First time buy - Archer vs Arrow?

The arrow is slow for a retract but it's more than just a "few" knots faster than an archer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I haven't seen a lot of 201 Mooneys for sale in the $60k range.
 
You can by a F or a E for that kind of money. 200hp with fuel injection, and simple gear. Similar useful loads but can more utility as less gas is required to haul around as the plane is 20% more efficient and faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aaronk25 said:
You can by a F or a E for that kind of money. 200hp with fuel injection, and simple gear. Similar useful loads but can more utility as less gas is required to haul around as the plane is 20% more efficient and faster.
Click to expand...
What numbers are you using to come up with 20%? I could not get the math to work to convince myself to hold out for an M20E or F instead of the Arrow. Probably should have posted here first.
 
150kts on 9gph and 130kts on 9gph is 15% but you pick up some extra efficiency in climb and decent. Also figure slight efficiency gain for not carrying around the extra fuel. Might be a couple percent short of 20% but the extra purple percent are off set by the really cool tail :).

Landing gear is simple. And you got continious spar all the way to wing tips. I think the cabin is .5" wider to buy you do sit closer to the floor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oh missed something....slow the mooney up to 130kts and it will todo it on 7gph and the 130kts in the arrow is really around 9.2gph or so and that's 24!

Also think when cruising faster, saving fuel to get to your destination your also logging less engine and prop time so you get to go farther for same overhaul cost.

Plus think about the overhaul and airframe time reduction, if your.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Numbers I was reading were more like 12gph for 150KTAS in the E and F models. I'm assuming those were ROP numbers and you're talking LOP. We aren't set up to run LOP in the Arrow so I can't quite get apples to oranges, but we can compare airplanes to airplanes. Flying ROP I get 130 KTAS at 8.8gph. So you're 20% more efficient at the same speed or 13% more efficient at faster speeds. The extra speed would trim a half hour off my longest trip (500nm). They're both good planes for the same mission.
 
I own an Arrow II and have about 328 hours in it in two years. I had no experience in airplanes when I bought it, but I love it and went all the way through CFII in it. I picked it up for the price range you're looking at with full IFR /G. Feel free to ask questions if you wish.
 
There are fairly few airplanes you can't get your private in, those probably limited to those which don't permit single pilot operation (hence no solo). I know of people who got their initial private certificate in things like Barons (usually because the spouse owned one and they never really had interest in flying anything else).
 
I've had my Arrow II for 21 years! I got my instrument in it back in '95. It is very economical, and is all the plane I need. I'm not sure what all these 130 KT Arrows are all about, but on long cross countries I generally run best economy at 65% at 9.2 gph at about 132, or 75% at 10.1 gph at 135 KTAS. If I'm in a hurry, I'll run best power at 75% @ 12.1 gph, and I'll get a good 138 KTAS. Down low at WOT (~95%), it'll actually push about 141 or 142 KTAS (only time I did that was during break-in of a factory overhauled engine).

I used to wish for 72 gallon tanks, but as I get older, I find four hours is about the most I want to go without getting out to stretch my legs, so 48 usable is okay with me.

A few points about the Arrow:
Get an Arrow II or later (1972-) -- In 1972, the fuselage was stretched 5" and all of that is seen as additional legroom for the rear seat occupants. It really matters!
If you get an Arrow II, I recommend the 1976 because the cabin door has a better latching system. I have the old "slam it hard" door on my 1975.
The Arrow III has the taper wing and 72 gallon tanks. The Arrow III came out in 1977.
Turbo versions are available. More money initially, and more money for maintenance. If you plan on flying over mountains a lot, then you should probably consider it.
Learn to manage the engine properly. Learn how to set the manifold pressure, rpm, and how to lean. I recommend an engine monitor for sure.

I got my Arrow when I had about 300 hours TT. I have about 1600 now, and probably 1200 of that is in the Arrow. I grew into the plane and loved every minute of it.

Oh, and if you want a very nice 1975 Arrow II, I'll sell you mine for a cool million. :yesnod:
 
iamtheari said:
I haven't seen a lot of 201 Mooneys for sale in the $60k range.
Click to expand...

Maybe not (well equipped at least), but you can get 430 or better equipped F models all day for 50-55k with sub mid-time engines. You lose a touch of speed, otherwise it's basically the same airplane as the 201 J.
 
iamtheari said:
Numbers I was reading were more like 12gph for 150KTAS in the E and F models. I'm assuming those were ROP numbers and you're talking LOP. We aren't set up to run LOP in the Arrow so I can't quite get apples to oranges, but we can compare airplanes to airplanes. Flying ROP I get 130 KTAS at 8.8gph. So you're 20% more efficient at the same speed or 13% more efficient at faster speeds. The extra speed would trim a half hour off my longest trip (500nm). They're both good planes for the same mission.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you saw those numbers, but that's really high.

I've flown a J model. We did 155 knots on 9.5GPH at 10k feet. The F model is slightly slower (more of a 145kt plane), but it's still in the ball park.

If you do 75%, it'll burn more like 11GPH for a slight increase in speed.
 
Last edited:
Mooney? IMHO not a very good idea for a trainer. The speed advantages of Mooneys are irrelevant. They are so crowded that pulling the throttle back in a "J" model interferes with my knee board and I am only 5' 11" They are slippery enough that managing speed becomes a consideration -- one more thing making training more complex. The landing gear "springs" are really undamped rubber donuts, making landings more difficult and pogo stick rides more common. Four passengers are entirely reasonable, assuming that the two in back are double amputees. I think Mooneys are basically one-trick ponys; fast cross country transportation for one or two average or smaller people.
 
To the OP, don't buy a retract just because you want your son to get his CPL one day.

