Are Complex Aircraft Obsolete?

N

Nate G

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Messages
7
Display Name
Display name:
Nate G
Hi all. I'm hoping to get some insight.

I recently purchased a 2000 Piper Arrow. My intention was to use it at both as a personal aircraft and as a rental. I'm finishing up my private and plan to go for my instrument, and I figured if I'm going to put many more hours in my logbook, I want it to count as retract time.

I recently added it to a fleet at a flight school that already has (1) CR-12 AATD ($85/hour), (2) Cherokee 180s ($155/hour), (1) 172P ($155/hour), (1) 182G ($190/hour), and now my Arrow ($190/hour).

One of the CFIs there, out of curiosity, asked me why I got an Arrow. I said that I really wanted to get a Mooney for its speed, but I felt like the Arrow would be more suitable as a trainer/rental. He mentioned that the Arrow is not that much faster (than a Cherokee 180 or C172), and that with technologically advanced airplanes now being widely used for commercial training and checkrides, he seemed to indirectly say that complex aircraft are obsolete.

There is only one TAA C172 in the area (at a competing school), and complex airplanes can still be used for training/checkride purposes, so there is still a market for an Arrow, right?

I still feel like going 15 KTAS faster than a C172 while using 3 GPH less than a C182 is a big deal. Sure, retractable landing gear adds to insurance costs compared to fixed gear, but not much (my Arrow's premium is $6700/year vs one of the school's Cherokee 180s at $6000/year). The annual cost doesn't seem that much either (Blue Skies Aviation lists an annual for a PA-28-180 at $1360 vs an Arrow at $1760). I didn't see the sense in getting another PA-28-180 or C172, otherwise I could just rent one of the existing ones. Plus, I felt like it would competing with the other airplanes.

The flight school owner says that my airplane would also cater to already-licensed pilots looking for a faster rental, but with the C182 being the same (wet) rate, would the C182 more likely be chosen over my Arrow?

I am now worried that I may have made a mistake in getting an Arrow. Is there really little or no value in training in, getting endorsed in, or owning/flying a retractable gear airplane as the CFI seemed to imply? I find it hard to believe that everyone is buying a Cirrus. Even a used Cirrus SR20 can easily cost 3x to 4x the price of a used retractable (e.g. Mooney) that can go just as fast.
 
You're going to get a wide scope of opinions here. There are a lot of grumpy haters on this forum and they will tell you how horrible retracts are. However, rg time is always valuable to anyone who is looking to advance their career in aviation as a pilot. Also, RG planes are fantastic for XCs. Cant wait to read how this goes, let the circus begin.
 
As you stated, the problem with the Arrow is the Part 61 change that allowed a TAA instead of complex aircraft and a complex aircraft is no longer required for practical tests.

The other issue is the Arrow has such poor performance other than descent range. The old Mooneys are any better and something like a J model as a rental is going to have higher insurance costs.

With that said, if you are at an active school /FBO, you should see a descent amount of rental hours. If fuel prices remain elevated, the Arrow has a $5 price advantage over the 182, assuming the FBO/School is fairly pricing the aircraft. The landing gear does require higher inspection and maint costs so you won’t realize the entire fuel benefit.

Lease back is a business, if it isn’t turning a profit, sell it.
 
I always thought the arrow flew nicer than the fixed gear PA28s, 172s, etc. I’ve frequently rented them when the rest of a schools aircraft are booked and always enjoyed my time in them.

In my experience RG aircraft have always had less renters/users than fixed gear aircraft at the local schools
 
If your mission is to get somewhere, faster and economical is a huge benefit. If you’re buying $100 hamburgers, or paying rent to log hours, not so much.
 
Nah. I bought a Lance over a cherokee 6, and I'm happy I did. If I had to choose between an archer and an arrow, I'd pick the Arrow.

Arrow vs 182 is a little harder because the 182 is a fair bit bigger, more comfortable and carries more. I'd probably pick the 182 at that point.

For training I think they still have a place, they're just not the only game in town like they used to be. With the cost of avionics & new planes, arrows will still be used for commercial training for a long time. Our local flight school is upgrading their archers to taa, but the arrows are still on the flight line too.

