing climbed like we were empty! It was the ?310hp? model, though. So for a club, I think the 210 would be hard to handle.

You are right, though, you *can* get a heckuva lot of plane for not a lot of money with the 210's. I wonder how much of the 210's current market price is tied to the "No way, no how" mentality of insurance companies?

 

[Tom-D]

Tom,

Insurance may be an issue on the 210. I know that when I've checked into insurance for our club, they'll let us have a 4-seat retract or a 6-seat fixed gear airplane, but they will not allow us to have a 6-seat retract at any price. No 210, no Lance.

Even if they did allow it, the insurance premiums on a 6-seat retract would probably be significantly higher, so if you don't need the extra seats or speed, skip them.

My insurance company will insure as many seats as you want. Just insure 4, and remove the back 2.

 

[Tom-D]

182 is similar to C205 I've flown quite a bit -- Now I just give it full up trim abeam the numbers and forget about trim -- no sense fiddling with it any more than you have to.

If you can't hold the nose down on a go-around with full up trim, you have two options:

1) Don't fly that airplane
or
2) Exercise

I hope you have a "Safety Stop" installed, because your routine has killed a few folks.

I know a few large pilots that have had to go arround with a high horse power Cessna and it required both arms to push the yoke forward, and they were lucky to have some one with them that could operate the trim for them.

really dumb idea. IMHO

 

[TMetzinger]

Electric trim is a very good thing on a 182, you can roll in the nose up in the flare, and roll the nose down on the go-around.

With just one or two people up front, the 182 can be nose-heavy with the CG at the front of the envelope. Putting your un-needed flight gear in the baggage helps a lot.

 

[Tom-D]

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. The Flying Club of Kansas City is currently in search of a 4 place aircraft.

snip

Not too much time to waste as we are looking for a fair deal in this down market and will move forward on the purchase of an airplane within the next 30 days.

Do you required this aircraft to be a production aircraft, or can it be a EXP?

you will look long and hard to beat this as a cross country aircraft for 4, fuel and bags

http://www.hitecindustries.com/defiant/defiant.htm

 

[flyingcheesehead]

With just one or two people up front, the 182 can be nose-heavy with the CG at the front of the envelope.

Again, at least on ours, it takes 650 pounds of meat in the front seats with nothing else in the airplane to put it on the front edge of the envelope. Yes, it's nose-heavy that way - But with one person up front, no way. Two normal-sized people, uh-uh.

 

[dmccormack]

I hope you have a "Safety Stop" installed, because your routine has killed a few folks.

I know a few large pilots that have had to go arround with a high horse power Cessna and it required both arms to push the yoke forward, and they were lucky to have some one with them that could operate the trim for them.

really dumb idea. IMHO

Not even close.

Check the certification requirements and then make your point again.

 

[dmccormack]

FULL up trim? That's WAY farther back than it is trimmed for at final approach speed, at least on the 182.

Yep -- full up (nose up) trim. Reduce power to 16", prop full forward, 20 degrees of flaps -- 500' FPM descent at 90 MPH with very little yoke pressure required.

On final add final flaps (40 in the 205), reduce power 1", final at 78-80 MPH, land and be off the runway by the first taxiway.

Go Around?

Full power, flaps to 20, positive rate? Climb at 80, adjust trim. Still climbing? Up flaps (no detent on this model).

If you can't hold the nose down with full power and full nose up trim -- you have no business in the front seat.

I'm not so much worried about my ability to push as I am about the crappy AD-a-week Cessna seat rails giving way!

Don't you have the little metal stoppers installed?

 

[gismo]

An Arrow can be a decent step-up airplane for a club. Not exciting, but economical and docile as retractables go. One disadvantage to the Arrow for training is that while it is a "complex" airplane, at 180 or 200 hp it does not qualify as "high-performance". (Don't be fooled by the "PA-28R-201" model number of later Arrows -- they're still 200 hp, even the Turbo Arrows.)

IMO, an Arrow is a good complex trainer but not such a great traveling machine. It's pretty slow for a retractable and doesn't have much of a payload+range capability either. A fixed gear C-182 is as fast with a little higher fuel consumption, a lot more room and much greater payload.

If you can afford it, a Bonanza or M20J (Mooney 201) offer much more.

 

[Areeda]

Our club has an Arrow IV with the T-tail, and a 182RG. I agree with most of the comments about the Arrow being a good complex trainer and an OK cross country airplane.

