Piper Arrow flood on the market

Our club used to have an Arrow. Our 182 was a few knots faster (with a higher fuel burn). The 182 is far more comfortable. We sold the Arrow a few years ago and I really don't miss it.
 
Had an arrow for several years,not the fastest by far,but a joy to fly.
 
Ghery said:
Our club used to have an Arrow. Our 182 was a few knots faster (with a higher fuel burn). The 182 is far more comfortable. We sold the Arrow a few years ago and I really don't miss it.
Click to expand...
What does a nice 3000 ttsn, 1000 smoh C-182 sell for? Apples to Apples I would guess $30-40K.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Grumman tigers equivalent only in speed. And every other measure they are less then the Arrow. Maintenance, parts availability, All less.
Click to expand...
There are several here who own the type. I don't recall any of them complaining about high maintenance costs nor the inability to find parts.
 
midwestpa24 said:
No more demand, and I agree with that. Piper's main clientele for the Arrow was flight schools needing complex aircraft for commercial and CFI training. With the change in rules, the schools won't need those. There isn't enough demand without the flight schools to justify the cost of production. The Arrow has never been a real competitor to Cirrus or Mooney as a traveling aircraft.
Click to expand...

That's the only reason our little flight school bought one. We might have been lucky it got gear-upped in July! Cashing out on that one.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
There are several here who own the type. I don't recall any of them complaining about high maintenance costs nor the inability to find parts.
Click to expand...

I would think that the average AP would be more familiar with the Arrow than the Grumman. I do no think that the Grumman is a bad plane. But there is a lot more support for the Piper product than the Grumman. All I am saying is don't count the Arrow out. I think that it represents a lot of value for the money.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I would think that the average AP would be more familiar with the Arrow than the Grumman.
Click to expand...
There's just not that much to a Grumman. It's got virtually the same engine as an Archer and certainly a lot fewer moving parts than an Arrow. Considering it's bonded honeycomb structure, it's probably got fewer non-moving parts as well.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I would think that the average AP would be more familiar with the Arrow than the Grumman. I do no think that the Grumman is a bad plane. But there is a lot more support for the Piper product than the Grumman. All I am saying is don't count the Arrow out. I think that it represents a lot of value for the money.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But you posed the question of speedier and affordable alternatives to a 172 besides the Arrow as though none exist. The Tiger exists. And your response implied the fixed gear/fixed prop Tiger which goes the same speed on a smaller engine (lower fuel burn) isn't an alternative because all things being equal, it'll be more expensive and/or more difficult to maintain than a retract with a constant speed prop and a bigger engine. You have to admit, on the surface of it that argument is weak at best. Tigers exist. Doesn't mean the Arrow is a bad plane. But it does mean that your implication the Arrow is the only viable alternative to a 172 is simply not true.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Grumman tigers equivalent only in speed. And every other measure they are less then the Arrow. Maintenance, parts availability, All less.
Click to expand...
Having owned a Cheetah myself for five years, and comparing it with friends who had difficulty with maintenance and parts on their Arrows, I do not believe that statement is accurate.
 
tspear said:
Why do you think production is going to end?
Click to expand...

There have already been times in the past decade where Piper did not advertise the Arrow as part of their product line, and did not produce any until someone stepped up with a checkbook - Usually a flight school like UND. Without the complex training mission, there's VERY little market for it.

kayoh190 said:
I just always wanted them to fold the legs on the Dakota. I think that would have been a pretty ideal airplane.
Click to expand...

Yep. C182RG is a GREAT airplane. Does it all, at reasonable speeds.

Morgan3820 said:
I mean if I could fit in the Mooney I have a Mooney but I can't fit in a Mooney. And you still have retract insurance cost. I've looked at all of this before and ended up with an Arrow.
Click to expand...

You can't fit in a Mooney but you can fit in an Arrow? The Mooney has more room than the Arrow. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There have already been times in the past decade where Piper did not advertise the Arrow as part of their product line, and did not produce any until someone stepped up with a checkbook - Usually a flight school like UND. Without the complex training mission, there's VERY little market for it.



Yep. C182RG is a GREAT airplane. Does it all, at reasonable speeds.



