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.