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