You can't fit in a Mooney but you can fit in an Arrow? The Mooney has more room than the Arrow. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I have tried both and keep hearing this myth that the Mooney is in fact a capacious aircraft, but I seem to be judged wrong in every stated opinion so far in this thread. I will leave the thought that any plane, even the lowly Arrow, my lowly Arrow, is better than no aircraft at all.
 
tspear said:
Compared to a 75k Arrow?
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/26059931/2000-cirrus-sr20
115k list.
Likely goes for under 100.

Like I said, the values of all the planes have been creeping down. People still think Bonanaza G36, Cirrus or Columbia have super high prices. No longer true when looking at older planes.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I saw this one, only one. Still twice what I paid for my Arrow. Somewhat faster with a 100 pounds less useful load.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I have tried both and keep hearing this myth that the Mooney is in fact a capacious aircraft, but I seem to be judged wrong in every stated opinion so far in this thread.
Click to expand...
You said you didn't fit in the Mooney which implies you tried one on for size. Out of curiosity which Mooney did you try?

I used to fly a late 60's C model and it was definitely tight. I think other models and later years got a little better in that respect but none of them will ever pass for roomy. Then again I've felt that way about almost every light single I've ever sat in except for the Cardinal and the Commander 114. I also sat in a Trinidad once that I thought was very comfy. But 172's? 182's? PA28's? I find them all to be uncomfortably small in the front seats so the Mooney didn't seem all that different to me. The seating position is very different than a Cessna or a Piper so depending on your body size and shape, a Mooney can definitely be a deal breaker.
 
Morgan3820 said:
What does a nice 3000 ttsn, 1000 smoh C-182 sell for? Apples to Apples I would guess $30-40K.
Click to expand...

Morgan3820 said:
Sorry, My brain was thinking $30-40K more than what I paid for my Arrow, and that is what got written down.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like it. Your first statement was a pipe dream. I don't know what the club sold the Arrow for, but I'm sure it was a bunch less than the 182 is worth.
 
I was just in this market. I ended up with a 32-300. The 182’s were 140-160 for a decent one. My insurance agent quoted double almost triple for retracts. I had her quote: 182, 6/300-260, arrows and dakotas/post 73 archers, commanche, lance/toga. I wore her out. She told me that the ins companies are seeing an elevated number of claims with the older retract fleet due to age. I wound up at 2500/yr with 70 hours and 0 in type. All 172 time. Lance for instance was 4900 and the commanche 260c was 6700. All frame prices were 70-130k. I feel I got the most plane for the overall money.
 
Islandbrah said:
. She told me that the ins companies are seeing an elevated number of claims with the older retract fleet due to age.
Click to expand...
Whose age, the airplane's or the owners'?
 
Hahah the age of the planes. May have been her excuse for such high premiums....dunno. Was enough to make me buy straight legs.
 
I took my commercial and CFI rides in two different "Hershey bar" Arrows. I didn't hate them, but as the discussion of T-bone vs Aztec went: "no one ever walks across the ramp to ask about your Arrow".

At the time I was in training I had a side job helping mechanics at a flight school. I asked the head mechanic one day about old Mooneys, because I would rather be flying one. He was quite adamant that the Pipers are very simple planes to work on, and that he would rather work on the Arrow any day than any Mooney.

It didn't sway me much at the time because I was too broke to own either, so it was largely academic.

Now that I own a plane and pay to keep it flying I might take his opinion more seriously. I still want a Mooney but if Arrows get cheap then a prospective airplane owner would be a moron not to consider them.

I still don't get the commercial requirement thing. We now consider use of a video game console the same as dealing with retractable gear and constant speed prop? I can ignore a glass panel when the going gets tough. Can't say as much for managing the undercarriage and prop.

I'll just keep a bag of popcorn handy to see how this one plays out in the long term.
 
