Piper Arrow PA28R-180 versus -200

k9medic

k9medic

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 27, 2018
Messages
1,075
Location
N Central FL and GTC Bahamas when off work
Display Name
ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII Airplanes and Helicopters
Home Airfield
At an LZ near you
I am looking to add a complex airplane to my stable for rental and training and have been looking at the Arrow line. I have a little bit of time in an Arrow about 25 years ago so it's been a bit.

Asisde from the HP difference, is there really that much of a difference between the two models? Training would be instrument, commercial and SEL ATP along with complex endoresements. No private pilot training.
 
The -180 and the first -200 was just a horsepower (and 100 pound gross weight) increase.
The Arrow II lengthened the fuse and increase the wing surface. The Arrow III was largely cosmetic.
The Arrow IV went to the T-taill.

Then there were the Turbo versions of the III and IV.
 
k9medic said:
I am looking to add a complex airplane to my stable for rental and training and have been looking at the Arrow line. I have a little bit of time in an Arrow about 25 years ago so it's been a bit.

Asisde from the HP difference, is there really that much of a difference between the two models? Training would be instrument, commercial and SEL ATP along with complex endoresements. No private pilot training.
Click to expand...

I've received and given dual in both versions of the Arrow. If it were me, I'd go with the 180 for your needs. It's quite adequate for 2 people in a training environment. The one I did my SE commercial in would cruise at 140kts. Others were 135 kt aircraft. Also, the 180hp version can be had for less $$. My 2 cents and worth about what you paid for it. :)
 
That's what I am seeing. I just need the platform for training folks and the ability to do so at a reasonable cost to them.
 
I don’t recall exactly which Arrows had tapered wings. My 1968 180hp Arrow I had Hershey bar wings. The next owner is now selling it and I almost want it back. That plane treated me well.

Liberty Safe Co. will send you a cease and desist letter if you compare the glide characteristics of their products with the Hershey bar PA-28s. But that was the only thing not to like about an honest airplane that does 130 KTAS on 9 gph and never left me AOG.
 
k9medic said:
@flyingron Is there enough difference between the "standard" arrow and the II to justify the price? Seems like the price is all over for those.
Click to expand...
That's up to you. But I think the break isn't so much the -180 vs -200 as the I vs. II boundary. However, I think that the -180s may indeed be bargains. When I was looking at Arrows (admittedly, this was in 1994 or so), I was looking at the II or later. Of course, with planes this old, there are tons more issues as to what the value is:
- What are the practical engine times and how much is that important to you?
- What is the physical condition other than that (interior, epaint) and how important is that to you?
- What are the avionics like? Most of the early avionics aren't viable any more. How important are things like avionics, IFR, glass panels to you?
 
iamtheari said:
I don’t recall exactly which Arrows had tapered wings. My 1968 180hp Arrow I had Hershey bar wings. The next owner is now selling it and I almost want it back. That plane treated me well.

Liberty Safe Co. will send you a cease and desist letter if you compare the glide characteristics of their products with the Hershey bar PA-28s. But that was the only thing not to like about an honest airplane that does 130 KTAS on 9 gph and never left me AOG.
Click to expand...
Piper put a "1" on the end of the horsepower number to denote tapered wings. The PA-28R-200 became the 28R-201 and so on. Wikipedia claims 1976 for the Arrow, when it became the Arrow III.

The glide characteristics of the Piper hershey bar wing are alarming, but so long as the engine is running, it's actually kind of nice being able to pull the power back and get down in a hurry. You're never too high or too fast.

If you want to use the back seat, you'll want the stretched Arrow II version, but for a 2 person complex trainer? I think I'd save the money and buy a 180. The 180hp Cherokees had plenty of power, and tucking the gear can only help. Not looking for max cruise speed in the training environment, either.

The 180 will be a parallel valve, which will be a little cheaper to overhaul and potentially a bit more reliable (not the the 200 is a bad engine). Slightly lower octane requirement, so it could even run on 94UL if it comes to that.
 
I absolutely appreciate the input!

Last Piper I owned was a Cherokee 6/260 that had the ability to glide like an autorotating helicopter.

My plan is to add a WAAS GPS at a minimum. Other than that, keep it mostly stock to keep costs down.


My musketeer flies about 50-60/ month and the students who are flying it now are going to be transitioning soon, so this would be a perfect opportunity.

FWIW, the musketeer has a similar glide ratio as a rock and flies, slightly faster than one being thrown.
 