Now compare a new arrow vs a new sr20.... maybe they are obsolete and it's only a matter of time.

I wouldn't lose sleep over something a cfi said, especially if he thinks an arrow isn't any faster than a 172. It definitely fills a hole in the lineup you mentioned. Might have to drop the rate $10 to make it more attractive against the 182, unless the 182 is already heavily booked.
 
It's difficult to predict parts of the rental market. One of the flight schools I'm associated with had a similar issue with an Arrow. Any time I wanted to fly it (it was a nice one) it was available.

I've seen something similar many in the past. The out-of-the ordinary really good airplane getting passed by in favor of the same old comfortable and familiar. Used, yes, but only by a small percentage of the rental population. Happens all the time. And these days, retracts are the something out of the ordinary.

With light basic retracts like the Arrow and Cutlass, they at least had the attraction of being required and an inexpensive choice for the commercial and CFI certifications. With that no longer a requirement, usage has dropped. Perhaps not you or me, but I think most given the choice between a retract retract and glass for the commercial will take the opportunity to fly glass.
 
Last edited:
Arrow gets a bad wrap because it's slow for a retract and can't carry a lot but it's still a step up from a 172 or Cherokee 180.

Stable platform with 135 cruise, I always preferred taking the Arrow over one of the FBO's 172s when I was actually going somewhere.
 
I wouldn't be worried. I'm working on commercial and drive out of my way to rent the Arrow vs the TAA C172s closer to me. If your school doesn't have TAA then your plane is going to be the go-to plane for the commercial students. I can't be the only weirdo that would rather fly an Arrow than a TAA 172.
 
Tell that CFI to shut his pie hole. You got yourself a great plane and you’re going to enjoy it. Not sure I agree with WHY you got it but who cares, you already have the plane. Fly it and enjoy it and don’t look back.
 
He's an idiot. I might buy his argument if you are comparing an Arrow to a slicker fixed gear (Cirrus, Columbia, larger Technams), but to other PA-28s? You got to be up in the Pathfinder range before the fixed gear versions have better performance. I'd take the Arrow any day over a Dakota or Archer.
 
The Arrow is a nice plane and forgiving for a new pilot. Enjoy your plane and forget what he told you.
 
Retract time is still valued by insurance companies, or at least it's on about every insurance form I've filled out.

Anybody looking to buy a Bonanza or Comanche or anything like that is going to want some retract time.

(Almost) all multiengine, and (almost) all turbine aircraft are retracts.
 
I would take the Arrow over the other aircraft you mentioned that are on your flight line.
 
In my Arrow II, leaned out I can do 125 knots at 8.7 gallons an hour. Not Mooney speed or efficiency, but not far off. It is easy and forgiving to fly. Compared to a Comanche or Bonanza, the maintenance is dead dog simple. Plus, I can fit myself my wife, the two dogs and plenty of luggage. I like mine. If I could afford a Bo A36, I would probably do it. Otherwise I’ll keep what I have. It fits my mission, economically.
 
Last edited:
If there isn't a TAA on your airfield then the Arrow will be used by everyone who wants to do the commercial. Sounds profitable to me.
 
I like Piper arrows. I have a bunch of time in them and was a partner in one for several years. They are easy to fly and a great step up from fixed gear pipers. I wanted to buy one, but the market was crazy.

People on here mentioned the useful is limited, but I found it to be pretty decent. ~1000lbs isn't bad.

Its a stable honest airplane. You shouldn't regret getting it.
 
steingar said:
If there isn't a TAA on your airfield then the Arrow will be used by everyone who wants to do the commercial. Sounds profitable to me.
Click to expand...

I agree - the biggest draw for using an arrow as a trainer is for the commercial, and to the extent that there’s not a competing, lower cost TAA aircraft on the field, you’re the only game in town.

That said, the problem is that as soon as the school adds something *really* cheap like a factory built RV-12 to their fleet, filling the TAA requirement at a 25% discount in terms of hourly cost, I think your rental hours are going to drop like a rock. In terms of non-commercial student rentals, your rental pool is smaller due to the added complex endorsement requirement, and most of those will want to be doing cross-country type flights in which case the 182 makes more sense if you’re not paying for fuel.