Islandbrah said:
I was just in this market. I ended up with a 32-300. The 182’s were 140-160 for a decent one. My insurance agent quoted double almost triple for retracts.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The opposite was true for our club - We were replacing the 182, and looking at both fixed and retract 4 and 6 seaters. The R182 was only about 10% more than the 182, the 206/PA32 was double, and the 210/Lance/Bo was a flat-out "No."
 
aftCG said:
I took my commercial and CFI rides in two different "Hershey bar" Arrows. I didn't hate them, but as the discussion of T-bone vs Aztec went: "no one ever walks across the ramp to ask about your Arrow".

At the time I was in training I had a side job helping mechanics at a flight school. I asked the head mechanic one day about old Mooneys, because I would rather be flying one. He was quite adamant that the Pipers are very simple planes to work on, and that he would rather work on the Arrow any day than any Mooney.

It didn't sway me much at the time because I was too broke to own either, so it was largely academic.

Now that I own a plane and pay to keep it flying I might take his opinion more seriously. I still want a Mooney but if Arrows get cheap then a prospective airplane owner would be a moron not to consider them.

I still don't get the commercial requirement thing. We now consider use of a video game console the same as dealing with retractable gear and constant speed prop? I can ignore a glass panel when the going gets tough. Can't say as much for managing the undercarriage and prop.

I'll just keep a bag of popcorn handy to see how this one plays out in the long term.
Click to expand...
Likely better. The days of commercial flying using a piston plane with retracts is behind us. Instead turbine flying is more about systems management which that glass cockpit has in spades in comparison.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
hindsight2020 said:
Mine does 130-135 on 9gph between 6 and 10k, depending on how close to gross weight you are (as with any other airplane).
Click to expand...

That was my main disappointment with my M20E: I only get 5-10 knots over the Arrow that I used to fly. I was getting similar numbers to what Mr. Hindsight quoted. But now I have a noticeably longer wingspan on M20E, which makes it difficult to maneuver in the hangar. The only way old Mooney beats old Arrow flat is in the climb rate, especially when DA goes above 10k. But it only even comes into play when visiting places like Angel Fire.

Modern Mooneys have gotten way faster than us trailer park pilots have to fly. They did it by mounting 300 hp engines and aerodynamic refinement. I sometimes park right next to a modern Mooney and the difference is night and day. But all Piper did to Arrows was adding Archer wings (IIRC).
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I don't recall any of them complaining about high maintenance costs nor the inability to find parts.
Click to expand...
Dan Hagan did complain about the forced downtime on his Grumman. Although it all depends on the circumstances, I'm sure. BTW, he got rid of the Tiger and flies RV-7 now.
 
zaitcev said:
That was my main disappointment with my M20E: I only get 5-10 knots over the Arrow that I used to fly. I was getting similar numbers to what Mr. Hindsight quoted. But now I have a noticeably longer wingspan on M20E, which makes it difficult to maneuver in the hangar. The only way old Mooney beats old Arrow flat is in the climb rate, especially when DA goes above 10k. But it only even comes into play when visiting places like Angel Fire.

Modern Mooneys have gotten way faster than us trailer park pilots have to fly. They did it by mounting 300 hp engines and aerodynamic refinement. I sometimes park right next to a modern Mooney and the difference is night and day. But all Piper did to Arrows was adding Archer wings (IIRC).
Click to expand...

A lot of those aerodynamic refinements can be retrofitted to older Mooneys, though. The two big ones in terms of adding speed are the "smile" cowl closure and the sloped windscreen. The M20J was the first Mooney to come from the factory that way, but a C, E, or F (or any of the rarer older Mooneys) can greatly benefit by having those done, because all Mooneys share the efficient wing and small fuselage cross section.

An Arrow has a better cowl and sloped windscreen to start with, but it has a big fat wing, and I'm sure it's quite cost-prohibitive to certify a more efficient wing!
 
Flush rivet construction and flush screws on the tanks would have gone a long way towards gaining the knottage the arrow leaves on the table. Such improvements can be realized on the aftermarket side of things by applying the wing smoothing kits. As with everything Vero Beach, the approach emphasis was on cheap manufacturing costs, so labor hours were cut by building those wings cheap.
 
