I am slling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase another plane.

I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow. However , have seen a couple
of Archers that look interesting. Having a highwing I am partial to them -
what are the thoughts on early 210's (money pits?). I have also found a couple
of mid 60's wide body 182's. What about 177rg's - good speed.

Let me know what you think do you know someone who has a quality plane for
sale. I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.

My 1956 172, has a fresh annual all cylinders above 75/80 - basic VFR - good
interior and good paint. Selling for 18,000.00 - anybody interested.

(Larryskydives) wrote:
> I am selling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase
> another plane. I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow.
> However , have seen a couple of Archers that look interesting.

Why are you getting rid of the 172?

My club has a 1968 Arrow (180 HP engine) and several Archers of various
vintages. Personally, I don't see much reason to pick the Arrow over
the Archer. The Arrow carries less useful load, has a smaller CG range,
costs more to maintain (retractable gear and constant speed prop), and
offers very little in the way of additional speed (maybe 10 extra kts).
The insurance on an Arrow will probably be more than the Archer, because
of the retractable gear.

There is very little that's sexy about an Archer, but it's a simple,
easy to fly, practical airplane for somebody who doesn't worry much
about going fast.

Larryskydives wrote:
> I am slling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase another plane.
>
> I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow.

Low elevation plane only. May as well get an Archer.


However , have seen a couple
> of Archers that look interesting. Having a highwing I am partial to them -
> what are the thoughts on early 210's (money pits?).

Early 210's can be horrible money pits and they don't go very fast.


I have also found a couple
> of mid 60's wide body 182's. What about 177rg's - good speed.

A 182 with pants and a 177RG are about the same speed. I had a FG 177
and didn't like it at all. The 177 will cost you more to operate.

I have owned the 172 for four years now.

I am wanting to upgrade to an aircraft that is IFR cert, and has more speed.

The 172 has been a virtually maintenance free airplane. Annuals, replaced
generator, and one cylinder two years ago.

It is a good airplane, I just want more now.

Larry,

How about an older Bonanza. They are pretty affordable and have pretty
good speed.
The older ones can run on auto fuel.

Going from a 172 to an archer is like going from a boring under loaded
Spectre to a under loaded Sabre. You'll be bored before long.

If your going to upgrade, take your time and really upgrade smartly.
There are lots of bargains out there.


Dave

Larryskydives wrote:
> I have owned the 172 for four years now.
>
> I am wanting to upgrade to an aircraft that is IFR cert, and has more speed.
>
> The 172 has been a virtually maintenance free airplane. Annuals, replaced
> generator, and one cylinder two years ago.
>
> It is a good airplane, I just want more now.

On 18-Jan-2004, (Larryskydives) wrote:

> I am slling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase another
> plane.
>
> I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow. However , have seen a
> couple of Archers that look interesting. Having a highwing I am partial
> to them
> -
> what are the thoughts on early 210's (money pits?). I have also found a
> couple
> of mid 60's wide body 182's. What about 177rg's - good speed.


> Let me know what you think do you know someone who has a quality plane for
> sale. I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.




Given your price range I think your best bet would be an Archer. I have a
'79 Arrow IV, and I also have logged some hours in an Archer. The Arrow
(especially 200 HP) has considerably more performance in terms of speed,
range, and ceiling than the Archer, but you won't find any but the oldest
versions (or real dogs) for less than around $70K. Same with 177RGs. A
GOOD 182 will cost quite a bit more.

I think you should steer clear of early 210s if you have any concerns about
maintenance costs.
--
-Elliott Drucker

Roy Smith > writes:

> (Larryskydives) wrote:
> > I am selling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase
> > another plane. I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow.
> > However , have seen a couple of Archers that look interesting.
>
> Why are you getting rid of the 172?
>
> My club has a 1968 Arrow (180 HP engine) and several Archers of various
> vintages. Personally, I don't see much reason to pick the Arrow over
> the Archer. The Arrow carries less useful load, has a smaller CG range,
> costs more to maintain (retractable gear and constant speed prop), and
> offers very little in the way of additional speed (maybe 10 extra kts).
> The insurance on an Arrow will probably be more than the Archer, because
> of the retractable gear.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some models of Arrow have larger
fuel tanks. If range is a key feature, that may tip the balance in favor
of the Arrow.

-jav

In article >,
(Larryskydives) wrote:

> Let me know what you think do you know someone who has a quality plane
> for
> sale. I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.

a quality Archer for less than $60,000? hmmmm

--
Bob Noel

the arrow III and IV can carry 72 gallons.
I am not sure about the Arrow II I think it is the same tho.