As long as there are no competing TAA aircraft or those TAA aircraft are at least as expensive as your plane, I think you’re okay (but even when costs are at par between your plane and a TAA, your rental pool is smaller due to the complex sign off). But short of that, yeah... I think the arrow is a little obsolete.
 
Speaking from experience. Had a 75 Arrow in a leaseback arrangement with flight school. As soon as the FARs changed rental income went to ZERO! Needless to say, we agreed to an early termination of our agreement.
 
If someone came out with an STC to put the IO390 in the arrow id seriously consider buying one myself. There's nothing practical about GA. With the TAA taking place of complex, there's a reason Piper isn't making it anymore.

At 155 an hour for a Cherokee 180 I'd put mine on leaseback.
 
steingar said:
If there isn't a TAA on your airfield then the Arrow will be used by everyone who wants to do the commercial. Sounds profitable to me.
Click to expand...
Until you price out what rental coverage is compared to private use insurance. I was paying $4200 for a 40,000K hull back 15 years ago or so. I'd shudder at what the rates are these days.
 
The rentals are wet, right? If they are then doesn't the fuel burn advantage turn into a non-issue from the renter's perspective?
In my experience (which is very dated), the retracts on the school's line were always nice for the already licensed pilots with more experience because they were much more available (because they don't get rented as much) and they'd be more likely rented for long trips and overnights. The other upshot was because the very low time new pilots aren't flying them so they don't tend to get hammered and abused quite as much.

Forgive my rusty pilot dumb question, but TAA?
new term for me.... I assume it means technologically advanced? What does that even mean & how does that come into play? Isn't retract time still desired for some higher ratings and for those looking to get into pro flying?
 
Racerx said:
If someone came out with an STC to put the IO390 in the arrow id seriously consider buying one myself.
Click to expand...

Piper really didn't do the Arrow justice. The ended Comanche production to push the Cherokee/Arrow lineup, which were cheaper to manufacture. Then they produce the PA28-235 which was good, but neutered the Arrow with 200 hp. A 235 hp Arrow would have at least given it the performance it really needed to make it a competitive aircraft for private use. Instead it was really just targeted to fill the role of a complex trainer. They left a large gap between the Arrow and the Saratoga series.

To the original question, I wouldn't go so far as saying complex are obsolete per se. However the change in the regulations have made them non-essential for commercial training operations, which could be argued the growing lack of complex aircraft being manufactured stimulated the change in the first place. I would also say that Cirrus and others have proven that for light single aircraft, a well faired and designed fixed gear can provide comparable performance without the maintenance and insurance headaches caused by retracting the gear, not to mention the weight penalties. I think if you just look at what is being manufactured today, and notice you don't seem many retracts until you get into larger, faster aircraft.
 
I love Arrows, and would go well out of my way to rent them.

The retract time was quite valuable when my wife and I bought the Turbo Lance.

Your CFI may be correct from a VERY, VERY narrow viewpoint.

I don't believe he's talking from the position of operating a family hauler.
 
Brad W said:
Forgive my rusty pilot dumb question, but TAA?
new term for me.... I assume it means technologically advanced? What does that even mean & how does that come into play? Isn't retract time still desired for some higher ratings and for those looking to get into pro flying?
Click to expand...
Yes, technically advanced aircraft. A couple years ago the FAA approved using a TAA for the commercial hours that require a complex aircraft. A TAA must have a PFD, MFD, and autopilot.

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-s...que/operations/technically-advanced-airplanes
 
Two clarifications on my post above: First, I don’t think complex aircraft *in general* are obsolete, but I think they are very nearly so in terms of rental aircraft for complex training. Second, @Rgbeard has a good point about getting retract experience for insurance for future owners of retracts - I wish I had more retract time because the last time I checked on insurance for myself for a retractable upgrade, I about fell off my chair. That said, I don’t think this use will account for too many rental hours, unfortunately.

I once saw a post on POA that went something along the lines of “there will never again be a new, clean-sheet, certified piston retract produced ever again.” It stuck with me ever since, and I am glad to see the Panthera nearly about to prove that statement false. But would I buy an arrow for a leaseback line... probably not.
 
