Piper Arrow vs Cessna 182

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.

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

denny

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)

"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

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.

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/cont...yersguide.html
talks about the various Pipers. (and there's a link to Cessna model
differences, too.)

-Jack

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"

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.

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.