First time buy - Archer vs Arrow?

bisctboy

bisctboy

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Bucks County, PA
Display Name
Display name:
MyPilotPro
I am in the market to buy my first airplane and I am heavily leaning to a Cherokee since that is what I got my PPL in and have all my hours in. My budget is $60K. I am low time pilot with less than 100 hours. I started a thread in the classifieds looking for an Archer https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/wtb-cherokee-archer.99583/. One of the posts there suggested I look at an Arrow based on my mission needs. It got me thinking and I would love to hear some thoughts/opinions on this.

Main mission criteria:
  • Get my IFR rating
  • Get my son his PPL and progress thru Commercial/ATP rating...he's 18 & and in college
  • Have an aircraft my son & and I can "grow into"
  • Be "relatively" inexpensive for maintenance...yes, I know airplane ownership is damned expensive!
  • 4 Adult capability for cross country (300+ miles)
I don't have a complex rating and my son doesn't have his PPL...can I fly (legally) an Arrow and can he can get his PPL in an Arrow? A member on the above link implied (flat out said) my son can get his PPL in an Arrow. Is that correct?

My son has made it known he would like to pursue a career as an airline pilot like his uncle, my brother. My brother is an Airbus Captain for a major airline and gave my son the advice of continuing his college education to a degree and getting his PPL thru ATP while going thru college. My brother said there are a ton of pilots he fly's with that did this. This is a major consideration in my aircraft purchase.

Best,

mkb
 
My first flying job was in a t tail arrow 4, I liked that plane, personally I'd get a PA24, but I'd get a arrow way before a archer.

As for PPL in a arrow, sure, just depends on the CFI, I'd do it as a CFI presuming he wasn't a total slouch in the plane.

As for college, have him go to a 2 year school and get his RN, it goes very well with aviation and is probably the best ROI in education right now.


Also your son won't really be building time post CPL in your plane, he'll be building hours up in other folks planes while getting paid.
 
Damn James slacking or sumptin'. No Arrow and no Cherokee! Get ya an old Luscombe or T-craft with that little wheel on the back and the nose pointed towards the wild blue. Taildraggers, that's what y'all need, no stinkin' tri gear plane.
 
The commanche would also get him the HP experience FWIW....... probably on par with an arrow for MX but the fuel burn will go up.
 
mscard88 said:
Damn James slacking or sumptin'. No Arrow and no Cherokee! Get ya an old Luscombe or T-craft with that little wheel on the back and the nose pointed towards the wild blue. Taildraggers, that's what y'all need, no stinkin' tri gear plane.
Click to expand...

You know I'm like Beatlejuice, keep saying my name ;)

But aaaight, you want a proper (see Tailwheel) complex, get a cruise master, also a heck of a plane BTW

prodimage2011517213524.jpg
 
As someone who as almost 300 hours between a Warrior, Archer, and Arrow, I would recommend the Arrow; The Archers are great for shorter hops; they both have removable rear seats and load capacity is fairly close. The speed of the Arrow will save you money on longer trips, that will most likely be eaten up at annual. If you go with the Archer, I think you'll quickly find you outgrow it, just my experience on the animal rescue side.
 
bisctboy said:
I am in the market to buy my first airplane and I am heavily leaning to a Cherokee since that is what I got my PPL in and have all my hours in. My budget is $60K. I am low time pilot with less than 100 hours. I started a thread in the classifieds looking for an Archer https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/wtb-cherokee-archer.99583/. One of the posts there suggested I look at an Arrow based on my mission needs. It got me thinking and I would love to hear some thoughts/opinions on this.

Main mission criteria:
  • Get my IFR rating
  • Get my son his PPL and progress thru Commercial/ATP rating...he's 18 & and in college
  • Have an aircraft my son & and I can "grow into"
  • Be "relatively" inexpensive for maintenance...yes, I know airplane ownership is damned expensive!
  • 4 Adult capability for cross country (300+ miles)
I don't have a complex rating and my son doesn't have his PPL...can I fly (legally) an Arrow and can he can get his PPL in an Arrow? A member on the above link implied (flat out said) my son can get his PPL in an Arrow. Is that correct?

