2 outta 3 :-(

[dutch]

I've been trying to finish up an instrument rating in my 69 Arrow. I had
the check ride scheduled for this afternoon so thought a short final
refresher with instructor yesterday would be a good idea.

First approach, lowered the gear for descent, oooops, right main indicator
still dark. Switch the bulbs, nope, same one. Flew by the tower, looked OK
to them. Took it back home, landed fine, into the shop.

The down indicator switch assembly is covered by a plastic housing, and the
plastic eventually gets old and brittle and when asked to flex too many
times eventually just broke the wire inside. So I'm going to replace the
entire assembly and do the one on the left side as well - did the nose gear
last year. It's a little nerve-wracking not knowing whether you're going to
get that let-down feeling on touchdown.

I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
time.

[G.R. Patterson III]

dutch wrote:
>
> I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
> airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
> time.

There's a saying about motorcycles that if you maintain one yourself, you will
eventually have two of them.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

[Newps]

Shoulda bought a 182. Same or more speed for less money.

dutch wrote:
> I've been trying to finish up an instrument rating in my 69 Arrow. I had
> the check ride scheduled for this afternoon so thought a short final
> refresher with instructor yesterday would be a good idea.
>
> First approach, lowered the gear for descent, oooops, right main indicator
> still dark. Switch the bulbs, nope, same one. Flew by the tower, looked OK
> to them. Took it back home, landed fine, into the shop.
>
> The down indicator switch assembly is covered by a plastic housing, and the
> plastic eventually gets old and brittle and when asked to flex too many
> times eventually just broke the wire inside. So I'm going to replace the
> entire assembly and do the one on the left side as well - did the nose gear
> last year. It's a little nerve-wracking not knowing whether you're going to
> get that let-down feeling on touchdown.
>
> I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
> airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
> time.
>
>

[Tina Marie]

In article et>, dutch wrote:
> I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
> airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
> time.

I disagree.

Very often, I have to replace multiple moving parts at a time.

Tina Marie
(N3653P)
--
http://www.tripacerdriver.com "...One of the main causes
of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way
to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)

[[email protected]]

On 8-Oct-2003, "dutch" > wrote:

> The down indicator switch assembly is covered by a plastic housing, and
> the plastic eventually gets old and brittle and when asked to flex too
> many
> times eventually just broke the wire inside.


I had EXACTLY the same thing happen on our '79 Arrow, except it was the left
main and it occurred while approaching Oshkosh during the big show!
--
-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

On 8-Oct-2003, Newps > wrote:

> Shoulda bought a 182. Same or more speed for less money.


The 182 is a very fine airplane but you've got it reversed. The Arrow is
typically a few knots faster, and for planes of comparable age, equipment,
and condition the 182 will probably sell for thousands more. The 182 costs
more to operate, too. Its engine is more expensive to overhaul, and the
higher fuel costs for the 182 will usually more than offset the higher
maintenance costs for the Arrow's landing gear.

The planes actually have similar mission capabilities, but the more
efficient Arrow will generally do it for somewhat lower cost at the expense
of somewhat greater complexity.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
> airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
> time.

The trick is to find a good one that a previous owner has already gone
through...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael]

"dutch" > wrote
> The down indicator switch assembly is covered by a plastic housing, and the
> plastic eventually gets old and brittle and when asked to flex too many
> times eventually just broke the wire inside. So I'm going to replace the
> entire assembly and do the one on the left side as well

Well, you can do that. Or you can splice in new wire in the area
subject to flexing. If you have a cooperative A&P and are handy with
tools, it's a simple procedure that will save you hundreds of dollars
in one afternoon. Your call, but that's how I dealt with the same
problem on my Twin Comanche. Still going strong after hundreds of
cycles.

> I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
> airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
> time.

Well, I would put it this way - unless you're going to do the
maintenance yourself, you are not saving any money by buying an older
complex airplane.

Michael

[Newps]

wrote:

> On 8-Oct-2003, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Shoulda bought a 182. Same or more speed for less money.
>
>
>
> The 182 is a very fine airplane but you've got it reversed. The Arrow is
> typically a few knots faster, and for planes of comparable age, equipment,
> and condition the 182 will probably sell for thousands more. The 182 costs
> more to operate, too. Its engine is more expensive to overhaul, and the
> higher fuel costs for the 182 will usually more than offset the higher
> maintenance costs for the Arrow's landing gear.

