Piper making Arrows again

Why is it that the Arrow has the same engine as an SR20, and even with retract it is still almost 10 kts slower?
 
spiderweb said:
Why is it that the Arrow has the same engine as an SR20, and even with retract it is still almost 10 kts slower?
Click to expand...

The Cirrus is in a completely different world of streamlining and proper design techniques. Simply putting a modern wing on the Arrow would probably get most of those knots back.
 
spiderweb said:
Why is it that the Arrow has the same engine as an SR20, and even with retract it is still almost 10 kts slower?
Click to expand...

Cheapass Piper wing with thousands of rivets sticking up ruining the laminar flow.

Basically my impression of PA-28s is that it is a simple "good enough" design, never really intended to be or even aspire to be the best, which is sad, really.
 
cheap weenie said:
Maybe I missed this before, but it seems that Piper is manufacturing new Arrows. Last I looked at their website the Archer was their only new single trainer. http://www.piper.com/aircraft/trainer-class/arrow/
Click to expand...
Wow, and at just a half million a copy, why not buy one for the little lady as well?

For that price you can get a fully tricked out used Bo and have enough left over for fuel and maintenance for 15 years.
 
Last edited:
MSPAviator said:
Cheapass Piper wing with thousands of rivets sticking up ruining the laminar flow.

Basically my impression of PA-28s is that it is a simple "good enough" design, never really intended to be or even aspire to be the best, which is sad, really.
Click to expand...

Fred Weick designed the original Cherokee line to be a cheap and easy-to-produce alternative to the Comanche. Who knows what would have happened had the Comanche factory not flooded.
 
spiderweb said:
Why is it that the Arrow has the same engine as an SR20, and even with retract it is still almost 10 kts slower?
Click to expand...

They actually have different engines. Both IO-360s, but the Arrow has a 4 cylinder Lycoming and the Cirrus a 6 cylinder Continental. Both are rated at 200hp, but the engine/prop design will determine how effectively that can be translated into thrust.

The main thing, however, as mentioned, is the SR20 being 35 years newer than the basic PA28 series from which the Arrow is derived. Advances in aerodynamics through experience and increasing computational power paid dividends. In addition, the Cirrus is largely composite; composite aircraft were not common in the 1960s. The composite structure allows more flexibility in the shape of the airframe, allowing some aerodynamic tweaks that would be hard to do with a metal airplane.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
I didn't think they had stopped building them. Now they didn't build many in 2012, but they did deliver 2. 0 in 2011 and 4 in 2010. Here's a link to the 2012 numbers.

http://www.gama.aero/files/2012GAMAShipments0509.pdf
Click to expand...

Sure enough. Looking at the 'Wayback Machine' (web.archive.com), it seems they brought it back in late 2011. Guess I never looked far enough past drooling at the Meridian to notice. :dunno:
 
I have to wonder who would buy a C172 or Piper Archer when a new tricked out SR20 can be had for the same price.
 
MSPAviator said:
Cheapass Piper wing with thousands of rivets sticking up ruining the laminar flow.

Basically my impression of PA-28s is that it is a simple "good enough" design, never really intended to be or even aspire to be the best, which is sad, really.
Click to expand...

I don't find that philosophy sad in the least. I have a PA-28R because I can afford to acquire, pay for and procure replacement parts for in order to participate in the avocation, as opposed to typing about it on the internet.

Simplicity in a world of overpricing due to liability and lack of economies of scale is really not a pejorative term like you seem to feel about it. It's quite literally what allows me to partake in the activity and have enough seats to have my family partake with me. I have Piper's very own mediocrity-in-design to thank for allowing me a price point I can afford in order to meet my non-2-seater mission. The reason that mediocrity is extended to current production has everything to do with certification kabuki and nothing to do with available technologies to innovate with, on the part of Piper.