First - I don’t think I’d lease a Mooney back as a trainer.
Second - why not add a little [of the right] glass and market the Arrow as a TAA+Complex combo! Depth of experience in both worlds! Stand out from your fellow pilots for an extra $10 / hr! ;)

Like others have said, it’s a decent and forgiving XC platform. I rent an Arrow II right now because my mission centers around XCs, I need complex/retract time so I can afford what’s next, and it’s a cheap way of getting it - though it’s via Flying club.
 
It kind of sounds like the CFI wants you to buy something else he can use... which may or may not be a big deal, if you are trying to rent it out in addition to personal use.
 
Rgbeard said:
An Arrow with the 235hp IO-540 would have ROCKED!!!!
Click to expand...

Rgbeard said:
Absolutely. Just a decades-newer Comanche.
Click to expand...

Even a 250 hp Arrow would still not quite have been a Comanche. The Comanche has a 46 inch wide cabin versus the 40 inch Cherokee Arrow cabin. Plus the flush riveted laminar flow wing on the Comanche was a far superior wing, however much more expensive to build.

But still, who can argue against having more power. I am surprised there was never an STC for more power in the Arrow, but then the majority of operators were flight schools who probably didn't see the use.
 
Nate G said:
The flight school owner says that my airplane would also cater to already-licensed pilots looking for a faster rental, but with the C182 being the same (wet) rate, would the C182 more likely be chosen over my Arrow?
Click to expand...
You'd have to see who is doing the renting and what kind of missions most of the flight school people are doing. If I was back in my time building days, I'd take the 182 if I wanted to haul friends and luggage somewhere for camping, but if it was just me and a buddy going cross country the Arrow would probably be my choice.
 
kaiser said:
…I need complex/retract time so I can afford what’s next….
Click to expand...

me when I read this

7fd52e04acc3a61d247b9847fddc77d8.gif
 
kaiser said:
First - I don’t think I’d lease a Mooney back as a trainer.
Second - why not add a little [of the right] glass and market the Arrow as a TAA+Complex combo! Depth of experience in both worlds! Stand out from your fellow pilots for an extra $10 / hr! ;)

Like others have said, it’s a decent and forgiving XC platform. I rent an Arrow II right now because my mission centers around XCs, I need complex/retract time so I can afford what’s next, and it’s a cheap way of getting it - though it’s via Flying club.
Click to expand...

I mean... that could easily be a $70k upgrade. You have to have a PFD, MFD two-axis autopilots, etc.
 
Last edited:
Are people renting your plane? The market is the ultimate guide, not what your CFI says.
 
Our club has an Arrow and since the TAA rule, it doesn't fly that often anymore. Most renters are using it for good availability and good xc performance, but not for commercial training.
 
In my opinion, the same thing that makes a complex bad for leases, makes it great as a personal airplane.

My CFI (a 20-something in college) admitted that he did not get his complex endorsement until he was training in a twin, for pilot factories that seems to be the norm these days. The club I just joined has 2 Commanches and I am looking to get a complex endorsement specifically because they don't get rented as much (and have lower daily minimums for overnight trips).

But the upside is, if you are willing to fly a complex, you can go pretty fast for relatively cheap compared to the cost of an SR22. As much as I loved my Yankee, my next plane will likely be taildragger or complex. I've been priced out of trainers.
 
Rgbeard said:
An Arrow with the 235hp IO-540 would have ROCKED!!!!
Click to expand...
You would really be impressed by 140 kts instead of 135 kts?

I am surprised someone hasn’t came out with a complex to knock Cirrus out of competition.
 
MacFlier said:
Our club has an Arrow and since the TAA rule, it doesn't fly that often anymore. Most renters are using it for good availability and good xc performance, but not for commercial training.
Click to expand...
Could it be because there are TAAs on the field? Perhaps cheaper?

If a commercial student had a choice between a TAA or a non-TAA complex aircraft, what would he/she most likely choose if price was not a factor? Is there a thing such as a "TAA time" as there is "retract time?"

I'm wondering if I priced my Arrow less than the TAA at the other school if I'd have a much better prospect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top