Piper Arrow?

Debonair is definitely a desirable and capable aircraft. I have heard the Mx cost are higher though!

Less expensive per mile to operate than an Arrow. Not sure how the Mooney stacks up against the Deb in $/Nm
 
Look into he turbo arrow without the T tail at altitude you should get at least 145 knots at 11-12 GPS.i was very happy with my stretch arrow 200 hp would give me 140 knots at 10 GPS.was a very comfortable two person cruiser. Highest I went with the na 200 was 12000.
 
flyingmoose said:
To the OP I think you will be happy with either the Mooney like many have suggested or the arrow. The turbo will give you better options. 182RG is not a bad choice either along with the Comanche.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the 182RG, but it seems like a nice plane. pretty good speed, although higher fuel burn than a mooney. Definitely comfortable by small plane standards and decent usable load.
 
There are some "gotchas" with Turbo Arrows. Unless you have pressurized mags, you're practically limited to about 15K as you start to have arcing and misfiring issues. Also, I've found that above about 14K I could not run smoothly on LOP, and operation at LOP is the only way you're going to come close to quoted fuel burns.

TA's are money pits - certainly mine was anyway. TSIO 360's tend to leak and sling oil, and you typically go through two turbochargers to one engine overhaul, and turbochargers ain't cheap.
 
I have heard the same thing and avoided the Turbo. There seem to be many more of the Turbo's and Tee tails for sale than the NA aircraft, and they are not as popular. There is a reason that Piper did not make either variant after they came out of bankruptcy. They basically went back to the Arrow III design and still make it.
 
hindsight2020 said:
but to suggest PA-28 airframes are as much a maintenance expense to seal tanks on as the mooney tanks is laughable. Anybody who has seen the Mooney wings opened up can understand how they're a mess compared to the lowly modular Piper tank and quickly put to bed the idea that they cost the same to reseal and/or last the same as the Piper tank between major seal jobs.
Click to expand...

Ever reseal a piper tank?

Ranks right up there in PITA category for want of an inspection pannel
 
Duncan,

I see some brown epoxy looking sealant in my tanks. Is that the factory sealant or is that something that was added later?

When I first purchased mine I noticed some discoloration around one of the bottom rivets that would indicate to me fuel leakage except that it was not blue and was never wet.
 
tmyers said:
Duncan,

I see some brown epoxy looking sealant in my tanks. Is that the factory sealant or is that something that was added later?

When I first purchased mine I noticed some discoloration around one of the bottom rivets that would indicate to me fuel leakage except that it was not blue and was never wet.
Click to expand...

Factory or repair, what you have is a removable, integral tank. It is sealed up just like the tanks in my plane, but it can be removed to work on (I guess mine could too, but what a job!)

Catch is once the tank is out you have to take it apart to seal it rather than just pop open an inspection panel, reach in and seal up the offending area. So you end up drilling rivets.:mad2:
 
I've not paid attention since I sold the Cherokee but there are guys on TAP that reseal and refurbish the Cherokee tanks for $700-800. That is no more than the cost to buy bladders for my Comanche. The Cherokee tanks were built to come off to be serviced so I suspect it is about the similar expense to replacing a single cylinder in the 1 or 1.2 AMUs area per tank.

I'm told the bladder replacement on the 182 is expensive due to the time it takes something like 8 hrs, on my Comanche it was 2 hrs including cleaning the sending unit, cavity and such. I was surcharged and went to talk to the shop owner and he apologized after I said this is a Comanche bladder not a 182.....

I really do not know i am just repeating hearsay from my experience but the cost of bladders or tanks on cherokees and comanches is not that significant. I had a guy on the flied claim to pay $20k to reseal a mooney tanks which I couldn't believe.

Skylane81E said:
Factory or repair, what you have is a removable, integral tank. It is sealed up just like the tanks in my plane, but it can be removed to work on (I guess mine could too, but what a job!)

Catch is once the tank is out you have to take it apart to seal it rather than just pop open an inspection panel, reach in and seal up the offending area. So you end up drilling rivets.:mad2:
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for all the input, and it seems like the turbo really should be avoided! So, the T-tail is actually slower than the Arrow III? I read somewhere that the horizontal stabilizer is out of the prop wash so it make for a smoother ride.
 