I suppose RVs [or Cirri] are more your cup of tea. I hear the kool aid they serve after formation clinic is to die for...:D
 
Yep, this is similar to what differentiates the tigers from the earlier AA aircraft or the later Mooneys from the earlier ones. If you actually think about drag, you can clean up the design quite a bit.
 
spiderweb said:
Why is it that the Arrow has the same engine as an SR20, and even with retract it is still almost 10 kts slower?
Click to expand...

I was always impressed with the Grumman Tiger vs the Piper Arrow in that regard.

Fixed pitch prop vs. constant speed.

Fixed gear vs. retractable.

180 hp vs. 200 hp.

Yet cruise speeds in the same ballpark.

Kudos to Roy Lopresti, showing that little things add up.

The Arrow is a fine aircraft, but high cruise speed is not one of its fortés.

And the SR20 is not without it's flaws, but I believe for the same money is a better aircraft. My main concern would be long term reliability and maintenance costs - the first not well established for the Cirrus line, but the second a fairly well established known (read: "high") for Cirrus planes.

Edited to add: Ron, great minds think alike! I think we were both comprising our Tiger posts simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
I have to wonder who would buy a C172 or Piper Archer when a new tricked out SR20 can be had for the same price.
Click to expand...

The only buyers for new aircraft in that class are university flight departments who use them to service chinese/indian/saudi training contracts that require glass cockpits. In fleet operation, a 172 is still cheaper than a SR20, also more tolerant to operation by ham fisted students.
 
frcabot said:
I have to wonder who would buy a C172 or Piper Archer when a new tricked out SR20 can be had for the same price.
Click to expand...

I don't like the side-yoke.

So, I guess I would (except for the small detail of not having that much disposable income).
 
dmspilot said:
Fred Weick designed the original Cherokee line to be a cheap and easy-to-produce alternative to the Comanche. Who knows what would have happened had the Comanche factory not flooded.
Click to expand...
it would still have been replaced by the PA28. Piper was losing their shirt with the comanche. Their strategy was to build a plane as good as a bonanza and sell it cheaper than the bonanza. With the comanche they achieved both those goals. The problem was that it also cost as much to build as a bonanza. It took them several years to work out the math that (sales price) - (build cost) = (bad deal) and the result was an exercise in cost reduction: the PA28.
 
paflyer said:
Wow, and at just a half million a copy, why not buy one for the little lady as well?

For that price you can get a fully tricked out used Bo and have enough left over for fuel and maintenance for 15 years.
Click to expand...

Half a million bucks for an ARROW? Really?

Gee, I wonder why they're not selling well? :mad2: :lol:
 
frcabot said:
I have to wonder who would buy a C172 or Piper Archer when a new tricked out SR20 can be had for the same price.
Click to expand...

Because it's made out of plastic and a small ding in the wing can turn into a year long expensive fiasco.

I'd take a new Arrow over a SR20. I like aluminum retracts.
 
bartmc said:
Because it's made out of plastic and a small ding in the wing can turn into a year long expensive fiasco.

I'd take a new Arrow over a SR20. I like aluminum retracts.
Click to expand...


For a half-mil I'd be in a Mooney Acclaim!
 
cheap weenie said:
For a half-mil I'd be in a Mooney Acclaim!
Click to expand...

For a half million, I could buy a pretty nice Lance, (for those occasions when we need to carry more than two people), and have money left over to buy a house with hangar attached.

I simply can't imagine how Piper can survive with such products and pricing.
 
Heck, their Seneca is over $1M.

We're obviously not the target market, but I'm struggling to figure out what the target market is.
 
Perhaps because that's not the bulk of their sales? Who knows.
 
kayoh190 said:
Heck, their Seneca is over $1M.

We're obviously not the target market, but I'm struggling to figure out what the target market is.
Click to expand...

Somebody said on another thread it was rich South Americans :confused::dunno:
 
Jay Honeck said:
For a half million, I could buy a pretty nice Lance, (for those occasions when we need to carry more than two people), and have money left over to buy a house with hangar attached.

