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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
: 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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How safe is it, really? | June | Piloting | 227 | December 10th 04 05:01 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 12:05 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 |