![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("Newps" wrote)
Astroturf between the spinner and cowl. Huh? -- Montblack |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'm outta here | Richard Riley | Home Built | 0 | August 4th 03 05:15 PM |