I've got about 4 hours in the -180 (training) and about 800 hours in the -200 (own). I saw no tangible difference in performance moving from -180 to -200. I'd let price/maintenance history be the determining factor there.

Bigger factor is doing your homework on spar AD, since I believe the aircraft will "age" faster (in the view of the FAA) if you're using it in a commercial environment. Not sure what became of the last FAA proposal, which would have been even more harsh (and which was utter crap).
 
The 180hp Arrow is a bit of a dog with takeoff and climb performance but perfectly adequate for training. The fuselage stretch of the II is nice to have but does offset the hp increase a bit. That said Piper only made the 180 for a couple of years. I'd prioritize finding a "good" Arrow regardless of which model it is.

flyingron said:
The Arrow III was largely cosmetic.
Click to expand...
Weird thing to say. I wouldn't say the tapered, longer wing is largely cosmetic.
 
k9medic said:
@flyingron Is there enough difference between the "standard" arrow and the II to justify the price? Seems like the price is all over for those.
Click to expand...
Yes it is a justifiable difference, but only if you need it. You don't need that difference, so don't pay for it. It's a "back seat needs or not". Same mission "gap" between the M20E and M20F. Same engine variant (angled 360) on that series as well.

For a trainer mission, the pre-1972 200hp Arrow would do fine, as you won't use the back seat. I won't go into the spar AD second tier effects of ownership anymore, caveat emptor for brevity.

Yes, the 180hp variant is a dog even with only 2 up. No different than the 172rg or anything else in the 180hp trainer lineup. My hottake: I'd still go with the 180 for your mission, do yourself a favor and skip angled valve lycoming 4 bangers.

Jim K said:
The 180 will be a parallel valve, which will be a little cheaper to overhaul and potentially a bit more reliable (not the the 200 is a bad engine). Slightly lower octane requirement, so it could even run on 94UL if it comes to that.
Click to expand...
A lot cheaper imo, as a % basis, especially post-covid cost basis. I was floored at how much they wanted for things like jugs and crank for an angled 4 compared to the parallel variants. A parallel valve 540 was quoted as cheaper to repair/overhaul, which was insult to injury. When they told me the 540 crank was cheaper that's actually when I threw my arms up and quit.

For the 20hp bump, the costs didn't make sense to me on the IO360. If I had to do 2013 all over again, I would have just found a beat up cherokee 260 for a couple AMUs more and just "flogged" it at 13 gph to go about the same speed as archer+, with better climb (given our low payload, a +4gph delta is only a 96lbs penalty over a 4 hour planning segment) to cool altitudes and R-word excess cabin comfort. Live and learn.

Yes, I know that profile basically screamed Dakota. I just couldn't afford Dakota asking at the time, and Pathfinders (the hershey winged predecessor with the adult backseat), given all other -235s are otherwise midget backseat for most of their production run, were outright non-existent (still are).

Lastly, as you highlighted already, moving towards retirement airplane pipedreams, with a medical expectation of PIC circa 2051 in sha'a Allah? yeah... 100LL reliance is a poor bet. Personally I don't think it's gonna get replaced 1:1. I think people whose TCDS status quo relies on a poweplant incapable of making cert number on 94UL are on borrowed time. That means parallel valve for me going forward, experimental or not.
 
hindsight2020 said:
things like jugs and crank for an angled 4
Click to expand...
As of now, mother Lyco is the sole source for angle valve cylinders, and they aren't cheap, when they are available. Last I checked they were at least 6-8 months lead time, although 390 cylinders are available now, so maybe it's getting better. There is some competition in parallel valve land, which helps keep a lid on pricing and lead times. Something to think about when you're eyeballing that cheap nearly runout -200.

Like arrowflyer said, the "factored service hours" is the biggest issue as it's potentially an airframe killer. That said, the local flight school just replaced spars in a couple of their Arrows. Those are relatively new airframes (ie 30 years old :rolleyes:), so the hull value/ repair cost ratio is going to be a lot higher than on a golden era short body -180. They were surprisingly down for less then a year though.
 
I'm surprised they're (complex singles) used at all anymore. Complex is no longer required for CPL, and how robust is the market for complex endorsement as a stand alone anyways?
 
In addition to the above, from memory, some arrows can carry 77 gallons of gas, but maybe some only can carry 50. Not positive. And I believe some can't run on 94UL, but don't know if that applies to all. I've only flown the -200, and here in the NE to me it's a fine 4 up plane.
 
