2 outta 3 :-(

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

"Newps" wrote in message
news:aP3hb.70456$%h1.50481@sccrnsc02...

Shoulda bought a 182. Same or more speed for less money.

As hard as it might be to accept, some folks just don't like high wing
airplanes.
John

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.

"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/

"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

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.

"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

("Newps" wrote)
Astroturf between the spinner and cowl.

Huh?

--
Montblack

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?

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/