Opinions Wanted - Arrow, Archer, 182, 177RG, Early 210's

Larryskydives wrote:

I have also found a couple of mid 60's wide body 182's.



Well, since nobody else mentioned it, I will.

Nowhere in my aviation experience, dating from around 1968, can I
remember any official reference to "wide body 182s"
( I took it upon myself to delete the apostrophe, since we're not doing
the possessive thing here).

That term doesn't compute.

In article , CriticalMass
wrote:

Nowhere in my aviation experience, dating from around 1968, can I
remember any official reference to "wide body 182s"
( I took it upon myself to delete the apostrophe, since we're not doing
the possessive thing here).

But the 182s is the current model!

From 56-61 the 182 was simply the 180 with a nosegear. In 62 the 182
got a 4 inch wider fuselage, the same fuselage as today. The 180/185
remained the same. Hence the term widebody.

CriticalMass wrote:
Larryskydives wrote:

I have also found a couple of mid 60's wide body 182's.



Well, since nobody else mentioned it, I will.

Nowhere in my aviation experience, dating from around 1968, can I
remember any official reference to "wide body 182s"
( I took it upon myself to delete the apostrophe, since we're not doing
the possessive thing here).

That term doesn't compute.

I just bought a 1979 Piper Dakota 3 months ago. 235hp, 1200 lbs useful
load, 11.8 gph cruise, 17,400 service ceiling, and trues at 143 knots.
I love it.
I looked at Archers and Arrows and found that ones of quality were
nearly in the price range of the Dakota but didn't have the same
qualities. The Dakota is longer than the Archer or Arrow and has more
legroom. To be honest I didn't see anything in the cruiser style
airplanes that started less than 85k with original radios and Nav
equipment ( I looked at 182's as well). Upgraded radios and avionics
pushed you over 100k.
You might want to look at the Cherokee 235. They are pretty much the
same length as the Arrow and Archer, but the 235 has a much better
useful load and are pretty darn reliable. Almost all the 235's have a
constant speed prop. You can get a good 235 in the 50-75k range. Check
out the Cherokee 235 - 236 owners group at:

http://www.cabo-rental.net/cherokee235/home.htm







(Larryskydives) wrote in message ...
I am slling my 1956 172, and will be in the amrket to purchase another plane.

I am really leaning towards a 1968 - 1970 Arrow. However , have seen a couple
of Archers that look interesting. Having a highwing I am partial to them -
what are the thoughts on early 210's (money pits?). I have also found a couple
of mid 60's wide body 182's. What about 177rg's - good speed.

Let me know what you think do you know someone who has a quality plane for
sale. I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.

My 1956 172, has a fresh annual all cylinders above 75/80 - basic VFR - good
interior and good paint. Selling for 18,000.00 - anybody interested.

Newps wrote:
: From 56-61 the 182 was simply the 180 with a nosegear. In 62 the 182
: got a 4 inch wider fuselage, the same fuselage as today. The 180/185
: remained the same. Hence the term widebody.

So a "wide body" is a non straight-tail model, or was that done at a different
time? How much speed did the extra width cost it?

Just curious... planning future airplane upgrades...
-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
Newps wrote:
: From 56-61 the 182 was simply the 180 with a nosegear. In 62 the 182
: got a 4 inch wider fuselage, the same fuselage as today. The 180/185
: remained the same. Hence the term widebody.

So a "wide body" is a non straight-tail model, or was that done at a different
time? How much speed did the extra width cost it?

The straight tail was swept at 35 degrees for 1960. The max cruise is
listed as 139 kts in 61 and 141 kts in 62. Generally speaking the plane
gets faster as they get newer. There are clean up kits out there if you
want to make your 182 go faster. I've seen 182's go about 150 kts with
the 230 hp engine. But they really look goofy, may as well get a $%*&^#
Cherokee if you want a plane to look like that. The upgraded engines
are really cool. I have 1100 hours on my 470 and when the time comes I
will be slipping 275 hp into my bird.

Comanche 250
Just got mine and love it. You can get a good one for 50-60,000

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

On 20-Jan-2004, (atis118) wrote:

I just bought a 1979 Piper Dakota 3 months ago. 235hp, 1200 lbs useful
load, 11.8 gph cruise, 17,400 service ceiling, and trues at 143 knots.
I love it.
I looked at Archers and Arrows and found that ones of quality were
nearly in the price range of the Dakota but didn't have the same
qualities. The Dakota is longer than the Archer or Arrow and has more
legroom. To be honest I didn't see anything in the cruiser style
airplanes that started less than 85k with original radios and Nav
equipment ( I looked at 182's as well). Upgraded radios and avionics
pushed you over 100k.
You might want to look at the Cherokee 235. They are pretty much the
same length as the Arrow and Archer, but the 235 has a much better
useful load and are pretty darn reliable. Almost all the 235's have a
constant speed prop. You can get a good 235 in the 50-75k range.


I agree with MOST of your post, and your basic point is a good one -- The
PA28-135 series is an excellent performer and load hauler.

A few points, however: First, I am pretty sure that the newer Arrows (Arrow
II onward) have the same cabin dimensions as the Dakota. Second, the
normally aspirated Arrow will probably be a knot or three faster than the
Dakota (although they are close enough so that it's reasonable to say they
are about the same in cruise speed). Service ceilings are likewise about
the same. Finally, while the Dakota has a significantly larger useful load
than the Arrow, a healthy part of that (approx. 240 lb.) advantage will be
gobbled up by the extra fuel needed for the MUCH thirstier engine. A part
of that difference in efficiency is that the 200 HP Arrow is injected, while
the Dakota is carbureted.

-Elliott Drucker

I bought my 69 Arrow for $54K with good paint and upholstery, 2100 TT.
The pre-72 Arrow with 200hp engine is the best performer of the line,
since it is smaller for the same power. True, it only has 4.5 hrs
flying time at 75%, but that far exceeds my bladder capacity. Legroom
is fine in front, a little tight for adults in the back.

The retractible gear will cost more in maintenance than the Archer,
but it's about 10kts faster, and the gear is extremely simple in
design, much more reliable than any of the Cessna gear systems.

The IO360 is one of the best engines ever made.

Obviously posted by a gentleman of refined taste.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

Tony wrote:

Comanche 250
Just got mine and love it. You can get a good one for 50-60,000

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.