Javier Henderson wrote:

> Roy Smith > writes:
>
> > (Larryskydives) wrote:
> > > I am selling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase
> > > another plane. I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow.
> > > However , have seen a couple of Archers that look interesting.
> >
> > Why are you getting rid of the 172?
> >
> > My club has a 1968 Arrow (180 HP engine) and several Archers of various
> > vintages. Personally, I don't see much reason to pick the Arrow over
> > the Archer. The Arrow carries less useful load, has a smaller CG range,
> > costs more to maintain (retractable gear and constant speed prop), and
> > offers very little in the way of additional speed (maybe 10 extra kts).
> > The insurance on an Arrow will probably be more than the Archer, because
> > of the retractable gear.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some models of Arrow have larger
> fuel tanks. If range is a key feature, that may tip the balance in favor
> of the Arrow.
>
> -jav

> >I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.
>
> a quality Archer for less than $60,000? hmmmm

I agree with Bob -- your budget is a bit tight for anything of real quality
in a step-up from a 172.

If you can stretch it into the low $80s, you can get into a decent 182,
Pathfinder, or early Dakota that will fill the bill nicely.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larryskydives wrote:

>I have also found a couple of mid 60's wide body 182's.
>


Well, since nobody else mentioned it, I will.

Nowhere in my aviation experience, dating from around 1968, can I
remember any official reference to "wide body 182s"
( I took it upon myself to delete the apostrophe, since we're not doing
the possessive thing here).

That term doesn't compute.

In article >, CriticalMass >
wrote:

> Nowhere in my aviation experience, dating from around 1968, can I
> remember any official reference to "wide body 182s"
> ( I took it upon myself to delete the apostrophe, since we're not doing
> the possessive thing here).

But the 182s is the current model!

From 56-61 the 182 was simply the 180 with a nosegear. In 62 the 182
got a 4 inch wider fuselage, the same fuselage as today. The 180/185
remained the same. Hence the term widebody.

CriticalMass wrote:
> Larryskydives wrote:
>
>> I have also found a couple of mid 60's wide body 182's.
>>
>
>
> Well, since nobody else mentioned it, I will.
>
> Nowhere in my aviation experience, dating from around 1968, can I
> remember any official reference to "wide body 182s"
> ( I took it upon myself to delete the apostrophe, since we're not doing
> the possessive thing here).
>
> That term doesn't compute.
>

I just bought a 1979 Piper Dakota 3 months ago. 235hp, 1200 lbs useful
load, 11.8 gph cruise, 17,400 service ceiling, and trues at 143 knots.
I love it.
I looked at Archers and Arrows and found that ones of quality were
nearly in the price range of the Dakota but didn't have the same
qualities. The Dakota is longer than the Archer or Arrow and has more
legroom. To be honest I didn't see anything in the cruiser style
airplanes that started less than 85k with original radios and Nav
equipment ( I looked at 182's as well). Upgraded radios and avionics
pushed you over 100k.
You might want to look at the Cherokee 235. They are pretty much the
same length as the Arrow and Archer, but the 235 has a much better
useful load and are pretty darn reliable. Almost all the 235's have a
constant speed prop. You can get a good 235 in the 50-75k range. Check
out the Cherokee 235 - 236 owners group at:

http://www.cabo-rental.net/cherokee235/home.htm







(Larryskydives) wrote in message >...
> I am slling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase another plane.
>
> I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow. However , have seen a couple
> of Archers that look interesting. Having a highwing I am partial to them -
> what are the thoughts on early 210's (money pits?). I have also found a couple
> of mid 60's wide body 182's. What about 177rg's - good speed.
>
> Let me know what you think do you know someone who has a quality plane for
> sale. I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.
>
> My 1956 172, has a fresh annual all cylinders above 75/80 - basic VFR - good
> interior and good paint. Selling for 18,000.00 - anybody interested.

Newps > wrote:
: From 56-61 the 182 was simply the 180 with a nosegear. In 62 the 182
: got a 4 inch wider fuselage, the same fuselage as today. The 180/185
: remained the same. Hence the term widebody.

So a "wide body" is a non straight-tail model, or was that done at a different
time? How much speed did the extra width cost it?