I rented a 180 HP Arrow for a while, and I felt that it was kind of a dog. I never managed to get book performance out of it, and with the Hershey-bar wings, it flared like a brick. I liked the taper-wing Arrows much better.
 
Albany Tom said:
In addition to the above, from memory, some arrows can carry 77 gallons of gas, but maybe some only can carry 50. Not positive. And I believe some can't run on 94UL, but don't know if that applies to all. I've only flown the -200, and here in the NE to me it's a fine 4 up plane.
Click to expand...
I believe that change was between the II, 50 gal (48 usable) and the III, 77gal (72 usable), and I think that's also the changeover to tapered wing, ca. 1977.
The 180hp models are pretty doggy at high density altitudes, but not really an issue for the OP in Florida.
 
Despite the complex endorsement, there are only very few arguments in favor of the Arrow I or II as a training platform. There is a reason why comparable Warrior and Archer have a higher sticker price. If you want a good platform for instrument and commercial training, take a fixed-gear PA28 with tired avionics, install either a Dynon HDX paired with a Garmin 355/375 and Trio A/P or with a bigger budget Gamin G3X / 375/GFC500 combo like in the current Piper 100i.

No need to invent the wheel again. The big pilot mills like ER or ATP (and others like UND or FIT) are using TAA now and got rid of their Arrow fleet in the aftermath of the ER crash for Instrument and CPL training. These folks know how to calculate.

The only Arrow I would consider for the described mission would be a non-turbo Arrow IV. Usually low time airframes and never used in a primary flight trainer environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
aggiepack said:
No need to invent the wheel again. The big pilot mills like ER or ATP (and others like UND or FIT) are using TAA now and got rid of their Arrow fleet in the aftermath of the ER crash for Instrument and CPL training. These folks know how to calculate.
Click to expand...
This is something that I thought of too.

When crunching the numbers and the "reasons why" aspect of this approach, I spoke with my insurance broker about futures for pilots and insurance coverage. We war gamed prices for the Arrow, the Sierra and the Archer. All of the cruise speeds and fuel burns were in the same range and all of the insurance rates were similar so I started to break down the advantages/disadvantages of each

The Arrow has retractable gear. That would be helpful for pilots needing retract/complex time in the future.
The Sierra has retractable gear and is very similar to the Muskateer BUT parts are becoming harder to find.
The Archer would have to be a TAA which means a larger up front cost.

My price point for dry rental is going to be around $100-120/ hour. I'm not trying to make a lot of money off of this but rather am trying to develop future pilots who may not have been able to afford to learn to fly (like I was until somebody gave me a chance.)
 
k9medic said:
This is something that I thought of too.

When crunching the numbers and the "reasons why" aspect of this approach, I spoke with my insurance broker about futures for pilots and insurance coverage. We war gamed prices for the Arrow, the Sierra and the Archer. All of the cruise speeds and fuel burns were in the same range and all of the insurance rates were similar so I started to break down the advantages/disadvantages of each

The Arrow has retractable gear. That would be helpful for pilots needing retract/complex time in the future.
The Sierra has retractable gear and is very similar to the Muskateer BUT parts are becoming harder to find.
The Archer would have to be a TAA which means a larger up front cost.

My price point for dry rental is going to be around $100-120/ hour. I'm not trying to make a lot of money off of this but rather am trying to develop future pilots who may not have been able to afford to learn to fly (like I was until somebody gave me a chance.)
Click to expand...
Local flight school still operates arrows, and has committed to them as I mentioned above. This is in spite of ongoing operations to upgrade the Archer fleet to TAA. They feel that pilots need to get experience swinging gear before they move on to multi. Ironically, one of the Seminoles was gear-upped last year.
 
I did part of my commercial training in a Sierra C24. This is probably the most unfit platform for commercial training due to the CG issues. Cruise speed is not a really relevant factor for a training aircraft.

Hard to believe that the insurance premium for the Arrow is in the same ballpark like for the Archer.

I suggest that you talk to Jesse Saint @ X35 to figure out a budget-orientated TAA set-up.
 
k9medic said:
I am looking to add a complex airplane to my stable for rental and training and have been looking at the Arrow line. I have a little bit of time in an Arrow about 25 years ago so it's been a bit.