My son has made it known he would like to pursue a career as an airline pilot like his uncle, my brother. My brother is an Airbus Captain for a major airline and gave my son the advice of continuing his college education to a degree and getting his PPL thru ATP while going thru college. My brother said there are a ton of pilots he fly's with that did this. This is a major consideration in my aircraft purchase.

Best,

mkb
Click to expand...
Your son ABSOLUTELY can get his PPL in an Arrow. It may take slightly longer than a standard trainer (archer) just because it is slightly more complicated. The plus side is that to get your commercial certificate the aircraft MUST be complex. He would not be able to get his commercial in an archer. The complex endorsement is quick and is generally 2-3 flights with an instructor.

That being said regarding your mission, an archer may end up being cheaper than an Arrow because of the maintenance and insurance costs for the retractable gear. But an Arrow is a GREAT plane to be able to grow into, as long as you aren't particularly close to the Rockies.
 
First purchase, go with the Arrow. The transition won't be too bad since you have some time in a Cherokee and are familiar with their handling characteristics.

The Arrow would fit your mission for the most part. Carrying 4 adults may be a slight stretch depending on the model.

As far as getting a PPL in the Arrow...it can certainly be done, but it will be more challenging than a 172 for the average person. Kinda like learning to drive in an 70's manual transmission pickup than an automatic Honda Civic. I think you could definitely find a nice machine for 60k. Good luck and keep us updated!
 
I have no constructive advice on the airplane debate, although I did fly an Archer once in the early 90s when taking lessons the first time. But 60K will buy a decent Mooney . . . which will burn less fuel than either of these while covering more ground. Or it can be throttled back to match speed and burn a lot less fuel.

Have your son work on his PPL at your home field, using a local CFI, during his breaks from college. No need to pay triple the money for ATP schooling. Flight time is flight time, it's only the hours that count if he's trying to reach 1500 . . . That's a big number.
 
My vote is for the arrow III or IV. 72 usable gallons!
 
All the singles I have owned have been Cherokee variants. None are difficult to fly or learn on. Although the Arrow was certainly a nice plane it does sacrifice some useful load because of the weight of the retractable gear. If I was to ever buy another Cherokee variant again it would be a Cherokee 235 or Dakota. It's carries a better load than the Arrow, climbs nicely, and doesn't sacrifice much speed for that benefit. There wasn't much difference in all up operating costs between the two I found. What you save in annuals and maintenance not having retractable gear you use up in fuel.

If you want a plane to "grow in to", and you are choosing only between the Archer and an Arrow, I would choose the latter.
 
Cherokee 235 may be all those things, but it doesn't have the post-stretch cabin, so it's apples and oranges. The Dakota, or the hen's teeth "235 '73 charger and '74 pathfinder" are about the only comparable contenders, and the latter require expensive wheel pant retrofit to come close to Dakota aerodynamic numbers mind you.

So then, we're basically talking Dakota. Way overpriced compared to the Arrow. You may save on mx, but you can't overcome the capital savings. Find me a Dakota with a Garmin 430W/327 stack and the most basic operational OEM autopilot for 45K and a mid time engine. That delta pays for a decade's of fuel at 9gph and annual gear swings. The insurance becomes a non-issue past 100 hour retract for the low timers. So a year of ownership.

The Arrow is widely available. If you can find a 73 or 74 235 and are willing to speed mod it, then sure by all means, that's prob the sweet spot if I was gonna go fixed leg PA-28.
 
Last edited:
Arrow, but realize that neither airplane is really capable of carrying 4 full sized (ok, fat like me) adults. You will be at or over gross with just enough fuel to fly around the pattern.
 