Just curious... planning future airplane upgrades... :)
-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
> : From 56-61 the 182 was simply the 180 with a nosegear. In 62 the 182
> : got a 4 inch wider fuselage, the same fuselage as today. The 180/185
> : remained the same. Hence the term widebody.
>
> So a "wide body" is a non straight-tail model, or was that done at a different
> time? How much speed did the extra width cost it?

The straight tail was swept at 35 degrees for 1960. The max cruise is
listed as 139 kts in 61 and 141 kts in 62. Generally speaking the plane
gets faster as they get newer. There are clean up kits out there if you
want to make your 182 go faster. I've seen 182's go about 150 kts with
the 230 hp engine. But they really look goofy, may as well get a $%*&^#
Cherokee if you want a plane to look like that. The upgraded engines
are really cool. I have 1100 hours on my 470 and when the time comes I
will be slipping 275 hp into my bird.

Comanche 250
Just got mine and love it. You can get a good one for 50-60,000

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

On 20-Jan-2004, (atis118) wrote:

> I just bought a 1979 Piper Dakota 3 months ago. 235hp, 1200 lbs useful
> load, 11.8 gph cruise, 17,400 service ceiling, and trues at 143 knots.
> I love it.
> I looked at Archers and Arrows and found that ones of quality were
> nearly in the price range of the Dakota but didn't have the same
> qualities. The Dakota is longer than the Archer or Arrow and has more
> legroom. To be honest I didn't see anything in the cruiser style
> airplanes that started less than 85k with original radios and Nav
> equipment ( I looked at 182's as well). Upgraded radios and avionics
> pushed you over 100k.
> You might want to look at the Cherokee 235. They are pretty much the
> same length as the Arrow and Archer, but the 235 has a much better
> useful load and are pretty darn reliable. Almost all the 235's have a
> constant speed prop. You can get a good 235 in the 50-75k range.


I agree with MOST of your post, and your basic point is a good one -- The
PA28-135 series is an excellent performer and load hauler.

A few points, however: First, I am pretty sure that the newer Arrows (Arrow
II onward) have the same cabin dimensions as the Dakota. Second, the
normally aspirated Arrow will probably be a knot or three faster than the
Dakota (although they are close enough so that it's reasonable to say they
are about the same in cruise speed). Service ceilings are likewise about
the same. Finally, while the Dakota has a significantly larger useful load
than the Arrow, a healthy part of that (approx. 240 lb.) advantage will be
gobbled up by the extra fuel needed for the MUCH thirstier engine. A part
of that difference in efficiency is that the 200 HP Arrow is injected, while
the Dakota is carbureted.

-Elliott Drucker

I bought my 69 Arrow for $54K with good paint and upholstery, 2100 TT.
The pre-72 Arrow with 200hp engine is the best performer of the line,
since it is smaller for the same power. True, it only has 4.5 hrs
flying time at 75%, but that far exceeds my bladder capacity. Legroom
is fine in front, a little tight for adults in the back.

The retractible gear will cost more in maintenance than the Archer,
but it's about 10kts faster, and the gear is extremely simple in
design, much more reliable than any of the Cessna gear systems.

The IO360 is one of the best engines ever made.

Obviously posted by a gentleman of refined taste.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

Tony wrote:

>Comanche 250
>Just got mine and love it. You can get a good one for 50-60,000
>
>*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
>Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.
>
>

A local flight school has a '68 arrow that is well refurbished. It seems to
have a pretty good dispatch rate, and the owner is making good money off of
it.

It's really no speed demon, but pulling up the gear will likely add as much
satisfaction as an extra 10 knots would anyway. Of course, I am saying this
without any real knowledge of your mission and usage.

You can possibly get into a mooney - contact the owners group.



"PaulH" > wrote in message
m...
> I bought my 69 Arrow for $54K with good paint and upholstery, 2100 TT.
> The pre-72 Arrow with 200hp engine is the best performer of the line,
> since it is smaller for the same power. True, it only has 4.5 hrs
> flying time at 75%, but that far exceeds my bladder capacity. Legroom
> is fine in front, a little tight for adults in the back.
>
> The retractible gear will cost more in maintenance than the Archer,
> but it's about 10kts faster, and the gear is extremely simple in
> design, much more reliable than any of the Cessna gear systems.
>
> The IO360 is one of the best engines ever made.

I sold my 172 yesterday, and will be delivering it to the new owner this
afternoon.

So I am on the hunt for my next aircraft.

At this time I am looking at:
182's
Arrow 200's
Arrow 180's
Cherokee Pathfinder 235

I have located several with low time engines, in the mid 50's. If you know of
anyone selling a quality aircraft, let me know.

