Does anyone know of Piper Arrow rentals near KRDU?

[Michael Castle]

Good morning all, does anyone know of any Piper Arrow rentals around the RDU area? I got my commercial/HP/Complex in this type and would like to get back into one. It looks like there are plenty of DA-40/42’s but I have never flown one and I am a “classic low tech” kind of a pilot!
Many thanks!

 

[eman1200]

@RDUPilot @midlifeflyer

EQY is the "nearest" one I'm aware of

 

[dmspilot]

Good morning all, does anyone know of any Piper Arrow rentals around the RDU area? I got my commercial/HP/Complex in this type and would like to get back into one. It looks like there are plenty of DA-40/42’s but I have never flown one and I am a “classic low tech” kind of a pilot!
Many thanks!

You can't get an HP endorsement in an Arrow.

 

[Michael Castle]

@RDUPilot @midlifeflyer

EQY is the "nearest" one I'm aware of

Thanks for that- they have a nice fleet! Of interest, I saw they also rent Cirrus aircraft. At 540$/hour dry. Wow, I have not been up to speed on rental prices!

 

[RDUPilot]

Like @midlifeflyer said EQY, flightgest out of RDU use to have a Piper Arrow, but I believe it is gone. Doesn't show on website.

Please tell me that Cirrus is the Jet..

 

[midlifeflyer]

@RDUPilot @midlifeflyer

EQY is the "nearest" one I'm aware of

We used to have one at one of the flight schools where I instruct at TTA. It's been down due to the spar issue. I keep hoping it will come back but I don't know if or when.

A few Cherokees though.

 

[stickwiglr]

You can't get an HP endorsement in an Arrow.

.

Used to only require 180 hp for high performance. I’m guessing they, like I, got the HP before the rule change.

 

[midlifeflyer]

.

Used to only require 180 hp for high performance. I’m guessing they, like I, got the HP before the rule change.

When was that? Must have been well before 1992.

 

[Jim Carpenter]

I believe stickwiglr is thinking of this transition: (from an AOPA article)

"Prior to August 1997, the FAA required a high-performance endorsement in order to act as pilot in command of an aircraft with more than 200 horsepower or that had retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller. Many aircraft met this definition and were used to gain the training and endorsement, including the Cessna Cutlass 172RG, Cessna 182, and Piper Seminole, to name a few.

With the changes to Part 61 in August 1997, the FAA changed the definition of high performance and added a separate endorsement for complex aircraft. The definition of high performance is now "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower." This ruled out numerous aircraft, including many Mooneys (200 hp), Piper Seminoles (180 hp each engine) and most of the Piper Senecas (200 hp per engine). This seemingly simple change had a significant effect on the training industry. Many flight schools needed to add new aircraft to provide this training."

 

[eman1200]

"stickwiglr"

 

[midlifeflyer]

I believe stickwiglr is thinking of this transition: (from an AOPA article)

"Prior to August 1997, the FAA required a high-performance endorsement in order to act as pilot in command of an aircraft with more than 200 horsepower or that had retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller. Many aircraft met this definition and were used to gain the training and endorsement, including the Cessna Cutlass 172RG, Cessna 182, and Piper Seminole, to name a few.

With the changes to Part 61 in August 1997, the FAA changed the definition of high performance and added a separate endorsement for complex aircraft. The definition of high performance is now "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower." This ruled out numerous aircraft, including many Mooneys (200 hp), Piper Seminoles (180 hp each engine) and most of the Piper Senecas (200 hp per engine). This seemingly simple change had a significant effect on the training industry. Many flight schools needed to add new aircraft to provide this training."

Maybe? That's why I asked.

I got my "high performance" endorsement in a 172RG in 1992. But that did not automatically entitle me to fly a 182 after August 1997 unless I also met the grandfather clause.

And it wasn't about 180 vs 200 HP.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Finding rentable retracts is getting very hard to do. Some schools that still have them even took out the back seat to make them cheaper to insure.

You might find it's time to move over to a TAA for rentals. I have avionics troglodyte syndrome myself, but have come to terms with the advantages of glass cockpits and have begun training in a G1000 sim in anticipation of a major panel update in the next year.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Like @midlifeflyer
Please tell me that Cirrus is the Jet..

I thought the same thing, but nope it's an SR22T G6 for $530/h, and even the SR20 is listed for 430$ an hour! Glad I live in the Midwest, prices aren't nearly that bad...

 

[RDUPilot]

Those prices are a hard pass for me...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Finding rentable retracts is getting very hard to do. Some schools that still have them even took out the back seat to make them cheaper to insure.

You might find it's time to move over to a TAA for rentals. I have avionics troglodyte syndrome myself, but have come to terms with the advantages of glass cockpits and have begun training in a G1000 sim in anticipation of a major panel update in the next year.

If a TAA is an option, my flying club at TTA has three DA40s/G1000. And one of the flight schools may be acquiring an older 172 that's been substantially updated to a TAA.

edit: with a pair of G5s, a simpler steam gauge transition than a full G1000.