I have never flown a T tail but have heard that with the stabilator out of the prop wash has less authority than the one with the sabilator down low. Again, I have no experience with the T tail, I have just heard they are ground lovers.
 
JC150 said:
Thanks for all the input, and it seems like the turbo really should be avoided! So, the T-tail is actually slower than the Arrow III? I read somewhere that the horizontal stabilizer is out of the prop wash so it make for a smoother ride.
Click to expand...

I don't think the T tail configuration makes it either smoother or less efficient, but the lack of prop wash over the tail does make it a bit harder to flare on landing, as you do lose a bit of elevator authority as a result.
 
I bought a low time 1968 Cherokee Arrow PA180R six weeks ago and having no problem getting 135K at 24 squared...actually closer to 140...it has gap seals and is burning 9.5 an hour...I am impressed as I can be about it...plus the useful load is just over a 1000 pounds. The shorter wing and no stretch cabin helps it get there in my opinion.
 
182s with bladders it depends on the size of the tank, long range tanks are actually easier because there are two inspection ports to work with.

On the Q and later with integral tanks you can make spot repairs to the sealant as needed.
 
JC150 said:
Thanks for all the input, and it seems like the turbo really should be avoided! So, the T-tail is actually slower than the Arrow III? I read somewhere that the horizontal stabilizer is out of the prop wash so it make for a smoother ride.
Click to expand...

Moving the elevator out of the prop was can minimize pitch change with power change.


However they put more load on the vertical stab so the weight goes up as a result of the need for more structure
 
JC150 said:
My mission has outgrown the capabilities of my Cessna 150, and i'm looking at upgrading. The mission as of now is 1,200 nm per day, crossing Lake Michigan and the Appalachian mountains, just myself. I've done tons of research over the past year on different aircraft and have browsed many online forums. I'm considering a piper arrow iii, piper arrow iv, and possibly a turbo arrow iii/iv now that I have the funding available.

I flew a Piper Arrow IV (turbo normalized) once, but was disappointed to see only 125 KTAS at 9,000 feet doing about 65% power and just shy of 11gph. My expectations were at least 135 knots and 9-10 gph from what I was reading on internet forums.
Click to expand...

A turbo IV at 9K getting 125 is a dog. A decent N/A III should get 135, IV maybe 140. However,...

RichNY said:
Across Lake Michigan through the Appalachians on a regular basis? It's not happening in an Arrow or Mooney or Bonanza if you have to be there every week. You'll need FIKI, weather radar and a ceiling of at least 25,000.
Click to expand...

This! You could probably do it without actual radar (NEXRAD is enough IMO) but over Lake Michigan in the winter/spring/fall you'll probably want FIKI.

Also, in my book Lake Michigan deserves some extra respect. Sure, the engine doesn't know you're over water, but engines do fail and if it fails where you can't glide to shore, 9 months out of the year you WILL die a horrible, slow, painful, terrible death before anyone has a chance to get to you. That means an overpowered airplane (min 250hp) or a turbo, and oxygen to get high enough. Forget the normally aspirated Arrows. You should be able to get a high-powered Mooney for relatively cheap (ask me how I know), maybe even with the FIKI package. And you can add TKS if the plane doesn't already have it.

JC150 said:
So, if the trip can be done in about 8 hours, I'd be happy with that.
Click to expand...

8 hours of flying is 150 knots, no wind. You'll average 10-15 knots below that, so you really want at least a 165-knot bird. Again, the Arrows probably won't cut it here, even with a turbo, definitely not without.

Skylane81E said:
Your friend likely had a a lemon, having taken care of mooneys and arrows, neither was really a problem
Click to expand...

This. I've found the M20R to be very reasonable when it comes to maintenance.

JC150 said:
Anyone have experience with the 182RG? Does it really do 155 knots?
Click to expand...

Meh... Probably not 155 unless you're really pushing it, but it'll do an honest 150 if it's in decent shape.

JC150 said:
Thanks for all the input, and it seems like the turbo really should be avoided! So, the T-tail is actually slower than the Arrow III? I read somewhere that the horizontal stabilizer is out of the prop wash so it make for a smoother ride.
Click to expand...