Thank you for all of your opinions, they all have merit.

Larry

> Cherokee Pathfinder 235
>
> I have located several with low time engines, in the mid 50's. If you
know of
> anyone selling a quality aircraft, let me know.

From the Cherokee Pilots Association webpage:
*************************************
1974 235, creampuff, 1340 TT, GNS-430, KMA-24, MX-11, Narco ADF, A/P, IFR,
tip tanks, NDH, $109,000 OBO, 608-835-8837.

1975 235, 3390 TT, 1540 SMOH, dual com, dual nav, g/s, Garmin 250 GPS,
Knots-2-U mods, $97,500, James Rivers, 713-823-1137.
*************************************
The second one is a bit on the high side, for the hours on the engine. But
they might be worth a look.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Larryskydives" > wrote in message
...
> I sold my 172 yesterday, and will be delivering it to the new owner this
> afternoon.
>
> So I am on the hunt for my next aircraft.
>
> At this time I am looking at:
> 182's
> Arrow 200's
> Arrow 180's
>
> Thank you for all of your opinions, they all have merit.
>
> Larry

In article <JoaQb.129579$I06.1120359@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>
> From the Cherokee Pilots Association webpage:
> *************************************
> 1974 235, creampuff, 1340 TT, GNS-430, KMA-24, MX-11, Narco ADF, A/P,
> IFR,
> tip tanks, NDH, $109,000 OBO, 608-835-8837.

$109,000 for a 30 year old engine? um....

--
Bob Noel

Dude wrote:

>You can possibly get into a mooney
>


Well, that's the catch, of course.

As cramped as Mooneys are to get their "performance" numbers, getting in
is the first challenge.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <JoaQb.129579$I06.1120359@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > From the Cherokee Pilots Association webpage:
> > *************************************
> > 1974 235, creampuff, 1340 TT, GNS-430, KMA-24, MX-11, Narco ADF, A/P,
> > IFR,
> > tip tanks, NDH, $109,000 OBO, 608-835-8837.
>
> $109,000 for a 30 year old engine? um....
>

Just out of curiosity, what did that puppy sell for brand new?

> > > 1974 235, creampuff, 1340 TT, GNS-430, KMA-24, MX-11, Narco ADF, A/P,
> > > IFR,
> > > tip tanks, NDH, $109,000 OBO, 608-835-8837.
> >
> > $109,000 for a 30 year old engine? um....

Hmmm -- I hadn't noticed that! The O-540 is virtually bullet-proof, but 30
years? That's a looong time between overhauls.

I wonder if that's a typo? Everything else about the plane sounds great.

> Just out of curiosity, what did that puppy sell for brand new?

That's a good question. Anyone know what a '74 Pathfinder sold for, new?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <JoaQb.129579$I06.1120359@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > From the Cherokee Pilots Association webpage:
> > > *************************************
>
>
>

You'll probably be happy with any of the few you've narrowed it down to.
Everyone's 'mission' is different. Mine was load hauling and roominess. I
had more time in Arrows/Archers/Warriors than 177/182 by a longshot. I was
leaning towards that. After a trip with the wife and two kids in a C182,
then an Arrow, wife demanded I get a C182. I gladly obliged. After lots of
long trips loaded to the max, we are extremely happy with the airplane. It
has way outperformed beyond my expectations. A surprise was it's
willingness to get into the flight levels when I wanted it to, no small
issue living near the Rockies.

I really like the Cardinals, especially the RG's, and almost got one. Just
too underpowered and not as versatile as the Skylane. I hear it's more like
a car and the Skylane is more like a truck, but it works for us either way.

The Pipers mentioned above are cramped by comparison, and of course the one
door, don't really care for that. Especially when I had a small engine fire
and had to get out quick to put it out. I can't imagine doing it as quickly
in a Cherokee as I did in my airplane with minimal ($3 scat hose) damage.

The passing scenery keeps the kids better occupied with the high-wing, you
can camp under it, you can see your wheels in flight, you can avoid getting
soaked in the rain, on and on.

But like I said it's all up to what's important to YOU, none of the above
may matter. If it's all speed and sexiness, Skylane may not be for you.
But you could skydive out of it easier than a Cherokee.

Chris

Ya, my wife said (flying w/ me in an Archer) "We need to get a faster,
roomier plane." (I love this woman!)

She now has an A36 Bo' (Well I do, but she rides in it a lot)

Couldn't resist, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.