Cessna Cardinal 177 RG II v. Piper Arrow III (70s) v. Piper Arrow III (brand new)

Jay Honeck wrote:
Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.

That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.

It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.

Atlas, our fixed-gear Piper Cherokee 235 Pathfinder, will absolutely
walk away from an Arrow in a head-to-head speed race, (I've never raced
a Cardinal RG, but I've over-taken older Mooneys and Bonanzas, too) has
a 1460 pound useful load, and burns that sweet car gas. In every
measurable way, the Pathfinder is superior to the Arrow, except one --
fuel burn. With the money you're talking about, that hardly matters.

A pro I'm seeing with the Arrow is the Johnson Arm flap lever, which I
greatly prefer to motorized systems every day. What all of us, and
myself, are forgetting about aircraft with more ponies than 200 hp and
more expensive (as was the case with the new arrow) is the cost of
insurance.

Do what you want, but IMHO if you've got the kind of money you're
talking about spending, you'd be crazy not to get a Lancair or a
Cirrus.

Cirrus and Lancair are great planes... but what I've said a few times
now is try to get parts for them where I am, theres a practicality
portion to my purchase as well, a "happy medium" has to be reached with
an aircraft in Hawai'i, the planes you see around here are VERY limited
because of that reason, primarily to provide parts on hand for many
aircraft, while a Lancair or Cirrus might be waiting on a part for
months. Think of how horrible it is to get a new engine dropped in a
plane in Hawai'i, not only do we pay what you guys pay, but I have to
get the thing shipped here for about $3,000. One of the guys at our
hangar is overhauling the engines on his Chieftain, comes to about
$60,000 each. Just because I can spend doesn't mean I want to create a
black hole for my money.

As I said I'm fully aware of this... I already ruled out the new arrow,
so don't worry about that, I'm working on a job with Continental
Micronesia, if I can land that and get enough time I plan on moving on
to Air Tahiti Nui, then I move that plane down there, and I do plan on
maintaining it, the maintenance will be 100% behind the plane in the
environment. The plane WILL be stuck here for life. And yes, it will
get worse, Bora Bora = Salt on the Runway.

In terms of Leaseback, I also said it will be a privelege to memebers
not a right, if they mess up their out of renting it.

The 177 RG is in excellent shape, minus the engine, it is a immensly
well cared for airplane and the owner is an airline manager, the reason
it will be without a radio stack is because it is a GNS 430 system and
I want to replace it, so I had him reduce the cost based on him keeping
the GNS 430. Speaking of gear ups, the only Gear up I've heard of in
the whole time I was here was two guys on a Part 135 Checkride in which
case the gear lever wasn't lowered below the detent on a Chieftain by a
(of all things) 747 pilot with 20,000 hours.

And I do appreciate your advice, as I said already I'm off the 177 and
most likely going with an Arrow, there is a lot to be said for
simplicity (KIS, Keep it Simple), the retract is my preferred choice
because of it's versatility in emergency situations (gear ups on the
ocean would be a nightmare compounded with an ocean landing nightmare
to begin with).

The #1 point is to have a plane, and with my current living situation
(I have to commute to work by air shuttle that I should be flying, lol)
it's more benneficial for me to have my own plane.

SeeAndAvoid wrote:
When I saw this topic I figured I liked both types and would read on.
Until I saw "Hawaii" and "club/leaseback". Horrible combination.
I spend a fair amount of time out there, and I've seen what that salt
air does to decent airplanes. You want to drop half a mil on something
that will be eaten alive, and you think it'll last 30 years? It may, but
it'll probably be worth half or less what it'd be worth anywhere else.
Those guys you know that have had those airplanes that long, they
probably have no choice! Double whammy - hard to unload
corroded airplanes, and in the middle of the Pacific, those airplanes
are stuck there for life.
Then the abuse of a club or school, not to mention the ridiculously
high insurance costs. If you're going after the renter, most newer
ones will avoid these types if they aren't commercial rated. The
ones that are, let's say on vacation, may not care for the high
checkout requirement hourswise when they can get into a C172
fairly cheap and quick.
If this is a inter-island quick flight commuter, multiple daily flights
possibly, you're just begging for a gear-up somewhere. Either
by pilot error (depending on the experience/familiarity) or the
poor gear design (this is bottom of the barrel for retractables
except for maybe the Cutlass), or that dreaded salt air taking
it's toll - or all of the above. Really going on faith there, and
I'll say again, I like both of these types, but not for this mission.
Jay could be on to something, a (mostly) composite airframe
that is fixed gear. Cirrus SR20 or Diamond Star would fit
this, or possibly a Liberty XL2. Depending on which, and
what year, you could build a small fleet with half a mil. Avgas over
there aint cheap and these are more economical than what
you have in mind.
Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
I wouldnt use any of those words, but I'll be nice
That's a whole lot of very capable airplanes you're ruling out. Guess I
have to ask, what's your #1 point in doing this? To have an airplane
for your personal use that you occasionally rent out, for tax purposes?
Or is it the possible profit in the leaseback? Or you being coaxed by
some guys trying to unload an airplane and get a new sucker to take
over the leaseback situation - often a real stinker of a situation.
(no avionics, high time engine, probably high time airframe, likely some
damage history being rented/clubbed, guaranteed of at least some corrosion
for $50k? - no favors being done there)
Either way, with either of these types, forget about a profit. You might
have the occasional good luck of nabbing a commercial student, but
overall they'd probably sit - except when you're flying it = no profit.
Meanwhile, those lowly 172's would be renting 10x as much as
yours, making those owners a...................profit. You have looked
into what insurance is, right? For that $70k Cardinal (after engine
rebuild, and tack on whatever you spend on it) I bet it's at least
$6k a year on a leaseback.
Good luck in whatever you decide, proceed with caution. Remember,
you said any advice is appreciated!
Chris

