Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Ibra
#1875770
I had the same hesitation once Arrow vs Archer, I went for Archer2, it was all round aircraft that did everything one needs and was 5min-10min slower than Arrow for my type of regular flying back then

I never regretted going for that Archer, never found anything bad to say about it, I just had enough hours and memories on it and wanted to move to something faster but it just did great and I think the Arrow would have done the same?


All PA28s are “overpriced” for some reason? but you won’t go wrong buying one all you need to think about is good inspection, corrosion check and wing spare…what you may miss with some PA28 models is what some would call “ramp appeal” but who give a h**t if you & your partner likes it, it will look great when you take picture of it in your favourite destination :wink:
PA28 liked this
User avatar
By akg1486
#1875781
PA28 wrote:Image
PA24-250 Comanche. That is ramp appeal.

Agree. But shouldn't you have a different user name? :lol:
By IO390
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875782
No problem getting an Arrow or a "complex" single after your PPL. Managing the gear is only one more thing on your pre landing checks and CS prop takes about thirteen seconds to understand. More things to break sure, but landing gear and CS prop specific issues are very rare unless the plane has been subject to poor, or no, maintenance.

Injected engine means no carb heat to worry about, yes you have an alternate air door but it's used far less regularly than carb heat. You're travelling faster, sure, so you need to think ahead a bit more about descents and integrating with training traffic in the circuit.

The reason fixed gear PA28s, especially -161s, command such a premium is no mystery at all, they are used by schools and are only getting older. Same with C150/152, look at the price increase on those in recent years.

Comanche is certainly a great design but bear in mind the last one off the line will now be 49 years old, and you have an O540/IO540 engine which will burn more fuel than the Arrow and have higher overhaul costs (probably same cost per mile though given higher speed).

It really comes down to budget more than anything else, also consider maintenance facilities. Will you be doing owner maintenance? Do you want to be actively involved in the maintenance, sourcing parts etc.. or not? Is there a maintenance shop at your local airfield which is familiar with your chosen type? Unlikely to be an issue with a PA28R but might well be with some other types.
By PA28
#1875783
akg1486 wrote:
PA28 wrote:Image
PA24-250 Comanche. That is ramp appeal.

Agree. But shouldn't you have a different user name? :lol:

I agree but sometimes a bit of anonymity is a good thing. If I was PA30 or Twin Comanche driver people could easily track down who I am! :D
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875863
I've held off commenting so far because, as many will know, I'm hopelessly Arrow-biased to the virtual exclusion of all else: Indeed my only Cessna experience was a lumbering great C182 that I was forced to rent for a year just after PPL when the school sold the PA28140(150) I was renting.

Our group has flown a Cherokee Arrow (history lesson to follow) off a grass strip for over 35 years (and I've flown 27 of 'em). They had a Comanche before that for 10 years or so.

The first of the Arrow Series in mid 1960s (The 'Cherokee Arrow'- there is no such thing as an 'Arrow 1') had the Hershey Bar wing and a 180 HP engine: in its final years it was offered with a 200HP, which rapidly became so popular it became the standard engine. This is the Arrow we fly.
Shortly after it was tweaked into the Arrow 2, lengthened a smidge, later given the tapered wing now standard on all PA28s.
I have flown all the other PA28s, 140/150 , Warrior, T-tail Arrow 4 etc and have even written off a tasty Archer in the mountains in USA, but will confine my comments to the .
PA28R200.

Pros: Still cruises at 150mph and has very good short/grass/ field performance: I can drop it like a brick into a strip just with full flaps and chopping the engine: none of yer 'taper-wing float'. Two stages of flap and out again same distance.
Will carry four adults so long as they're not pie eaters but as I only ever fly two up this doesn't bother me.
Parts availability good: none of yer 9 months wait like some of the French stuff.
Retain their value: viz recent ads.
Looks gorgeous esp with 3 blade prop.
Turbo Arrows have startling altitude performance, but see below.


Downsides: Inevitability of extra expense of retractable gear: we've had two hydraulic pumps in 27 years. This doesn't concern me at all.
One door-Old hat-move on.
Retractable on grass? Old hat-move on.....
Many of these problems addressed in later Arrows, but others can comment: Fave seems to be Arrow 3: I didn't like T tail Arrow 4 I did my IR in seemed to run out of elevator authority too soon, and de-icing the tail usually resulted in eyefuls
of TKS.
Slight weight penalty due to gear.
Turbo Arrows seem even more costly to maintain.
Also common to all a/c of our vintage: wiring problems and old avionics, though chucking a ton of money in this direction would IMHO extend the life :You only have to look at the US Piper Owners' Society Magazine to see what can be done.

