Piper Arrow vs Cessna 182

[[email protected]]

I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of these
aircraft. They have aproximately the same performance with a
significant difference in the fuel consumption. What about maintenance
cost? Please post your comments.

[Jay Honeck]

Useful load of an Arrow is no where near that of a Skylane. THAT is the
main difference, IMHO.

For a fairer comparison, you need to compare a Piper Pathfinder/Dakota with
the Skylane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Useful load of an Arrow is no where near that of a Skylane. THAT is the
> main difference, IMHO.
>
> For a fairer comparison, you need to compare a Piper Pathfinder/Dakota with
> the Skylane.

Besides what Jay mentioned, the Skylane is roomier than the Arrow... the
two doors makes it a lot easier to get in and out. The Skylane will cost
you a lot more to buy but may be a bit less to maintain.

[Dave S]

kontiki wrote:

> Besides what Jay mentioned, the Skylane is roomier than the Arrow... the
> two doors makes it a lot easier to get in and out. The Skylane will cost
> you a lot more to buy but may be a bit less to maintain.
>
Also, not all skylane's are retracts... All arrows to my knowledge are.
The retractable gear adds cost and complexity.

Dave

[Paul]

....For a fairer comparison, you need to compare a Piper Arrow with
the Cessna Cardinal (177).

--

Paul

"Jay Honeck" > a écrit dans le message de news:
5fMse.80709$xm3.77623@attbi_s21...
> Useful load of an Arrow is no where near that of a Skylane. THAT is the
> main difference, IMHO.
>
> For a fairer comparison, you need to compare a Piper Pathfinder/Dakota
> with the Skylane.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Montblack]

("Paul" wrote)
> ...For a fairer comparison, you need to compare a Piper Arrow with
> the Cessna Cardinal (177).


177 RG :-)


Montblack

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article t>,
Dave S > wrote:
> Also, not all skylane's are retracts... All arrows to my knowledge are.
> The retractable gear adds cost and complexity.


The non-retractable version of the Arrow is the Archer, which is also
missing the constant-speed prop.

In my opinion, the only advantage the Arrow has over the Archer is range
due to the ability to load more fuel. I'm not sure that advantage is
worth the extra cost in maintenance and insurance.



JKG

[Javier Henderson]

Jonathan Goodish > writes:

> In article t>,
> Dave S > wrote:
> > Also, not all skylane's are retracts... All arrows to my knowledge are.
> > The retractable gear adds cost and complexity.
>
>
> The non-retractable version of the Arrow is the Archer, which is also
> missing the constant-speed prop.
>
> In my opinion, the only advantage the Arrow has over the Archer is range
> due to the ability to load more fuel. I'm not sure that advantage is
> worth the extra cost in maintenance and insurance.

Is the Arrow any faster than the Archer?

-jav

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Javier Henderson > wrote:
> > In my opinion, the only advantage the Arrow has over the Archer is range
> > due to the ability to load more fuel. I'm not sure that advantage is
> > worth the extra cost in maintenance and insurance.
>
> Is the Arrow any faster than the Archer?


Yes, as you would expect given the reduced drag from the gear. However,
I don't believe the speed advantage is any more than 15kts or so, which
isn't much for the increase in insurance and maintenance costs. You can
get the same performance out of fixed-gear, fixed pitch prop airplanes
like the Tiger.



JKG

[Javier Henderson]

Jonathan Goodish > writes:

> In article >,
> Javier Henderson > wrote:
> > > In my opinion, the only advantage the Arrow has over the Archer is range
> > > due to the ability to load more fuel. I'm not sure that advantage is
> > > worth the extra cost in maintenance and insurance.
> >
> > Is the Arrow any faster than the Archer?
>
>
> Yes, as you would expect given the reduced drag from the gear. However,
> I don't believe the speed advantage is any more than 15kts or so, which
> isn't much for the increase in insurance and maintenance costs. You can
> get the same performance out of fixed-gear, fixed pitch prop airplanes
> like the Tiger.

Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?

-jav

[kontiki]

Javier Henderson wrote:
> Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
> average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?
>
> -jav

The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.

[Javier Henderson]

kontiki > writes:

> Javier Henderson wrote:
> > Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
> > average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?
>
> The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.

I guess I haven't missed much!

My Skylane cruises at 135 KTAS also, on about 13-14 GPH. The Tiger did
it on about 9.5 GPH, I sure do miss those fuel flows...

-jav

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
kontiki > wrote:

> > Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
> > average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?
> >
> The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.

I've seen 140+ ktas in an arrow 180. But I've only flown
that arrow on one round trip.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Paul]

Sure, the RG.

