I dont believe the back seats fold down. Imho the Hershey bar wing handles like dog crap when slow compared to the semi taper wing. To me there is a significant difference in feel when at approach speed. It just feels sloppy. The semi taper wing cherokees are a bit faster also which is a plus.
People are soon going to post defending the Hershey bar wing and most likely saying I just dont know how to fly or something. These are just my opinions and experiences with it. I would reccomend flying any Cherokee with the Hershey bar wing and than any with the semi-taper wing and make your own judgment. There is a definite difference.
It's not a matter of defending either choice, it's just that you're just giving erroneous make and model information and posting it as fact. You are confusing many of the attributes of the Arrow I and calling it an Arrow II. No Arrow IIs ever came with the trim overhead for instance. The rest of your 'review' thence goes downhill from there.
---break break---
OP,
The semi taper wing Arrow is actually slower than the Arrow II, by virtue of the increased empty weight. The fastest Arrow is the pre-72, 200HP version of the Arrow I, made between 1969 and 1971. The slowest is in fact the Arrow III. Yes, the Turbo arrows are faster, but the discussion dealt with NA Arrows, not Turbos.
There is ZERO cabin differences between the Arrow II and Arrow III. The backseat space was increased in 1972, which is the debut of the Arrow II, and also the reason it's called an Arrow "II" in the first place. The midget back seat cabins belong to the Arrow I, both in 200HP and 180HP variants. All pre-1972.
The increase in MGW in the Arrow III was specifically made in order to accommodate the 72 gallons of usable fuel. As a result, with no changes to the horsepower, the climb rate is lower on an Arrow III at gross than the listed climb rate of the Arrow II at its respective gross weight of 2650. This can be overcome by flying the -III at 2650, and treating it as a 48 gallon airplane. That does provide some measure of flexibility that I consider more attractive for the Arrow III.
The Arrow III has a shorter aft CG limit than the Arrow II. It's all in the TCDS, look it up.
Handling of the taper wing and glide characteristics are certainly more benign than the hershey bar. I've owned both and prefer the taper wing. The delta in price and lack of availability of IIIs in the market wasn't worth the premium. Honestly, as an Arrow II owner, if I was going to pay a stupid premium for a simpleton four banger retract, it would be to buy a Cardinal RG. As it is, the -II offered me more bang for the buck than the III and IV, and the hershey bar hasn't been an indignity. Certainly not something to base an aircraft purchase over. That's just trite nonsense.
The back seats on all bucket seat rear seats (arrow II through IV) recline forward. They don't lay flat like a car back seat. They are however, easily removable from their base, just like those in the six seater PA32 and 32R variants. Not a big deal at all to convert the thing to a cargo space. Even reclined forward, you can put a lot of stuff on their back.
There is zero operational difference between the IO-360-C1C and -C1C6 engines. The 6 denotes 6th order counterweight on the crank, the C1C (which are present in the II) doesn't have a counterweight. Again, reference the TCDS and you'll find these specs. Zero difference from a purchase consideration standpoint.
At the end of the day, the difference in performance are a wash. The biggest draw for the III, is the better fuel flexibility with the tanks for the occassional 6hr + mission. At 55% and 8gph, that gives you an endurance of 9 hours to flame out at 120knots. That's some serious range. Do I think the premium over the II is worth it? No, it wasn't to me, which is why I own a -II. If the premium didn't exist, sure I'd go with a III. If you can find a III competitively priced, by all means go with that. The IV is also a contender. A couple knots faster than the III by virtue of the lack of tail slipstream, though worse take off and landing performance specs than the conventional tails. I don't find them competitive on a pricing basis but that's a to each their own type of thing.