Ah, no. In the real world the speeds are the same. I am also assuming
the Arrow gear never gives you any trouble. You will spend a little
more on gas for the 182, about 2gph if you run wide open in both planes.
Insurance is where the savings will be, the Arrow could be 50% higher.
The 182 will cost more to buy but you get that back and more at
resale. Not sure exactly how the Arrow does other than not as good as
the 182.


>
> The planes actually have similar mission capabilities

As long as your mission lets you stay on the pavement. Go off road and
the Arrow falls by the wayside.

[Carl Ellis]

An airplane is like your grandfather's axe. Your father replaced the
handle, and you replaced the head, but it's still your grandfather's axe.



"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> "dutch" > wrote
> > The down indicator switch assembly is covered by a plastic housing, and
the
> > plastic eventually gets old and brittle and when asked to flex too many
> > times eventually just broke the wire inside. So I'm going to replace
the
> > entire assembly and do the one on the left side as well
>
> Well, you can do that. Or you can splice in new wire in the area
> subject to flexing. If you have a cooperative A&P and are handy with
> tools, it's a simple procedure that will save you hundreds of dollars
> in one afternoon. Your call, but that's how I dealt with the same
> problem on my Twin Comanche. Still going strong after hundreds of
> cycles.
>
> > I'm concluding after a couple of years of ownership that buying an older
> > airplane gives you the opportunity to replace every moving part one at a
> > time.
>
> Well, I would put it this way - unless you're going to do the
> maintenance yourself, you are not saving any money by buying an older
> complex airplane.
>
> Michael


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/6/2003

[[email protected]]

On 9-Oct-2003, Newps > wrote:

> Ah, no. In the real world the speeds are the same.

Our '79 Arrow IV is definitely a few kts faster than the '79 C-182 I flew
for about 100 hrs a number of years ago. However, the Arrow does have some
speed modes (gap seals, LoPresti hubcaps, wheel well trim). It is possible
that "stock" versions of the two would have about the same cruise speeds.


>I am also assuming the Arrow gear never gives you any trouble.

Maintenance of the gear system (exclusive of brake and tire replacement) has
averaged a couple of hundred dollars a year over the 7 years we have owned
the Arrow.


>You will spend a little more on gas for the 182, about 2gph if you run wide
>open in both planes.

More like 2.5 gph if the 182 has the carbureted Continental. That's about
$6.50 per hour at typical 100LL prices, or $975 per year at 150 hrs/year.


> Insurance is where the savings will be, the Arrow could be 50% higher.

COULD be, but PROBABLY much closer to about the same price. Most likely
comparable coverage for the Arrow will run a couple of hundred more per
year. Certainly less than the difference in fuel costs if you fly 150
hrs/year.

> The 182 will cost more to buy but you get that back and more at
> resale. Not sure exactly how the Arrow does other than not as good as
> the 182.

On a percentage basis the Arrow appreciates over time at about the same rate
as the 182, but it's a bit cyclical. Right now the 182 is relatively "hot"
in the used market. A couple of years ago Arrows were selling at premium
prices.


Like I said earlier, both are fine airplanes. I'm the kind of person that
likes efficiency, and the Arrow is quite obviously the more efficient
airplane. Others value "brute force", and they will probably prefer the 182
or Piper Dakota.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[John Kunkel]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:aP3hb.70456$%h1.50481@sccrnsc02...
>
> Shoulda bought a 182. Same or more speed for less money.

As hard as it might be to accept, some folks just don't like high wing
airplanes.
John

[Newps]

wrote:
> On 9-Oct-2003, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, no. In the real world the speeds are the same.
>
>
> Our '79 Arrow IV is definitely a few kts faster than the '79 C-182 I flew
> for about 100 hrs a number of years ago. However, the Arrow does have some
> speed modes (gap seals, LoPresti hubcaps, wheel well trim). It is possible
> that "stock" versions of the two would have about the same cruise speeds.

And there are speed mods for the 182 also. I believe the best you can
do with the 230 hp engine is about 155 KTAS. But then you don't have
what I think of as a 182 anymore. May as well by a cherokee



>
> More like 2.5 gph if the 182 has the carbureted Continental. That's about
> $6.50 per hour at typical 100LL prices, or $975 per year at 150 hrs/year.

Can the Arrow use mogas? I use mostly mogas at $1.60 per gallon.


>
> On a percentage basis the Arrow appreciates over time at about the same rate
> as the 182, but it's a bit cyclical. Right now the 182 is relatively "hot"
> in the used market. A couple of years ago Arrows were selling at premium
> prices.

Then the 182 is better because its been "hot" for decades.


>
>
> Like I said earlier, both are fine airplanes. I'm the kind of person that
> likes efficiency, and the Arrow is quite obviously the more efficient
> airplane. Others value "brute force", and they will probably prefer the 182
> or Piper Dakota.