--

Paul

"Montblack" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> ("Paul" wrote)
>> ...For a fairer comparison, you need to compare a Piper Arrow with
>> the Cessna Cardinal (177).
>
>
> 177 RG :-)
>
>
> Montblack
>

[Tauno Voipio]

Javier Henderson wrote:
> kontiki > writes:
>
>
>>Javier Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
>>>average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?
>>
>>The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.
>
>
> I guess I haven't missed much!
>
> My Skylane cruises at 135 KTAS also, on about 13-14 GPH. The Tiger did
> it on about 9.5 GPH, I sure do miss those fuel flows...
>
> -jav

My Turbo Arrow IV cruises 135 KTAS on 9 - 10 GPH near surface,
and 150 KTAS with same flow at FL 100.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of these
> aircraft. They have aproximately the same performance with a
> significant difference in the fuel consumption. What about maintenance
> cost? Please post your comments.


Your assessment is generally correct -- similar performance with much
lower fuel consumption for the Arrow. At 75% power, the normally
aspirated Arrow will cruise at around 141 kts on a bit over 10 gph.
The C-182 will cruise at around 135 kts on about 13.5 gph. The C-182's
useful load is greater, but some of that advantage is lost to the
larger fuel load needed to fly a given mission. I think that you will
find that the payloads available when fueled for a 500 nm flight with
IFR reserves will be surprisingly close.

Newer Arrows (from Arrow III on) have much greater range because of
their very generous fuel capacity, which is great when the cabin load
is relatively light. Of course, you can't fill both the tanks and all
of the seats.

Some say the C-182 has a more comfortable cabin. It probably is a bit
roomier, but I've flown many hours in both models and I'm not sure I
could give you a preference for comfort.

The RG on the Arrow will entail a bit of extra maintenance cost, but
not nearly as much as some suggest. Over 10 years of owning an Arrow
I'd say that the gear has cost an average of about $300/year to
maintain. We recently got a comparison on insurance rates and it turns
out that, all else being equal we would pay about $290/year less for
coverage on a C-182. So, if you fly any reasonable number of
hours/year, with today's fuel prices, the Arrow will come out ahead in
terms of total operating costs.

If you are looking at Arrows, note that the fuselage stretch with the
-II model adds a good bit of rear seat legroom.

-Elliott Drucker

[Denny]

Owned and flown both many hours... It's the SKYLANE, hands down...
Nearest thing to a pickup truck in it's class...

denny

[Newps]

> wrote:
>
>>I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of these
>>aircraft. They have aproximately the same performance with a
>>significant difference in the fuel consumption. What about maintenance
>>cost? Please post your comments.


Spped wise they are about the same. The real difference is in takeoff
performance. That may or may not matter to you. The Cessna kills the
Arrow in that regard. For me any airplane with one door is a loser, and
then they put it on the wrong side to boot. I'm 6'2" and can't imagine
climbing up on the wing and then down into the cockpit with any regularity.

[Jack Cunniff]

Javier Henderson > writes:

>kontiki > writes:

>> Javier Henderson wrote:
>> > Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
>> > average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?
>>
>> The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.

>I guess I haven't missed much!

>My Skylane cruises at 135 KTAS also, on about 13-14 GPH. The Tiger did
>it on about 9.5 GPH, I sure do miss those fuel flows...

I get 135 knots -calibrated- at 9.2 gallons on my 200hp Arrow. (That's
running lean of peak, GAMIs and EI engine analyzer, so it's going to take
me a while to pay off the equipment with the fuel savings. I was using
11GPH prior to the upgrade.)

-Jack

[Robert M. Gary]

The 182 holds more load but at a HUGE price. The 182 burns a lot of gas
to go so slow. The 182 also has the standard issues with the Cont 230hp
engine, few owners are able to get tops to make it to TBO. The 200hp
Arrow runs the bullet proof Lyc IO-360 engine that will easily make
TBO. Of course, the Arrow is really just a slower version of the
Mooney, but you didn't ask that. The Arrow and Mooney cabins are the
same size (almost down to the inch) although both got longer in the mid
70's.

-Robert, CFI (182s,Arrows,Mooneys, etc, etc)

[Jack Cunniff]

"Robert M. Gary" > writes:

>The 182 holds more load but at a HUGE price. The 182 burns a lot of gas
>to go so slow. The 182 also has the standard issues with the Cont 230hp
>engine, few owners are able to get tops to make it to TBO. The 200hp
>Arrow runs the bullet proof Lyc IO-360 engine that will easily make
>TBO. Of course, the Arrow is really just a slower version of the
>Mooney, but you didn't ask that. The Arrow and Mooney cabins are the
>same size (almost down to the inch) although both got longer in the mid
>70's.

>-Robert, CFI (182s,Arrows,Mooneys, etc, etc)

Close. The '72 Arrow II got the fuselage extension; 5 more inches of
legroom for the rear seat passengers.

