Seems like the only difference between the Arrow II and III is the 72 gallons of usable fuel the III offers (vs 48 on the II) and the Lyc. IO-360-C1C6 on the III (vs the Lyc. IO-360-C1C on the II). Are the engines “that different”? Any other differences I’m not considering? Please keep responses specifically to the NA Piper Arrows II & III (no Turbos and no other airplanes you may be in love with, Thank You!!)
II gross weight 2650 lb and III gross weight 2750 lb. I believe you could buy the II with the C1C6 engine though.
The wings are completely different. Arrow II has the Hershey bar wing and the Arrow III has thr semi taper wing which imho is vastly superior. Some of older Arrow II's have the elevator trim on the ceiling versus between the pilots seats. The Arrow III also has significantly more backseat legroom. There are probably many more differences but these are the major ones that stand out to me.
Interesting; do you know the difference between both engines? Oooooh! I did not know that!! That’s super-good to know. Thank You!! What do you like about the semi taper wing over the Hershey bar wing? This is also good to know since I will have occasional back-seat pax. Do you happen to know the actual difference? Also, do you know if the back seat “folds” to have luggage instead? (Or is it relatively easy to remove?).
Thank You @FlyBoyAndy and @AnthonyS1 for your input! My girlfriend and I are trying to buy one in a year or two.
Looks like the difference between the two engines is in the counterweights. I'm going to assume that the C6 version would be a later, improved design. IO-360-C1C: 200 hp (149 kW) at 2700 rpm, Minimum fuel grade 100 or 100LL avgas, compression ratio 8.70:1. Same as the C1B but with a 14-degree fuel injector inlet adapter and an impulse coupling Bendix S4LN-1227 magneto. IO-360-C1C6: 200 hp (149 kW) at 2700 rpm, Minimum fuel grade 100 or 100LL avgas, compression ratio 8.70:1. Same as the C1C but with a crankshaft with one 6.3 order and one 8th order counterweights. I enjoyed my time in Arrows as those were the first complex airplanes I flew a long time ago. I'd recommend finding a rental of each version and then go fly each. Might help you decide which one you like better. Lots of them out there in the training fleet. Cheers, Brian
Forgot to add this. If you really want to get into the weeds, the TCDS is the place to go on the engines. That's were I pulled the above data from... http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/cb8eb266e5683e5b86257a09004d8f38/$FILE/1E10 Rev 24.pdf Cheers, Brian
I dont believe the back seats fold down. Imho the Hershey bar wing handles like dog crap when slow compared to the semi taper wing. To me there is a significant difference in feel when at approach speed. It just feels sloppy. The semi taper wing cherokees are a bit faster also which is a plus. People are soon going to post defending the Hershey bar wing and most likely saying I just dont know how to fly or something. These are just my opinions and experiences with it. I would reccomend flying any Cherokee with the Hershey bar wing and than any with the semi-taper wing and make your own judgment. There is a definite difference.
