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

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.

(Larryskydives) wrote:
I am selling 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.

Why are you getting rid of the 172?

My club has a 1968 Arrow (180 HP engine) and several Archers of various
vintages. Personally, I don't see much reason to pick the Arrow over
the Archer. The Arrow carries less useful load, has a smaller CG range,
costs more to maintain (retractable gear and constant speed prop), and
offers very little in the way of additional speed (maybe 10 extra kts).
The insurance on an Arrow will probably be more than the Archer, because
of the retractable gear.

There is very little that's sexy about an Archer, but it's a simple,
easy to fly, practical airplane for somebody who doesn't worry much
about going fast.

Larryskydives wrote:
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.

Low elevation plane only. May as well get an Archer.


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?).

Early 210's can be horrible money pits and they don't go very fast.


I have also found a couple
of mid 60's wide body 182's. What about 177rg's - good speed.

A 182 with pants and a 177RG are about the same speed. I had a FG 177
and didn't like it at all. The 177 will cost you more to operate.

I have owned the 172 for four years now.

I am wanting to upgrade to an aircraft that is IFR cert, and has more speed.

The 172 has been a virtually maintenance free airplane. Annuals, replaced
generator, and one cylinder two years ago.

It is a good airplane, I just want more now.

Larry,

How about an older Bonanza. They are pretty affordable and have pretty
good speed.
The older ones can run on auto fuel.

Going from a 172 to an archer is like going from a boring under loaded
Spectre to a under loaded Sabre. You'll be bored before long.

If your going to upgrade, take your time and really upgrade smartly.
There are lots of bargains out there.


Dave

Larryskydives wrote:
I have owned the 172 for four years now.

I am wanting to upgrade to an aircraft that is IFR cert, and has more speed.

The 172 has been a virtually maintenance free airplane. Annuals, replaced
generator, and one cylinder two years ago.

It is a good airplane, I just want more now.

On 18-Jan-2004, (Larryskydives) wrote:

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.




Given your price range I think your best bet would be an Archer. I have a
'79 Arrow IV, and I also have logged some hours in an Archer. The Arrow
(especially 200 HP) has considerably more performance in terms of speed,
range, and ceiling than the Archer, but you won't find any but the oldest
versions (or real dogs) for less than around $70K. Same with 177RGs. A
GOOD 182 will cost quite a bit more.

I think you should steer clear of early 210s if you have any concerns about
maintenance costs.
--
-Elliott Drucker

Roy Smith writes:

(Larryskydives) wrote:
I am selling 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.

Why are you getting rid of the 172?

My club has a 1968 Arrow (180 HP engine) and several Archers of various
vintages. Personally, I don't see much reason to pick the Arrow over
the Archer. The Arrow carries less useful load, has a smaller CG range,
costs more to maintain (retractable gear and constant speed prop), and
offers very little in the way of additional speed (maybe 10 extra kts).
The insurance on an Arrow will probably be more than the Archer, because
of the retractable gear.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some models of Arrow have larger
fuel tanks. If range is a key feature, that may tip the balance in favor
of the Arrow.

-jav

In article ,
(Larryskydives) wrote:

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.

a quality Archer for less than $60,000? hmmmm

--
Bob Noel

the arrow III and IV can carry 72 gallons.
I am not sure about the Arrow II I think it is the same tho.


Javier Henderson wrote:

Roy Smith writes:

(Larryskydives) wrote:
I am selling 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.

Why are you getting rid of the 172?

My club has a 1968 Arrow (180 HP engine) and several Archers of various
vintages. Personally, I don't see much reason to pick the Arrow over
the Archer. The Arrow carries less useful load, has a smaller CG range,
costs more to maintain (retractable gear and constant speed prop), and
offers very little in the way of additional speed (maybe 10 extra kts).
The insurance on an Arrow will probably be more than the Archer, because
of the retractable gear.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some models of Arrow have larger
fuel tanks. If range is a key feature, that may tip the balance in favor
of the Arrow.

-jav

I will probably be spending between 45000 and 60000.

a quality Archer for less than $60,000? hmmmm

I agree with Bob -- your budget is a bit tight for anything of real quality
in a step-up from a 172.

If you can stretch it into the low $80s, you can get into a decent 182,
Pathfinder, or early Dakota that will fill the bill nicely.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"