I simply can't imagine how Piper can survive with such products and pricing.
Click to expand...
the same way as blackberry barely hangs on. they are not selling to americans
 
JHW said:
the same way as blackberry barely hangs on. they are not selling to americans
Click to expand...

Well, Blackberry kind of sells to Americans. It's called the Federal Govt. We still buy their stuff in bulk.
 
JHW said:
the same way as blackberry barely hangs on. they are not selling to americans
Click to expand...

Blackberry still does some thing better than everyone else. Consumer market isn't part of it.
 
bartmc said:
Because it's made out of plastic and a small ding in the wing can turn into a year long expensive fiasco.
Click to expand...

Got that right. And some damage that's readily repairable on a metal airplanes is enough to write off a composite airframe. There's a recent AD on the Cessna 350/400/ttX series that points out the possibility of really serious delamination in the tailcone if the pilot brakes too hard and those swept-forward gear legs start the whole airplane oscillating. It would require a total remanufacture of the tail. Maybe a whole new fuselage.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...14A91713BEF08CE186257B910051F3CF?OpenDocument

Dan
 
ja_user said:
Blackberry still does some thing better than everyone else. Consumer market isn't part of it.
Click to expand...
lol really? No one, and I mean no one at my company uses blackberry as a work issued phone. All either iPhone or android. I don't even think blackberry is offered as an option by our IT department anymore.
 
frcabot said:
lol really? No one, and I mean no one at my company uses blackberry as a work issued phone. All either iPhone or android. I don't even think blackberry is offered as an option by our IT department anymore.
Click to expand...
For work email We can get a company BB or buy our own apple or android phone. No one uses a BB.
 
Everybody I know has a Blackberry, it's sitting in a drawer somewhere and will be rediscovered by an archeologist 10,000 years from now.
 
bartmc said:
Because it's made out of plastic and a small ding in the wing can turn into a year long expensive fiasco.

I'd take a new Arrow over a SR20. I like aluminum retracts.
Click to expand...

Not only can it take forever it might just total the airplane. Thats what happened to a fellow I know. Gas truck backed into the wing LE and put a dime sized hole in the wing. Totaled the airplane. Had less than 100 hours TT on a Gen 3 SR22.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Not only can it take forever it might just total the airplane. Thats what happened to a fellow I know. Gas truck backed into the wing LE and put a dime sized hole in the wing. Totaled the airplane. Had less than 100 hours TT on a Gen 3 SR22.
Click to expand...

How is that a problem? A totaled plane can be replaced and have you flying in a week or two. Repair regardless of aluminum or composite will take months. Scarfing in a new cuff isn't really that difficult.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Not only can it take forever it might just total the airplane. Thats what happened to a fellow I know. Gas truck backed into the wing LE and put a dime sized hole in the wing. Totaled the airplane. Had less than 100 hours TT on a Gen 3 SR22.
Click to expand...

Like to get a link to the exact circumstances on that one.

I only add because many Cirri have had all sorts of composite work done, some a lot more extensive than dime sized holes.

Not questioning your credibility, just like to know what made it so difficult to repair.
 
FastEddieB said:
Like to get a link to the exact circumstances on that one.

I only add because many Cirri have had all sorts of composite work done, some a lot more extensive than dime sized holes.

Not questioning your credibility, just like to know what made it so difficult to repair.
Click to expand...

That is not the equation for 'totaling' an aircraft, it's more complex. There is also salvage value to take in consideration and replacement cost. If the plane is near new, there is also the devaluation of the asset, remember, insurance is supposed to make you 'financially whole', so they may have to put in a cash difference for the value lost (remember, we are talking about the fuel truck's/FBO's insurance paying the bill, so that is part of their liability). With a new, high parts value aircraft and liability to make whole, combined with high cost of repair and unknown future liability due to microfracturing one cant see, and potentially the lease of a replacement aircraft during the repair (again remember, this is FBO liability insurance, not aircraft owner's insurance; different levels of liability and coverage) it can very quickly by the salvage value become more cost effective for an insurance company to replace the aircraft than repair it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top