Depends what you need to do. Efficiency can also be stated as poor
runway performance. Once you get it in the air it cruises OK but you
wouldn't want to get too rough with the runway.

[Tony Cox]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:fxmhb.715184$YN5.613761@sccrnsc01...
>
> wrote:
> >
> > The 182 is a very fine airplane but you've got it reversed. The Arrow
is
> > typically a few knots faster.
>
> Ah, no. In the real world the speeds are the same. I am also assuming
> the Arrow gear never gives you any trouble. You will spend a little
> more on gas for the 182, about 2gph if you run wide open in both planes.
> Insurance is where the savings will be, the Arrow could be 50% higher.
> The 182 will cost more to buy but you get that back and more at
> resale. Not sure exactly how the Arrow does other than not as good as
> the 182.
>

As it happens, I often fly a 'flight of 2' with my hangar mate. He has an
Arrow and I have a 182. For flights of less than 50 miles, I can win. Over
that, he'll win. The 182 significantly outclimbs the Arrow, but is slower
in cruise by several knots. In a nice leisurely cruise, I'll burn 11.5gph to
his 9.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:
> And there are speed mods for the 182 also. I believe the best
> you can do with the 230 hp engine is about 155 KTAS.

With a turbo, right?

> But then you don't have what I think of as a 182 anymore.

Why not?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Newps" wrote:
>
>>And there are speed mods for the 182 also. I believe the best
>>you can do with the 230 hp engine is about 155 KTAS.
>
>
> With a turbo, right?

No, this is not a turbo and you would get those speeds at about 8,000
MSL. There's a whole bunch of guys on the Cessna Pilots Assoc
discussion boards that go in for these types of mods, trying to wring
every knoe out of the airframe. I skim thru that area every now and
again to see what they are talking about.
>
>
>>But then you don't have what I think of as a 182 anymore.
>
>
> Why not?

If you were to see pictures of these guys planes they look horrible to
me. Wheel pants that leave about an inch of tire below the pant. Fully
enclosed nose strut and brakes. Streamlined main gear leg fairings.
Astroturf between the spinner and cowl. New cowls with the small
openings. You've now taken a capable multi surface plane and made it a
pavement only machine. Might as well have Jay's plane.

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:
> No, this is not a turbo and you would get those speeds at
> about 8,000 MSL.

That's impressive. A 182RG I flew would only do 150.

> You've now taken a capable multi surface plane and made it a
> pavement only machine. Might as well have Jay's plane.

....but faster and with two doors.
I dunno, for 99% of the ops I fly, I'd love to have a Skylane that
would do 155 without a turbo.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Montblack]

("Newps" wrote)
>Astroturf between the spinner and cowl.

Huh?

--
Montblack

[Newps]

Doh, not astroturf but it really looks like the bristles of a brush. It
closes off the gap between the spinner and the cowl. They are made to
wear away as the prop rotates.

Montblack wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>
>>Astroturf between the spinner and cowl.
>
>
> Huh?
>

[Jeff]

The Arrow is only a 200 HP engine, the C-182 is 230 HP?
I can't comment on a 182 but I have a turbo arrow III, At 41' MP and 2550 RPM I
climb at 900-1000 fpm. Cruise at 65% power ( 31' and 2300 RPM) and get 150 TAS
or better at above 10,000 ft. My fuel burn I lean to 12 gph. I don't know for
sure, but I think the 182 does have a better useful load then the Arrow.

Tony Cox wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:fxmhb.715184$YN5.613761@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The 182 is a very fine airplane but you've got it reversed. The Arrow
> is
> > > typically a few knots faster.
> >
> > Ah, no. In the real world the speeds are the same. I am also assuming
> > the Arrow gear never gives you any trouble. You will spend a little
> > more on gas for the 182, about 2gph if you run wide open in both planes.
> > Insurance is where the savings will be, the Arrow could be 50% higher.
> > The 182 will cost more to buy but you get that back and more at
> > resale. Not sure exactly how the Arrow does other than not as good as
> > the 182.
> >
>
> As it happens, I often fly a 'flight of 2' with my hangar mate. He has an
> Arrow and I have a 182. For flights of less than 50 miles, I can win. Over
> that, he'll win. The 182 significantly outclimbs the Arrow, but is slower
> in cruise by several knots. In a nice leisurely cruise, I'll burn 11.5gph to
> his 9.
>
> --
> Dr. Tony Cox
> Citrus Controls Inc.
> e-mail:
> http://CitrusControls.com/