When the time comes for that, just send him to one of the well-priced accelerated schools (i.e. not ATP) and they'll get everything done in a complex with no issues.

If you want a real 4 person airplane and 135 knots is enough, just get a 182. He can train in it, he'll be able to get his HP, and you'll have a real family traveling machine.

The above post saying you have to be a double amputee to fly in the backseat of a Mooney is bullcrap. It's only true if it's a E or lower model, just like pre-'73 Arrows had basically no backseat as well. Both cabins were stretched and are very usable.

BUT, if you want a real 4 person airplane where 4 people will be comfortable and you can fly a long way, neither plane is great for that. Gonna have to go to a 182 or a Comanche for that.
 
airdale said:
Mooney? IMHO not a very good idea for a trainer. The speed advantages of Mooneys are irrelevant. They are so crowded that pulling the throttle back in a "J" model interferes with my knee board and I am only 5' 11" They are slippery enough that managing speed becomes a consideration -- one more thing making training more complex. The landing gear "springs" are really undamped rubber donuts, making landings more difficult and pogo stick rides more common. Four passengers are entirely reasonable, assuming that the two in back are double amputees. I think Mooneys are basically one-trick ponys; fast cross country transportation for one or two average or smaller people.
Click to expand...

Pretty unfair. Yes a Mooney is a poor primary trainer. But otherwise fine for the mission.

1) they are wider than a PA28 and Al Mooney was 6'5. You might have to reorganize your cockpit, yes you sit close to the panel unless you're tall. Pedal extensions available for short people.
2) Slippery makes you a better pilot and makes for a more fuel efficient airplane with a better guide. Not a big deal when you get used to it.
3) sounds like you didn't learn to land them, you can't force em on to a runway like a PA28. Maybe the one you flew hadn't changed the pucks in 30 years?
4) the back seat sucks on the early ones. The later ones were stretched. Totally normal back seats. No different than say an early arrow before the 5" stretch.
5) and yes they do travel well, but the rest is exaggerated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Get the Arrow. Chicks dig retracts. Plus, you'll get to impress them with the deft handling of your blue knob.
 
iamtheari said:
Numbers I was reading were more like 12gph for 150KTAS in the E and F models. I'm assuming those were ROP numbers and you're talking LOP. We aren't set up to run LOP in the Arrow so I can't quite get apples to oranges, but we can compare airplanes to airplanes. Flying ROP I get 130 KTAS at 8.8gph. So you're 20% more efficient at the same speed or 13% more efficient at faster speeds. The extra speed would trim a half hour off my longest trip (500nm). They're both good planes for the same mission.
Click to expand...


The engine is the same in both planes. They normally both fly pretty good .5gph gami. The fuel flow is the same between planes at a given power setting. 12gph is incorrect at 150kts. Regardless the moony will lay down a solid 16-22kts over the arrow at any given fuel flow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have never seen a Mooney in the primary trainer role.
 
When I was a young flight instructor, the school's owner asked me to teach his wife to fly ab initio, not in one of the school's Cherokee 140s or American Yankees, but in his J35 Bonanza. That was not fun.
 
Do the initial training in someone else's plane for the first 10+ hours. Let a rental take the beating of bad landings and go arounds.
 
The OP has is PP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Nope. Neither an Arrow or any retract imho
Click to expand...

Much of the ab-initio airline training done in the US on behalf of foreign carriers (LH, JAL, etc.) is done in A36 and F33A bonanzas.
 
weilke said:
Much of the ab-initio airline training done in the US on behalf of foreign carriers (LH, JAL, etc.) is done in A36 and F33A bonanzas.
Click to expand...

Can you give us a reference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I hope they use the grobs through solo :-o


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
300px-Grob_G_120A_Take_Off.jpg
 
weilke said:
Much of the ab-initio airline training done in the US on behalf of foreign carriers (LH, JAL, etc.) is done in A36 and F33A bonanzas.
Click to expand...

gsengle said:
Can you give us a reference?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep, JAL had their training center at KAPC (Napa) for years. They are gone now but they had a fleet of A36's and a couple twins (Barrons I think) and they took their pilots all the way through commercial multi instrument before shipping them back to Japan.

It would get pretty hectic sometimes when the "Bonanza Boys" were doing pattern work, all in broken English.
 
The A36 is so stupid simple to land that it sbould't be legal to use as a trainer.
 
Sac Arrow said:
It would get pretty hectic sometimes when the "Bonanza Boys" were doing pattern work, all in broken English.
Click to expand...

They were also very prevalent around Tucson in '94, flying Bo's of some type. Usually stacked up holding on the RYN NDB at Ryan Field. I hated going there for pattern work. Read backs took forever and if there were 3 or 4 of them, oy vay. But their english was way better than my Japanese.
 
The Lufthansa and German Air Force guys out of Goodyear make for some busy airspace out on the west side. The Buckeye Airport (15 nm west of KGYR) is very quiet, but chatter on its CTAF is nearly constant, since it's also used by airplanes pirouetting around the nearby Buckeye VORTAC for navigation practice at altitude. Their position calls begin, "Buckeye VOR Traffic, ... "
 
I always enjoy the Archer vs Arrow threads where the answer is a Bonanza. What else could it be?

Viva la Navion. (But get the arrow first)
 
You guys and your little bugsmashers. The OBVIOUS choice is a 747-8. Has the range, payload, and doubles as a flying RV. Pfftttt.
 
Arrow was my first plane out of training and I flew it for 5 years and 600 hours. I practically had no extra maintenance cost on landing gears except mechanic doing retraction tests during the annual. I liked the arrow but it is definitely slow airplane for being a retractable with 200 HP engine. I don't thing either Archer or arrow will carry 4 adults with full fuel. Also the way I made some of the landings during the training I am not sure a retractable is good choice for primary training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top