A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Piper Arrow vs Cessna 182



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 20th 05, 11:05 PM
Jack Cunniff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
Ads
  #22  
Old June 21st 05, 03:55 AM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #23  
Old June 21st 05, 04:01 AM
soxinbox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My turbo arrow gets 150 KTAS at around 6000 ft, 12 GPH, at 65% power. Higher
speeds up high. Older arrows with the 180 HP engine probably go a bit
slower.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Javier Henderson wrote:
Hm.. I've owned a couple of Tigers, I'd get about 135KTAS on the
average. I thought the Arrow would be closer to 150 KTAS?

-jav


The Arrows I've flown generally cruise at about 135kts.



  #24  
Old June 21st 05, 07:19 PM
Jack Cunniff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #25  
Old June 23rd 05, 10:51 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"


  #26  
Old June 24th 05, 03:26 AM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #27  
Old June 24th 05, 02:54 PM
Aaron Coolidge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #28  
Old June 25th 05, 05:07 AM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

: 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...


Wouldn't it be nice if Teledyne Continental and Lycoming didn't both have
"xxx-360" engines? Here all this time I thought it was the Lycoming
version...

Thanks for the clarification.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #29  
Old June 27th 05, 03:26 PM
xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay Honeck wrote:
: 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...



Wouldn't it be nice if Teledyne Continental and Lycoming didn't both have
"xxx-360" engines? Here all this time I thought it was the Lycoming
version...

Thanks for the clarification.


IIRC, those designations came from the military. Continential used to
name them based on horsepower (C-90, etc) but after the army started
using their engines in WWII, they standardized on the current
nomenclature and Continental went along (O-300 was originally going to
be C-145, etc).

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How safe is it, really? June Piloting 227 December 10th 04 06:01 AM
Anti collision light mod for Piper Arrow 1968 model? Frode Berg Owning 4 May 20th 04 05:16 AM
$15,000 Cash for a Cessna 152 Or Piper Tomahawk MRQB Aviation Marketplace 17 February 15th 04 01:05 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
Piper Archer III or Cessna 172SP Dale Harwell Owning 10 July 15th 03 04:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.