-Jack
http://world.std.com/~jmac/Arrowprofile.jpg

[john smith]

Jack Cunniff wrote:
> Close. The '72 Arrow II got the fuselage extension; 5 more inches of
> legroom for the rear seat passengers.

Does make it a retractable Pathfinder?
The Turbo Pathfinder had the turbo IO-360 like the Turbo Arrow had.

[soxinbox]

My turbo arrow gets 150 KTAS at around 6000 ft, 12 GPH, at 65% power. Higher
speeds up high. Older arrows with the 180 HP engine probably go a bit
slower.

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Javier Henderson wrote:
>> Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
>> average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?
>>
>> -jav
>
> The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.
>

[Jack Cunniff]

john smith > writes:

>Jack Cunniff wrote:
>> Close. The '72 Arrow II got the fuselage extension; 5 more inches of
>> legroom for the rear seat passengers.

>Does make it a retractable Pathfinder?
>The Turbo Pathfinder had the turbo IO-360 like the Turbo Arrow had.

No, it's a Cherokee Arrow II.

The Pathfinder is a 235, the IO-360 in the '72 Arrow is a 200 HP.
(And the Turbo Arrow is still only 200 HP.)

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/pastissues/2002/jan/buyersguide.html
talks about the various Pipers. (and there's a link to Cessna model
differences, too.)

-Jack

[Jay Honeck]

>> Close. The '72 Arrow II got the fuselage extension; 5 more inches of
>> legroom for the rear seat passengers.
>
> Does make it a retractable Pathfinder?
> The Turbo Pathfinder had the turbo IO-360 like the Turbo Arrow had.

Actually, the Turbo *Dakota* (which the Pathfinder evolved into) had the
turbo IO-360, which turned out (from everything I've read -- I have no
personal experience) to be a real disaster.

The 4-cylinder IO-360 didn't provide nearly the take-off performance or
useful load of the 6-cylinder O-540, and had a very hard time making it to
TBO. It was somewhat better "upstairs" (where a turbo really shines) than
the normally aspirated O-540, but that small improvement didn't justify the
expense and complexity of the turbo, and Piper soon abandoned the idea and
reverted to the bullet-proof (if more fuel-thirsty) O-540.

Interestingly, it seems the same turbo IO-360 has not been a big problem in
Arrows, although (again) I have no personal experience with them.

The thing I don't understand (and everyone I've talked to at New Piper
agrees) is why Piper never built a Pathfinder RG. THAT sucker would have
been awesome.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> The thing I don't understand (and everyone I've talked to at New Piper
> agrees) is why Piper never built a Pathfinder RG. THAT sucker would have
> been awesome.

I am guessing weight and size.
The Arrow retractable gear is six inches shorter than the Archer's to be
able to fit in the wells.

[Aaron Coolidge]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
: turbo IO-360, which turned out (from everything I've read -- I have no
: personal experience) to be a real disaster.

: The 4-cylinder IO-360 didn't provide nearly the take-off performance or
: useful load of the 6-cylinder O-540, and had a very hard time making it to
: TBO. It was somewhat better "upstairs" (where a turbo really shines) than

Turbo Dakota has a Continental TSIO360 engine, a 6-cyl model. It really
should have been called a Turbo Archer...
--
Aaron C.

[Jay Honeck]

> : The 4-cylinder IO-360 didn't provide nearly the take-off performance or
> : useful load of the 6-cylinder O-540, and had a very hard time making it
> to
> : TBO. It was somewhat better "upstairs" (where a turbo really shines)
> than
>
> Turbo Dakota has a Continental TSIO360 engine, a 6-cyl model. It really
> should have been called a Turbo Archer...

Wouldn't it be nice if Teledyne Continental and Lycoming didn't both have
"xxx-360" engines? Here all this time I thought it was the Lycoming
version...

Thanks for the clarification.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[xyzzy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>: The 4-cylinder IO-360 didn't provide nearly the take-off performance or
>>: useful load of the 6-cylinder O-540, and had a very hard time making it
>>to
>>: TBO. It was somewhat better "upstairs" (where a turbo really shines)
>>than
>>
>>Turbo Dakota has a Continental TSIO360 engine, a 6-cyl model. It really
>>should have been called a Turbo Archer...
>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if Teledyne Continental and Lycoming didn't both have
> "xxx-360" engines? Here all this time I thought it was the Lycoming
> version...
>
> Thanks for the clarification.

IIRC, those designations came from the military. Continential used to
name them based on horsepower (C-90, etc) but after the army started
using their engines in WWII, they standardized on the current
nomenclature and Continental went along (O-300 was originally going to
be C-145, etc).