Newps wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:

Um. If Atlas is faster than an Arrow, it has to be because of speed
mods.
Put the equivalent speed mods on the Arrow and Atlas will lose. For
example, vref says the 1973 Arrow cruise is 140 knots and the 1973 235
cruise is 133 knots.



We flight plan 142 knots.




You don't catch, much less pass, any Bonanza at a lousy 142 kts cruise.
That means you might do 145 kts on average, 150 kts on a good day,
although I'll never believe a Cherokee goes that fast straight and level.

If the Bo was flying at 50% power... :-)

Matt

wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.

That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.


It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.

What about it?


Atlas, our fixed-gear Piper Cherokee 235 Pathfinder, will absolutely
walk away from an Arrow in a head-to-head speed race, (I've never raced
a Cardinal RG, but I've over-taken older Mooneys and Bonanzas, too) has
a 1460 pound useful load, and burns that sweet car gas. In every
measurable way, the Pathfinder is superior to the Arrow, except one --
fuel burn. With the money you're talking about, that hardly matters.


A pro I'm seeing with the Arrow is the Johnson Arm flap lever, which I
greatly prefer to motorized systems every day. What all of us, and
myself, are forgetting about aircraft with more ponies than 200 hp and
more expensive (as was the case with the new arrow) is the cost of
insurance.

I'm just the opposite. I learned to fly in two C150s of different
vintage. One had manual flaps and the newer one electric. I've always
preferred the electric. The manual flaps is one of the things I most
dislike about the Arrow I now fly. I could put my instrument charts
between the seats of my 182, but in the Arrow there is little room
anywhere for anything and the flap lever takes of valuable real estate.

Different strokes for different folks.

Matt

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote:

When I saw this topic I figured I liked both types and would read on.
Until I saw "Hawaii" and "club/leaseback". Horrible combination.
I spend a fair amount of time out there, and I've seen what that salt
air does to decent airplanes. You want to drop half a mil on something
that will be eaten alive, and you think it'll last 30 years? It may, but
it'll probably be worth half or less what it'd be worth anywhere else.
Those guys you know that have had those airplanes that long, they
probably have no choice! Double whammy - hard to unload
corroded airplanes, and in the middle of the Pacific, those airplanes
are stuck there for life.

Proper anti-corrosion treatment will keep the white powder off. I stress
*proper*. That means taking off all the inspection plates, wing and
empennage tips, etc. and using the right tools and techniques per the mfr's
recommendations.

My airplane has been parked 2 mi. from Mobile Bay for nearly 7 years and has
no corrosion. It gets Corrosion-X'd at every other annual.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

Insurance for a retract can easily be three times that for a similar
fixed gear.

??

My insurance is $1,400/year on $90k hull. How much would a stiff leg 172
be?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:


Insurance for a retract can easily be three times that for a similar
fixed gear.


??

My insurance is $1,400/year on $90k hull. How much would a stiff leg 172
be?

Beats me, ask your insurance company. :-)

My 1967 182 was less than $1,000 a year for liability and hull
insurance. The 1967 Arrow I now fly (owned by a flying club) costs
$4,000 a year for less coverage. My partner and I had to have $1MM
smooth liability as I flew on company business and they required that.
The Arrow has $700/$100 and we can't even get $1MM smooth anymore.


Matt

wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.

That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.


It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.

Which is understandable with a high performance plane. But a Cardinal
or an Arrow? Please. Those are toy planes. There's no prestige in
either of those.

Matt Whiting wrote:



You don't catch, much less pass, any Bonanza at a lousy 142 kts
cruise. That means you might do 145 kts on average, 150 kts on a good
day, although I'll never believe a Cherokee goes that fast straight
and level.


If the Bo was flying at 50% power... :-)



That would be close. At 45%(19"/2100) I get 130 kts indicated.

Dan Luke wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


Insurance for a retract can easily be three times that for a similar
fixed gear.


??

My insurance is $1,400/year on $90k hull. How much would a stiff leg 172
be?


It wouldn't be three times. My 67 182 was usually right at $1000 for a
$70K hull. My Bo is $2200 this year with a $90K hull. That's on its
way down as I got the Bo with zero retract time last year. I would
expect the premium to be in the $1800 range next year.