It's not a matter of defending either choice, it's just that you're just giving erroneous make and model information and posting it as fact. You are confusing many of the attributes of the Arrow I and calling it an Arrow II. No Arrow IIs ever came with the trim overhead for instance. The rest of your 'review' thence goes downhill from there. ---break break--- OP, The semi taper wing Arrow is actually slower than the Arrow II, by virtue of the increased empty weight. The fastest Arrow is the pre-72, 200HP version of the Arrow I, made between 1969 and 1971. The slowest is in fact the Arrow III. Yes, the Turbo arrows are faster, but the discussion dealt with NA Arrows, not Turbos. There is ZERO cabin differences between the Arrow II and Arrow III. The backseat space was increased in 1972, which is the debut of the Arrow II, and also the reason it's called an Arrow "II" in the first place. The midget back seat cabins belong to the Arrow I, both in 200HP and 180HP variants. All pre-1972. The increase in MGW in the Arrow III was specifically made in order to accommodate the 72 gallons of usable fuel. As a result, with no changes to the horsepower, the climb rate is lower on an Arrow III at gross than the listed climb rate of the Arrow II at its respective gross weight of 2650. This can be overcome by flying the -III at 2650, and treating it as a 48 gallon airplane. That does provide some measure of flexibility that I consider more attractive for the Arrow III. The Arrow III has a shorter aft CG limit than the Arrow II. It's all in the TCDS, look it up. Handling of the taper wing and glide characteristics are certainly more benign than the hershey bar. I've owned both and prefer the taper wing. The delta in price and lack of availability of IIIs in the market wasn't worth the premium. Honestly, as an Arrow II owner, if I was going to pay a stupid premium for a simpleton four banger retract, it would be to buy a Cardinal RG. As it is, the -II offered me more bang for the buck than the III and IV, and the hershey bar hasn't been an indignity. Certainly not something to base an aircraft purchase over. That's just trite nonsense. The back seats on all bucket seat rear seats (arrow II through IV) recline forward. They don't lay flat like a car back seat. They are however, easily removable from their base, just like those in the six seater PA32 and 32R variants. Not a big deal at all to convert the thing to a cargo space. Even reclined forward, you can put a lot of stuff on their back. There is zero operational difference between the IO-360-C1C and -C1C6 engines. The 6 denotes 6th order counterweight on the crank, the C1C (which are present in the II) doesn't have a counterweight. Again, reference the TCDS and you'll find these specs. Zero difference from a purchase consideration standpoint. At the end of the day, the difference in performance are a wash. The biggest draw for the III, is the better fuel flexibility with the tanks for the occassional 6hr + mission. At 55% and 8gph, that gives you an endurance of 9 hours to flame out at 120knots. That's some serious range. Do I think the premium over the II is worth it? No, it wasn't to me, which is why I own a -II. If the premium didn't exist, sure I'd go with a III. If you can find a III competitively priced, by all means go with that. The IV is also a contender. A couple knots faster than the III by virtue of the lack of tail slipstream, though worse take off and landing performance specs than the conventional tails. I don't find them competitive on a pricing basis but that's a to each their own type of thing.
Well gee did any Arrows have overhead trim at all? I flew two different Arrow I's and they didn't have it.
I flew the Arrow 2 for over 600hrs on many family trips. If you take care of it on the ground it will take care of you in the sky.
The taper wing has more forgiving low speed handling, because the inner wing stalls before the outer. The Hershey Bar wing has some speed mods that you can add to the tips that may help you with both speed and handling. The 48 gallon tanks should be more than enough for most bladders. Also, I'm not sure the Arrow II is faster than the Arrow III. The Archer II and III POHs say they are faster than the Cherokee 180, despite the same power. The Arrow II is a much better deal than the Arrow III. To the point that an Arrow III really isn't worth it, unless you are planning on running it as a 48 gallon plane and want a true 4ish person plane 4 hours IFR range. They have all been beaten up by flight schools.
Really? So I’m your opinion the different wings are not a big (or even “considerable”) deal? I also agree about the fuel; while it “sounds” nice to have 72 gal of usable fuel, I don’t really like the idea of being in a plane for 6 hours straight (I just thought that it may come in handy in some occasions). Are there any other significant differences? Yes, this I’ve noticed Now, when you said that you meant BOTH II’s and III’s I’m sure. Also, my understanding is that the Flight School “beating” is quite different than if we were talking C152, C172, Warriors, etc. Seems like the beating of an Arrow comes from Commercial students who aren’t doing many touch-n-go’s and are (or should be by then) better pilots. What do you think? Do you know what the actual commercial exercise is (or used to be)?
The difference in the engines is the counter weights of the crank shaft. The III has a little better balanced crank shaft.
I've flown both II and III. The wing difference was negligible to me. As far as being able to stay in the air for six hours, did five once. Was able to go from California wine country to the Phoenix area nonstop. But it also allows you a better ability to handle IFR requirements of being able to fly to your destination, fly an approach or two, and divert to you alternate while having the required minimum fuel remaining. 50-gallons can be deceptively insufficient in some of those scenarios.
