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