Shameless plug for any pilots in the E Anglian aviation desert: :thumright: :wink: :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=115260


Image
Last edited by PeteSpencer on Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MikeB, PA28, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By tcc1000
#1875890
I think there is a general lack of available aircraft, meaning your choice tends to be what's available locally rather than what you'd like to fly. I'm hoping the 600kg microlight class will help fix this, but if it doesn't happen soonish then the declining availablility of petrol/UL91 (and consequent increase in price) will get us into another era of few suitable aircraft. Objectively most PA28s are over-priced, but ~£3000 for a 1/12 share along with reasonable monthly fees means that they are finacially accessible to many people and get you away from the high hourly cost of rental and recency requirements. This and the demand for PA28s/Cessnas for schools keeps the resale cost of the aircraft high. The only alternative is to increase supply, but look at the new market and it's significantly more expensive (somewhat reduced if you have the time and inclination to home-build).

Hourly rates are primiarily driven by the typical fuel burns above: >30litres/hr - which in my mind is environmentally questionable. This can be fixed if you put something like a Rotax 912iS in it which should be comfortably under half that, with the same cruise speed.

So I guess the solution is to find enough like-minded local people to buy a new 600kg microlight (and somewhere to keep it...)
#1876100
As the part-owner of an Arrow III Turbo, and having had previous shares in PA-28-161/C152 I can say the Turbo is an excellent machine for longer range touring. No, it wont do 4-up with loads of fuel and baggage but then, for MY needs I mostly fly solo and on the odd occasion 2-up so loading is generally not an issue for me. Besides, there are not many SEP aircraft that you CAN load up completely and go anywhere far (or AT ALL!!!)
The performance of the Turbo against, say a Warrior, is WAY better. I'm in the latter stages of getting my IR and will then be able to utilise the advantage of the turbo hopefully during the coming spring with some longer distance trips into Europe at the higher levels this aircraft was built for. That said, its still happy bimbling about at 3000ft on a short hop for tea and cake.... :D

As has been said, the BIGGEST consideration is what YOU will use it for 80%+ of the time. If you're mainly doing <300NM trips then a Warrior or Archer would probably do you just fine!! If, like me, you have aspirations further afield then perhaps an Arrow would be a better fit. I read countless books and articles on choosing an aircraft for MY needs and the Turbo Arrow was the ideal fit for me at a decent price point. Our hourly rate is IMHO very reasonable, the maintenance costs are palletable and the spares and support are plentiful. The ONLY downside to the aircraft, which is applicable to ALL PA-28's, is the single door which REALLY aggrivates me....

Image

Short of an SR22T, Columbia/Corvalis, Turbo Trinidad or a nice twin, the Arrow is a LOT of aeroplane for sensible money and ongoing costs..... :thumleft:
#1876114
Spamcan Defender wrote:Besides, there are not many SEP aircraft that you CAN load up completely and go anywhere far (or AT ALL!!!)

Ye Olde Comanche does - full fuel, 4 adults and bags. Lots of legroom in the back. It does only hold 60usg but you can fit tiptanks and get another 30usg without a weight penalty. That would be 6 hours..............The fancy wing does very well at altitude without a turbo.
G-JWTP, PA28, A le Ron liked this
By IO390
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876125
Flyingfemme wrote:
Spamcan Defender wrote:Besides, there are not many SEP aircraft that you CAN load up completely and go anywhere far (or AT ALL!!!)

Ye Olde Comanche does - full fuel, 4 adults and bags. Lots of legroom in the back. It does only hold 60usg but you can fit tiptanks and get another 30usg without a weight penalty. That would be 6 hours..............The fancy wing does very well at altitude without a turbo.


TB20 is worth considering, will happily carry 4 adults with only 60USG onboard. At full capacity of 81USG (8hrs at economy cruise) you have about 270kg payload. Wide cabin, two doors. Much newer builds available.

Hard to top the GT models for ramp appeal, too.

Image
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1876168
Mooneys are a bit space limited for the taller pilot. Hard to beat a nice C210 for space and load carrying capability but they are quite expensive.