Several GA aircraft were primarily used for complex training, they were not that good at anything else and cost was the primary reason for them. Those with retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable pitch propellers, as defined by the FAA as "complex aircraft", popular examples include the Cessna 172 RG, Cessna 182 RG, Piper Arrow. After 2018 flight schools dumped them and people bought them up for their own use. With the extra cost of the propellers, complex landing gear and little better than or worse performance than a Piper PA-28-180 fixed pitch prop and fixed landing gear over the cost of a PA28R-180 why would you do that.
The R182 is a fantastic airplane. It takes the "do it all" 182 and removes its biggest drawback (that being that it doesn't go very far/fast on a gallon of avgas). Fly anything you can fit in the door at 150 KTAS into an unimproved short strip? No problem. It's definitely the best of the three you mentioned. And FWIW, when our club went from a 182 to an R182 we gained close to 20 knots.
Arrow? I don't know that I'd want to own one, but I've "hit for the cycle" with Arrows (flown the I, II, III, and IV) and they're good airplanes. Not hard to fly, purchase prices are reasonable, speed is OK, gear system is reasonably simple and reliable.
The gutless Cutless? Yeah, pass on that. It doesn't have the utility of the 182 or the reliable gear system of the Arrow. Not much to get excited about. However, if you get one at the right price, why not?
I don't understand the inclusion of the "182RG" in the OP's list. That one seems to be a pretty good performer and certainly doesn't fit in the "complex trainer" category. I don't know that I'd ever seen a flight school with one on their line.
I finished off my commercial in a rental-line R182. It's still there, too, 17 years later:
https://hapsair.com/rentals/
Right now, my log book wants hours, fulfilled requirements, and endorsements. It could not care less about miles. But, I can see how a 28R, hauling twice what a 152 will haul, at a 30% faster cruise speed, while burning about the same quantity of fuel over the same distance would appeal. And I can see how an even faster 201 would appeal even more.
We think about cost per hour in training and it's easy to get hung up on that... But my primary mission for my airplane is to go places, so I look at cost per mile. My Mooney can pretty much beat the airlines anywhere east of the Rockies door to door, for a cost per mile lower than that of a C172. That's a win.
All the way back when I was renting and I wanted to go places, the same was still true - It was cheaper to rent the Arrow on a per-mile basis than the 172.
@brien23 The ratio of utility to acquisition cost is pretty good on some of the former complex trainers too.
Mooney owners often compare their airplanes with Bonanzas. Bonanza owners don't seem to compare their airplanes to Mooneys.
Even if they don't, the rest of the world sure does. Both fine airplanes... If I were a few inches shorter and had extra $$ for acquisition, I'd have looked hard at an A36. They combine an awful lot of nice attributes into one plane.
I owned a V-tail for 17 years, and it was far more comfortable than the Mooney I was in this morning.
I would agree, if I weren't so darn tall. I do love a Bonanza, but the semicircular top of the cabin cross section means I'm constantly bumping my head where the "corner" would be if it were just a hair more squared off like a Comanche is.