I flew a 1972 Arrow II quite a bit. Once you master GUMPS, and the drag associated with extended gear, it is just as easy to fly as the fixed gear PA-28 series. By my second or third attempt, my landings were consistent with the fixed gear PA-28. However, insurance required 10 hours and 25 landings despite my 15 hours of complex time I had logged previously, so you may want to keep that in mind.

Useful load was 1003 lbs. Cruise speed at 75% was a consistent 130 KTAS at 10.2 gph. Fuel capacity was 48 gallons usable. You can crunch the numbers to see if that works for your four adult, 300 + nm scenario. The automatic gear extension could save you from embarrassment, or it could kill you if you are not cognizant (WPR14FA282).

I would not consider the earlier 180 hp Arrow. 200 hp is the minimum I would consider for the flying I sometimes do at high density altitude. I would also consider the later variants with the larger fuel tanks depending on your mission.
 
I love and hate my arrow. It's an Arrow 180. I kind of wish I had gone for the 200, but the price point for the 200 would have been quite a bit more. My insurance, at ~150 hrs and about 25 pa28R hours was ~$700/ yr through AOPA, my most recent annual was ~$650 (Owner Assist), next Annual will be more expensive as I have to buy tires and probably have to have one of the hydraulics O'rings overhauled (but my A&P has told me it should be <$400 to do that).

What I love about it is that it feels like its at a sweet spot of efficiency. Over thanksgiving, little wind flew from APV to CCR in 2.7 on the Hobbs and on 22 gallons, what I hate about the Arrow is that it feels like its at a sweet spot of efficiency. It's not as fast as I'd like (like a 250/260 HP PA24), but it's much more efficient and easy to fly compared to my buddies PA24. So...just watch out, my buddy bought a PA28-151 and his wife allowed him to upgrade to the PA24-250, I started at the PA28R-180, and it's going to be hard to get my wife to buy into the idea of selling the arrow to acquire something 10-15 knots faster. But I would love those 10-15 knots now...
 
If you are looking to grow into something and for your son to get ratings I would try to find something that qualified for HP and Complex like an older Bonanza or Navion. You will need something with over 200 hp if I recall correctly to be HP.
 
As someone who did my first 250 hrs in 160hp Warriors, 180hp Archers and 200hp Arrows, definitely get the the Arrow. MUCH butter cross country machine, and really not much harder to fly at all for someone starting out. It will help reinforce GUMPS check early in training which can't be a bad thing. I used to get 130 kts or so for cruise out of them (which is easily 15 kts better than I could ever get out of a Archer). Warriors feel REALLY slow after flying a Arrow for a while.
 
If I'm spending 60k on a retract, it's gonna be a Mooney.

You can get well equipped M20F's with low time engines for that. Go faster, burn less fuel, and haul just as much as an Arrow. And many will have the manual gear, which depending on how you look at it, is a plus. Cheapest gear to maintain in the complex market from what I understand. That and you get an O-360 (just like the Arrow), which is about as cheap and easy an engine to maintain as there is in a certified. As long as the tanks have been done and are in good shape, I don't see why an Arrow would be any cheaper to maintain. Same engine, cheaper gear system.

With that said, I'm about to buy a share on a 182 despite my retract envy. If your mission is really 4 full size people, then you are gonna be constantly sacrificing large quantities of fuel trying to accomplish that on an Arrow or Mooney without being over gross. And the cabins on both feel narrow, especially in the backseat with two people (I don't care what the measurements are at the widest point, I'm simply commenting on what it feels like).

If you really want room + 4 people in a retract, it's gonna be a Comanche IMO.
 
Last edited:
Step on up! To a PA-32, 6 place, 300 horsies, Lance or Saratoga. Used a Lance to get my CFI.
 