Asisde from the HP difference, is there really that much of a difference between the two models? Training would be instrument, commercial and SEL ATP along with complex endoresements. No private pilot training.
Click to expand...
Pre 1977 models have the Hershey Bar wing. The Arrow III has a tampered wing was not produced with a 180 hp engine.

Also you would be wise to educate yourself on Piper wing spar ADs. Spar replacement is $15k per wing.
 
I'm going to jump again just to say that I think it's pretty cool for someone to be considering customer desires/needs/wants when running a business. Not everybody does that. Keep an eye out on your own financials, though...nobody but you, and if your lucky your family, will care about that. Hope you do well!
 
flyingron said:
The -180 and the first -200 was just a horsepower (and 100 pound gross weight) increase.
The Arrow II lengthened the fuse and increase the wing surface. The Arrow III was largely cosmetic.
The Arrow IV went to the T-taill.

Then there were the Turbo versions of the III and IV.
Click to expand...
The main feature of the Arrow III is the semi-tapered wing, which I think is more than just cosmetic.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm surprised they're (complex singles) used at all anymore. Complex is no longer required for CPL, and how robust is the market for complex endorsement as a stand alone anyways?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, there’s only one complex aircraft on the various rental lines in our AOR and it’s a Day VFR turbo Arrow. The IFR/TAA multi-tool seems to rule the roost.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm surprised they're (complex singles) used at all anymore. Complex is no longer required for CPL, and how robust is the market for complex endorsement as a stand alone anyways?
Click to expand...
When I had access to rent a ‘76 arrow (200hp io-360, Hershey bar wings), it was my fave 1-2 person XC machine. I have no experience with the 180hp

Loved the M20E I rented 20 years ago. And even liked the c172RG the same club (flying particles) had.
So I guess I’m one of those unicorns. But I don’t have access to any of those planes as of about a year ago, when the arrow’s owners took it off leaseback. If flightaware is correct, it’s flown once- just 3 circuits of the pattern, in the last 5 weeks.
 
The 180hp and 200hp feel pretty similar performance wise. You might get different performance depending if you have the 2 or 3 blade propeller. The wing spar and total hours is more of the concern. I’m happy with mine, she’s been very reliable too and has flown quite a bit. But mostly xc, not a ton of training ops.
 
flyingron said:
The -180 and the first -200 was just a horsepower (and 100 pound gross weight) increase.
The Arrow II lengthened the fuse and increase the wing surface. The Arrow III was largely cosmetic.
The Arrow IV went to the T-taill.

Then there were the Turbo versions of the III and IV.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Arrow III also change from the Hershey Bar wing to the lower profile wing?
 
Having flown both, I noticed the extra horsepower. Do you need it, maybe not.
 
I owned a 1972 arrow with the 200 hp. And stretched wings was very happy with it .
 
I appreciate all the info!

Doing some digging into SBs has me a little concerned that the most recent one SB 1400A. It's pretty all encompassing and I think that this will be turned into an AD in short order. If corrosion is found, then the wing has to be pulled. Not going to be cheap.
 
I mean, the PA28 series is just poison pilled at this point on the wing related/repetitive ADs going forward. OEMs are trying to rid the market of the whole heap of these things, but people keep buying it cuz there's no affordable new alternative in this sclerotic market. ERAU's moral hazard stray bullets even took down some PA32s and the 28-235. Which is a shame, nothing wrong with those platforms as a long term proposition, stray bullets notwithstanding. It's just a morass of never ending swords of damocles.

As a former owner I'd just steer you to a plain jane, non-cantilevered welded gear cessna TAA for your little trainer rental outfit, and just forget about the retract thing. The only complex rentals worth bothering with are light twins anymore, and the days of the in-aircraft ATP checkride are numbered imo.

The retract system is the least risky aspect of this purchase, ironic given the only impetus is the complex thing in the first place. If you can get the right magic signatory/pencil-wizard to buy you time on the repetitive inspection front, then I'd still hit the 180 over the 200; the parallel valve lyco is just a much better proposition for long term ownership, both on the replacement and fuel longevity front. Good luck.
 
hindsight2020 said:
ERAU's moral hazard stray bullets even took down some PA32s and the 28-235. Which is a shame, nothing wrong with those platforms as a long term proposition, stray bullets notwithstanding. It's just a morass of never ending swords of damocles.
Click to expand...
With the way ERAU teaches short-field landings it's no wonder they have planes falling apart. Raising the nose at 50 feet while reducing the power to idle is an...interesting technique to be using for student pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top