I also agree that if you have the money ready to go take your time and look around for a great deal. In this market you shouldn't have to settle for a good deal.

My recommendation is to not choose the T-tail. It's not that bad but I like the straight tail better.

Joe

ps. Welcome to PoA and don't be put off. There's an unwritten rule in most aviation boards that if someone is looking for a particular make and model that everybody else must try to convince them to buy something else that is better, cheaper, faster or sexier.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yep -- full up (nose up) trim. Reduce power to 16", prop full forward, 20 degrees of flaps -- 500' FPM descent at 90 MPH with very little yoke pressure required.

Maybe true for the 205, but in the 182 that would probably result in a climb, at least until it stalled! I'd have to try it. I know that at 16" and zero flaps I'll be doing about 115mph and level. Add flaps and trim back, I'd be going up.

I'll have to try this next time I fly - I don't think full nose-up trim in the 182 is ever a good idea. I will report back.

On final add final flaps (40 in the 205), reduce power 1", final at 78-80 MPH, land and be off the runway by the first taxiway.

I also fly final at 80mph and 40 degrees of flaps, but it only takes about 12" of manifold pressure - I actually cruise at 2200 RPM and keep the prop there, then I pull to 12" or just a hair less and that gets me out of the governing range so I'm at flat pitch and 2000 RPM. That's when I put the blue knob forward.

If you can't hold the nose down with full power and full nose up trim -- you have no business in the front seat.

It's not a matter of "can" it's a matter of "I'd rather be trimmed properly already so that I can take care of other things without worrying about a stall." I trim for 80mph - actually, it's about the same trim setting for 80 at full flaps as it is at 100 for no flaps. If I need to go around, all I have to do is push the knobs forward and pull the flaps up a notch to 20 degrees and the plane will pretty much hit Vy on its own.

Don't you have the little metal stoppers installed?

Yes. We have the new seat rails, the lawyer locks, AND the ghetto-ass (sorry, there's no other way to describe it) inertia reel mod (it's like a seat belt with an inertia reel that's attached below the pilot's seat, and the other end of the belt is bolted to the floor between your feet). That doesn't mean I trust any of 'em.

Just because the 205 looks like the 182, don't be fooled that it flies the same. That's what I thought before I got checked out in the 182: "Oh, it'll just be like a big 172." I couldn't have been more wrong. They don't fly anything like each other. The 205 was an early fixed-gear 210, so I would imagine that those two fly much more alike.

 

[dmccormack]

Maybe true for the 205, but in the 182 that would probably result in a climb, at least until it stalled! I'd have to try it. I know that at 16" and zero flaps I'll be doing about 115mph and level. Add flaps and trim back, I'd be going up.

I'll have to try this next time I fly - I don't think full nose-up trim in the 182 is ever a good idea. I will report back.

It works just fine in a TR182RG -- takes a bit of muscle to keep the nose down, but if you don't have the strength to hold the nose down with full power, full up trim, you shouldn't be flying the airplane.

It's not a matter of "can" it's a matter of "I'd rather be trimmed properly already so that I can take care of other things without worrying about a stall." I trim for 80mph - actually, it's about the same trim setting for 80 at full flaps as it is at 100 for no flaps. If I need to go around, all I have to do is push the knobs forward and pull the flaps up a notch to 20 degrees and the plane will pretty much hit Vy on its own..

...and "trimmed properly" means full up trim -- you will still need a bit of back pressure to maintain the proper airspeed (unless you're at GG with full aft CG -- then it's nicely balanced).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It works just fine in a TR182RG -- takes a bit of muscle to keep the nose down, but if you don't have the strength to hold the nose down with full power, full up trim, you shouldn't be flying the airplane.

And if you can't land it without using full nose-up trim, you also shouldn't be flying the airplane.

...and "trimmed properly" means full up trim -- you will still need a bit of back pressure to maintain the proper airspeed (unless you're at GG with full aft CG -- then it's nicely balanced).

No really, it doesn't. I have never flown a 182 that still needed back pressure with full nose up trim to maintain the proper airspeed. That's just simply a mis-rigged airplane.

 

[TMetzinger]

I have to agree with Kent - the 182's I've flown don't require full up trim for approach and landing. They DO require nose up trim (more than "normal" compared to 172s and pipers and...) but not all the way to the stop.

 

[jason]

Good thing we're staying on topic to help this guy find a plane. Perhaps we move the 182 pi**ing match to another thread?