Figured I'd put my $0.02 in here since I'm in a partnership with an arrow.
I joined with about 70-80 total time and progressed through my instrument rating and will be doing my commercial within the next month (if it decides to stop pouring rain).
We get about 130 kts on about 9 gph (can go faster for more) when flying somewhere and when I'm just practicing maneuvers or in the pattern it works out to be about 6 or 7 gph.
Our Arrow is a little bit of a pig. She still has an old dme (inop) and an old ADF receiver, plus Factory A/C. Our useful load is 911 lbs. Full fuel (50gal) leaves me with 611. I'm light so it gives me some wiggle room, but I usually offload some fuel if I'm carrying 3 other people. Still leaves me with 3 hrs of flying + reserves though.
Great plane to fly. Stable and predictable.
As far as maintenance goes it hasn't been bad. Within the last few years the only thing specific to a complex plane they've had to do was replace the hydraulic lines (preventive). I've only been in for 1 annual and we had things you'd have with any other plane (prop overhaul and new exhaust).
Make sure you look for one with 200 hp. She doesn't climb too great on hot/high density altitude days, so I can't imaging what it's like with a 180....
Also, there is discussion going on that the complex requirement may be removed from the commercial rating within the next few years.
 
I vote for the Arrow too (also, not necessarily II). I've owned a TA III and currently own an Arrow II. I really like the fuel capacity of the III, but I think the II is a nicer flying airplane but it seems a bit more cramped.
 
There's something almost totally missing here: "Arrow" does not specify just one airplane. 180hp or 200hp? Hershey bar wing or taper wing? T-tail or conventional feathers? "Archer" is more specific in Piper naming, but in the vernacular it also gets applied to any 180hp fixed-gear PA28.

So ... I would recommend taper wing airplanes for training. They are a bit easier to fly because the Hershey bar tends to lose lift quickly as speed degrades.

Conventional tail for training. The T-tails don't benefit from prop wash and hence don't become effective at as low a speed as a conventional tail does.

200hp for an Arrow. It is a fairly doggy airplane even with 200hp. So for Arrows the above criteria lead you to the relatively rare "best Arrow ever," the Arrow III.

For Archers, specifying a "real" Archer means taper wing, conventional tail. AFIK Piper Marketing never screwed up the Archer tail.

I find the Archers to handle better than the Arrows, which always feel doggy to me. But the Arrow is a bit faster and is the complex airplane needed to get a Commercial ticket. Arrow maintenance will be more expensive, too. Life is a tradeoff.

Try to find a copy of Aviation Consumer's Used Airplane Guide. They show up on eBay every once in a while and there seem to be many on Amazon. AFIK all editions were two volumes, so beware of sellers offering just half of a set. The Guide was also offered on CDROM but I have no idea where you'd find a copy. I have the 7th edition/1995 and the 9th edition/2001, each two volumes. The content is almost identical, since they are a compendium of used aircraft reviews from the Aviation Consumer magazine. These are invaluable resources for understanding the details and production history of a particular airplane.
 
airdale said:
So ... I would recommend taper wing airplanes for training. They are a bit easier to fly because the Hershey bar tends to lose lift quickly as speed degrades.
Click to expand...
Hershey-bar wings have a quicker roll response; but the taper-wings are better if you like to scamper up to 10K' or higher for cruise. They are more -- pardon the expression -- "Cessna-like" in that regard. The short, stubby Hershey wings act like they get winded above around 8,000. The extra five feet of wingspan and higher aspect ratio will do that for you.

AFIK all editions were two volumes, so beware of sellers offering just half of a set.
Click to expand...
I believe there was an earlier single-volume edition.
 
Not an expert, but I agree with Airdale. Although a 200hp, T tail version would be cheaper, and maybe allow for getting a "nicer" overall plane due to the perceived t tail issues.

But i wouldnt rule out Mooneys or older Bo's at the 60K price. And if your worried about primary training abusing the gear, have him get to solo in somehting rented. Minimal price difference, but might save a ton on wear and tear.
 
airdale said:
So ... I would recommend taper wing airplanes for training. They are a bit easier to fly because the Hershey bar tends to lose lift quickly as speed degrades.
Click to expand...