IV should be marginally faster than III - Less drag with the stabilator out of the propwash. I don't know that it's any smoother. I don't like the IV, it feels really sloppy at low speeds (and on TO/landing roll) because of the lack of authority with the stabilator out of the propwash. But again, I don't think an Arrow is really what you're looking for unless it has a turbo AND you have lots of flexibility in your schedule to delay/cancel.
 
Last edited:
JC150 said:
Thanks alfadog. Any issues getting it past 15,000 feet or up to the service ceiling? Any common Mx issues?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the long delay. Not enough time with it to speak credibly to mx and I live in FL so never had any need to go above 10k.
 
JC150 said:
I don't really need to make the 1200nm journey quickly. Just within 8-9 hours and without making a hundred fuel stops if that makes sense. I'm ready to purchase, I just want to make sure I chose wisely. Anyone have experience with the 182RG? Does it really do 155 knots?
Click to expand...

I had a rental 182RG out yesterday.
9500MSL, temp, +16C, 20MP, 2300 RPM, 13gph, EGT 1400
Computed TAS, 153knots
DA 11,500

Of course I was only getting 135K GS, I was NE bound and winds were 348/16.
 
My arrow 2 does an honest 140knots at 9.5 to 10 gph. The scimitar prop is what gets it to 140. 125 for a turbo or na arrow sounds like there is an issue. Depending on your budget, get a Mooney 252 and do 190knots at altitude.
 
I prefer the 68/69 Arrow 180's....for the reasons you posted....useful load and speed....

Warlock said:
I bought a low time 1968 Cherokee Arrow PA180R six weeks ago and having no problem getting 135K at 24 squared...actually closer to 140...it has gap seals and is burning 9.5 an hour...I am impressed as I can be about it...plus the useful load is just over a 1000 pounds. The shorter wing and no stretch cabin helps it get there in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Comanche or Mooney. Both will deliver your mission nicely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Midget Mustang with an IO-360, man that plane was an awesome one man commuter.
 
Skylane81E said:
Factory or repair, what you have is a removable, integral tank. It is sealed up just like the tanks in my plane, but it can be removed to work on (I guess mine could too, but what a job!)

Catch is once the tank is out you have to take it apart to seal it rather than just pop open an inspection panel, reach in and seal up the offending area. So you end up drilling rivets.:mad2:
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they don't make a 'slosh sealer' where you pour it in the filler neck, roll it around and then dump the excess.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I don't think the T tail configuration makes it either smoother or less efficient, but the lack of prop wash over the tail does make it a bit harder to flare on landing, as you do lose a bit of elevator authority as a result.
Click to expand...
The stabilator of a T-tail Arrow is also 13% smaller in span and area than that of a low-tail Arrow III.
 
I gotta say, I'm split 50/50 between the Arrow and the Mooney M20J. If the arrow had a cruising speed of 150-160ish, it'd be the perfect plane! My concerns with a comanche are the older design features and part availability. I'm also considering the possibility of flying only 500-600NM and finishing the rest by commercial air. It would still be cheaper then flying commercially from where I'm at now.
 
Either will do fine, but in your case because of the distances involved the additional 25 Kts the M20J will give you at about the same fuel burn will be very noticeable. If this were a short distance then it would likely be awash.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
O.k., here's one possible unmentioned angle for you OP. :mad2:

182RG with forced aeromotive's STC'd supercharger/super-normalizer

For long hauls, if you're going to fly a four seat certified, 182s are comfortable and can haul the mail. The super normalized advertises 17knot gain, and would get you up in the fast zone. Did you figure in climb rates? That's where you make a lot of time is climb rate. 1500 f.p.m. for a super-normalized 182 is cooking. It's probably more in an RG single pilot lightly loaded. The test data was off a fixed gear I think.

http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I prefer the 68/69 Arrow 180's....for the reasons you posted....useful load and speed....
Click to expand...

Not that it matters to the op, but I remember looking for a later model arrow. I believe they stretched the fuselage a few inches in the early 70s. I don't know the specs but the extra 20hp should make up some of the difference.
 
Last edited:
Perezhr said:
Either will do fine, but in your case because of the distances involved the additional 25 Kts the M20J will give you at about the same fuel burn will be very noticeable. If this were a short distance then it would likely be awash.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


I agree with Hector on the advantage of speed. Before you buy fly a Mooney. I like them but they kill my back. That's the main reason I went wit the Arrow. I can't ride in Corvettes either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top