Last edited:
the best speed improvement on the arrow would be flush riveting/screwing the wing skins, plus not overlapping the wing skin panels. the hershey bar is faster down low since the wingspan is less. I'd be willing to compromise a couple knots by getting the semi tapered wing, i consider the much better glide ratio a legitimate safety improvement. Of course, the semi tapered would be benefited from the same manufacturing improvements the hershey bar wing would.

The wing smoothing kit (basically bondo over the rivets and wing skin overlaps), and put fairings over the wing tank screws, is a labor intensive job and not very weather durable long term. It would be a funny niche job though, to get that sucker to clock in at 150ktas and get the aa-5b zealots to finally shut up about it. LOL

Another mod than never quite got traction was the option to turbo normalize the Lyco. Cardinal owners got enough traction to get TAT to throw a bone their way on the same engine (siamese mag notwithstanding), alas the Arrow never did. The turbo conti is not a particularly effiient alternative, given its 7.5 CR cylinders. Thats about one GPH more to make the same brake horsepower as the arrows angle valve 8.7 CR -360. talk about ****ing gas out the tailpipe. A TN 200hp Lyco would be a sweet sweet alternative. Seminoles also got a TN rayjay setup. im crazy enough Id be willing to buy a TN seminole just for the hell of it, if flight schools hadn't shot up pa44 prices to bubble hell. Cheapest twin airframe to maintain bar none.
 
Ken Ibold said:
I had a LoPresti cowl on my Lance. Speed increase was marginal. Cowl flap was nice. Engine mx was a pain because the vertical split meant 197 screws to take out to get to the innerds.
Click to expand...
OK, so much for that idea.
 
hindsight2020 said:
the best speed improvement on the arrow would be flush riveting/screwing the wing skins, plus not overlapping the wing skin panels. the hershey bar is faster down low since the wingspan is less. I'd be willing to compromise a couple knots by getting the semi tapered wing, i consider the much better glide ratio a legitimate safety improvement. Of course, the semi tapered would be benefited from the same manufacturing improvements the hershey bar wing would.

The wing smoothing kit (basically bondo over the rivets and wing skin overlaps), and put fairings over the wing tank screws, is a labor intensive job and not very weather durable long term. It would be a funny niche job though, to get that sucker to clock in at 150ktas and get the aa-5b zealots to finally shut up about it. LOL

Another mod than never quite got traction was the option to turbo normalize the Lyco. Cardinal owners got enough traction to get TAT to throw a bone their way on the same engine (siamese mag notwithstanding), alas the Arrow never did. The turbo conti is not a particularly effiient alternative, given its 7.5 CR cylinders. Thats about one GPH more to make the same brake horsepower as the arrows angle valve 8.7 CR -360. talk about ****ing gas out the tailpipe. A TN 200hp Lyco would be a sweet sweet alternative. Seminoles also got a TN rayjay setup. im crazy enough Id be willing to buy a TN seminole just for the hell of it, if flight schools hadn't shot up pa44 prices to bubble hell. Cheapest twin airframe to maintain bar none.
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget the mighty Beech Sierra!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
Eric Stoltz said:
Don't forget the mighty Beech Sierra!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Indeed. The only retract to claim the title of being slower than an Arrow! I will say, that cabin and doors, just freekin' nawc. Another sample that would have rocked with a IO-540 on it.

I believe both the Sierra and Duchess share the cabin, which again is ample.. if you can find either of them for sale though.

Again, compromises.
 
The Piper 200 Arrow, Cessna 200HP Cardinal retract, and Beech Sierra were ALL produced for ONE reason!

GI Bill students.

They are trainers, and never engineered for speed.
 
Fun to see that there are 8 flying Sierra's for sale on TAP Which is a huge number. They all look pretty good, too. Great timing, now that I'm considering selling mine...boo!!
 
Eric Stoltz said:
Fun to see that there are 8 flying Sierra's for sale on TAP Which is a huge number. They all look pretty good, too. Great timing, now that I'm considering selling mine...boo!!
Click to expand...

Considering the title of the thread and the commercial part 61 re-write, all I say to that as an Arrow owner is: Take a number and get in line buddy! :D

Things are frothy right now in the single cruiser market due to credit. Not all is lost though. I've seen this movie before; and I know how it ends :devil::devil:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top