I've never mentioned it before but I'm glad to see someone else say this. I always found that old Hershey bar 140s would drop in hard a lot easier if you don't flare well while the taper wing Warriors would basically float down and land themselves.
 
Last edited:
I fly a 180hp Arrow, which has the Hershey bar wings. I get 130 KTAS at a little under 9 gph where I typically fly, in the vicinity of 8,000 feet. When I did my instrument training cross-country, we had a long stretch of 12,000-foot MEAs on a hot day (density altitude was probably close to the plane's 15,000 service ceiling), having taken off from a 9,000 DA airport with tanks full to the gills and two adult men aboard. No problems there, although if the MEA were 12,100 we would have been forced up to 14,000 and probably wouldn't have made it all the way up. At 12,000, I planned for 120 knots and was within 2 or 3 minutes on each leg flown that day (a bit over 11 hours in the air).

My observation is that the only real difference between the Arrow and an older Mooney is that the pilot of the Mooney thinks it's faster than it really is and the pilot of the Arrow thinks it's slower than it really is. I would also have been happy with an older Mooney if one had come along before the Arrow did. It's a great plane for my mission, which is mostly solo and rarely more than one passenger on flights as short as 60nm and as long as 500nm without any hard IFR in the mountains or known icing. Faster and fancier planes generally take longer to get from the hangar to the runway, so they would need to be quite a bit faster to make me part with the Arrow's efficiency. (Unless my mission changes.)

If you're going to use the plane to get a private pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, and two instrument ratings, you should definitely consider the value of a lower-time plane that you won't need to take out of service for an engine overhaul halfway through your process of growing into it.
 
Pilawt said:
Hershey-bar wings have a quicker roll response; but the taper-wings are better if you like to scamper up to 10K' or higher for cruise. They are more -- pardon the expression -- "Cessna-like" in that regard. The short, stubby Hershey wings act like they get winded above around 8,000. The extra five feet of wingspan and higher aspect ratio will do that for you.
Click to expand...
Yes. Actually I have heard several advantages argued for the Hershey bars, including more efficient cruise. I have not personally flown Hershey bar PA28s that much. I have maybe 150 hours in a Hershey bar Six. That thing had the glide ratio of a manhole cover and simulated power-out landings were a real challenge. I was thinking training and, specifically, landings when I suggested that the taper wing would be preferable for the OP.

Pilawt said:
I believe there was an earlier single-volume edition.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's why I CYA'd with "AFIK." I wasn't sure. I have seen, however, single volumes from split sets offered for sale.
 
With the low hours you have, the Archer insurance cost would be a lot lower than an arrow. Been there, done that.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Another good choice. Either should be carefully gone over as they are getting ancient.
Click to expand...

Although both are also (in low numbers) still in production... so they can be young or old or middle aged


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Before you buy an Arrow for primary training, get an insurance quote with both you and your son listed.

When comparing prices, look at Avionics. Some of the newer Arrows came with HSIs which is a really nifty tool for instrument flying.

A 60k Archer will be a nice plane with current Avionics and good paint&interior. When you decide to buy the Saratoga two years from now, it will sell within a week at asking price.

A 60k Bonanza will be either old or have some serious warts.

Your son will need 250hrs for his CFI. It's an hour requirement, not miles. He can get there at 9gph in a Archer/Arrow or at 12gph in a Bo.
 
But that 60k will get you a nice pa24
 
bflynn said:
Arrow, but realize that neither airplane is really capable of carrying 4 full sized (ok, fat like me) adults. You will be at or over gross with just enough fuel to fly around the pattern.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Why get a arrow with retractable gear and constant speed prop, fuel injection if it only gives you a few knots in speed? Sure seems like slot of moving parts for very little extra speed and more expensive overhauls and annuals.

If your going to plunge into a retract with C.S. prop get something that yields some real benefit like a Comanche or better yet a mooney.

I have 500 hours in archers, 200 arrow and 1,100 in 201 mooney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top